I think Henry has made some very relevant posts and it occurs to me that if it were someone other than Henry making them then they wouldn't get such criticism over them as Henry has. Just my opinion of course.
'lol think you and I know that I was referring to that well known "trust supporter" Henry Irving..'
What's going on? I very clearly recall that HI said that his £5 membership was the best £5.00 he had ever spent. I reckon that's a pretty good endorsement of the Trusts work. I very much agree with Large on this one.
I think Henry has made some very relevant posts and it occurs to me that if it were someone other than Henry making them then they wouldn't get such criticism over them as Henry has. Just my opinion of course.
I agree that Henry has made some very pertinent points (peninsular notwithstanding :-) ).
That said there does appear to be an element of implied criticism and one upmanship regarding the Trust coming through in my opinion.
I'm not saying it's intentional on Henry's part but that's how it reads to me, somebody with no axe to grind either way.
I think Henry has made some very relevant posts and it occurs to me that if it were someone other than Henry making them then they wouldn't get such criticism over them as Henry has. Just my opinion of course.
I agree that Henry has made some very pertinent points (peninsular notwithstanding :-) ).
That said there does appear to be an element of implied criticism and one upmanship regarding the Trust coming through in my opinion.
I'm not saying it's intentional on Henry's part but that's how it reads to me, somebody with no axe to grind either way.
Criticism certainly and not implied but stated, oneupmanship not at all.
Allowing the Club to have a say on both the content and style of articles, especially those on important issues such as finance, is a dangerous precedent which undermines both its credibility and independence IMO.
The Trust needs to walk a difficult line between being supportive of the management of the Club while at the same time retaining the independence to freely and constructively criticise the actions of the management when required.
That is not easy and they will never please all the fans as some will see them as too critical and others as not critical enough. However, as long as they can show that they are acting independently and with the best interests of the fans and the Club (rather than the management or owners of the Club which is a different entity to me) then they are doing the best they can.
But once you give up that independent voice and allow the management to veto their comments you are on a slippery slope to being like the old supporters club in 1985 that backed the move away from the Valley and was then swept away by the young guns that became the Valley party.
It isn't anything like that bad yet, the Trust is still a sound concept and its a great achievement to have such a big membership in such a short time with no clear and present crisis. All the more reason to protect what has been built by guarding that independence and ability to think and say what needs to be said, rather than what the management wants to be said,
Giving up an independent voice. Is that like the time u let the club dissolve the supporters director position with barely a whimper. Some legal bollocks quoted, funny they exist elsewhere still.
Giving up an independent voice. Is that like the time u let the club dissolve the supporters director position with barely a whimper. Some legal bollocks quoted, funny they exist elsewhere still.
Nice one Barnie. Losing the argument and so make it a personal attack.
Anything to say about you allowing the Club to edit your articles and tell you what to say? No, nothing.
The Trust is robust enough, and big enough to take on board any criticism. However the trust is not 'them', it is you and I in a more formal guise as supporters, the trust is 'us'. As I have said repeatedly, the trust for all of its apparent failings may well turn out to be the only game in town. The trust has had to walk a delicate tightrope between alienating fans if they're seen as 'anti-club', and alienating fans if they're seen as too 'pro club'. In my view, by trying so hard to incorporate the views of the wider fan base, and not only the 'active' fan base, the trust have walked a careful yet decent line so far. The trust for all or any of it's faults is an honest and earnest attempt, by honest and decent Charlton Athletic fans to try to preserve the club (at the Valley) for this and future generations. My personal involvement has ebbed and flowed, but I know the trust would welcome me, and others, to be more involved in it's activities. It is easy for some people (not Henry BTW) to snipe from the sidelines, but overall the trust have tried to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
Many thanks Seth. How many organisations ask for feedback from their members an subscribers before their first anniversary? There are snipers (like Henry) and supporters who all have their own messages and the beauty of a survey is that all views can be put in the context of the wider views and supporter participation. In the absence of club statements on direction it is tempting to say either there is none or make isolated criticisms. However the Trust is seeking to build a bigger picture of what is happening and what could/should happen over the next 6-18 months. Which comes back to the title of the thread - started by a member of the Trust
The Trust is a great idea, I support it and I am a full member. However, referring to Henry as a 'sniper' makes no sense. From what I can see, he is making constructive comments,
Of course you are free to argue amongst yourselves but you might want to consider taking it offline as I don't think any of you are going to do yourselves any favours.
Given the position you held and the benefit of the doubt afforded you I am amazed by your approach of public attack, twisting of facts, etc
You may have not noticed but this independent voice was forged by the hard work of the trust board, we have admitted we are learning and have made mistakes but still you persist in a one man campaign to destroy us. You had an opportunity to form a trust and had you succeeded we might not be in the position we are now. I have never criticised you for walking away when no one else would take the lead, but your attitude now in my view given that is a disgrace.
You have been invited throughout that period to contribute at the highest level and declined throughout.
You are causing a rift between our supporter base which is highly damaging by constant sniping.
You are constantly forcing us on to the defensive which is damaging our ability to be open for fear of attack or twist.
Do you really think this healthy or helpful to the plight of charlton fans? What a sad sorry state of affairs and a massive turn off for everyone who witnesses what is largely bickering and personal vendetta which ruins any reasonable points you make.
Giving up an independent voice. Is that like the time u let the club dissolve the supporters director position with barely a whimper. Some legal bollocks quoted, funny they exist elsewhere still.
Nice one Barnie. Losing the argument and so make it a personal attack.
Anything to say about you allowing the Club to edit your articles and tell you what to say? No, nothing.
This is what I was worried about when I posted a while ago that the Supporters Trust is turning into the mouthpiece of the Club. Allowing the Club to edit the STs articles is a step too far and to me is not what an ST should be about.
What is also not helpful is the Chair of the said ST coming out with personal attacks on Henry who has raised a valid point.
The Trust is a great idea, I support it and I am a full member. However, referring to Henry as a 'sniper' makes no sense. From what I can see, he is making constructive comments,
Unfortunately some the people at the top of the Trust have developed "Groupthink" where they can no longer accept or listen to any criticism. One of the characteristics of "groupthink" is that you disallow any adverse comments from "outsiders" because they are not part of the group.
So you dismiss the critic as a "sniper" as that is easier than addressing the points raised.
or you say, as Seriously Red did, that the critic has "no interest in productive work" despite them knowing that not to be true. In fact so keen where both SR and Barnie to make use of my productive work that they have constantly asked me to join the trust board, something I have no wish to do as I have said from the start.
Anyway, where is the 2nd article on Club finances with analysis? Has it been written? Is it waiting approval by the Club.
I fully support The Trust, and I think its officers are doing a bloody good job. But I'm not sure why people are taking Henry's contribution so badly. It looks as though his points are just being written off as a load of cantankerous mischief. It seems to me though that he's offering valid criticism, the sort of which is unlikely to be unearthed with any number of surveys.
I know it's an extremely fine line between working with the club's ownership and battling against them and that you don't wan't to make enemies of people that you'll be asking favours of. But I think that when someone has given you a very coherent and logical explanation of their criticism, it would pay dividends to listen rather than to have a pop at something they did (or didn't do) in the past.
Ben lets talk about that load of bollocks Groupthink theory. Was that in play when you surrendered the fans Director position (and got an unelected second term if I recall out of it)?
I just mentioned we asked you to contribute throughout, selective reading, perhaps a visit to specsavers?
90% of your sniping cos thats what it is, is based on negative twist or wholly incorrect speculation and assumption on your part. There are 10 members of the trust board all of whom I hold in high regard your comments are unfounded without basis and deeply offensive to them. You ruin the 10% of comments that are worth listening to.
The question is, if the Trust proposes to publish an article commenting on the Clubs finances, is it a good tactic or not to show a draft to the Club first?
1. Trust News is not VOTV. Personally I welcome the return of VOTV and I welcome the publication of "that" article. However a number of people didn't like that article, and that includes people who are active supporters of the Trust. There is one important point about editorial policy here: VOTV is a polemic. Nothing wrong with that, but if the story was in the BBC or the FT, those guys would have sought a comment from the club before publishing. You hear it all the time: " we asked the club for a comment but non one was available..."
2. There is nothing that pisses off an organization more than people outside that org commenting in public in a tone that suggests they know everything, when they do not. While we don't have a seat in the Board, we will not know everything, so we have to try and find out as much as we can( pooling our knowledge with anyone who has good sources, BTW). If you show such an article to the org. you uncover factual errors and also the unintended effect of certain phrases, which can easily be changed without altering the message. Who here has not later gone over what they wrote on CL in the heat of the moment, and winced?
3. Had the Trust published without showing it to the club, in my opinion Michael Slater would have taken the earliest opportunity to rubbish it at the next public meeting ( or some other method). That would damage the legitimacy of the Trust in the eyes of a lot of its current supporters, as well as reducing the opportunity for further dialogue with the Club.
Not wishing to personalize it, but I will mention that I didn't have a hand in any aspect of the article's development. However I read through the drafts and the emails around it last night and believe with the great value of hindsight, that the Trust did it right.
Those are the issues, all comments on the issues welcome
Ben lets talk about that load of bollocks Groupthink theory. Was that in play when you surrendered the fans Director position (and got an unelected second term if I recall out of it)?
I just mentioned we asked you to contribute throughout, selective reading, perhaps a visit to specsavers?
90% of your sniping cos thats what it is, is based on negative twist or wholly incorrect speculation and assumption on your part. There are 10 members of the trust board all of whom I hold in high regard your comments are unfounded without basis and deeply offensive to them. You ruin the 10% of comments that are worth listening to.
What a deep deep shame.
I don't remember Ben Hayes getting an unelected second term, he was voted in for 2 seasons and that is what he did
The question is, if the Trust proposes to publish an article commenting on the Clubs finances, is it a good tactic or not to show a draft to the Club first?
1. Trust News is not VOTV. Personally I welcome the return of VOTV and I welcome the publication of "that" article. However a number of people didn't like that article, and that includes people who are active supporters of the Trust. There is one important point about editorial policy here: VOTV is a polemic. Nothing wrong with that, but if the story was in the BBC or the FT, those guys would have sought a comment from the club before publishing. You hear it all the time: " we asked the club for a comment but non one was available..."
2. There is nothing that pisses off an organization more than people outside that org commenting in public in a tone that suggests they know everything, when they do not. While we don't have a seat in the Board, we will not know everything, so we have to try and find out as much as we can( pooling our knowledge with anyone who has good sources, BTW). If you show such an article to the org. you uncover factual errors and also the unintended effect of certain phrases, which can easily be changed without altering the message. Who here has not later gone over what they wrote on CL in the heat of the moment, and winced?
3. Had the Trust published without showing it to the club, in my opinion Michael Slater would have taken the earliest opportunity to rubbish it at the next public meeting ( or some other method). That would damage the legitimacy of the Trust in the eyes of a lot of its current supporters, as well as reducing the opportunity for further dialogue with the Club.
Not wishing to personalize it, but I will mention that I didn't have a hand in any aspect of the article's development. However I read through the drafts and the emails around it last night and believe with the great value of hindsight, that the Trust did it right.
Those are the issues, all comments on the issues welcome
'Groupthink'? I am less au fait with the detail of the degree that 'the club' would influence any article, and I agree that one must keep a watching brief in order to maintain independence. If there has been any slippage in that area, and it seems that HI has made a point worth considering, then I feel sure that it will be reflected upon, and more stringent efforts made. But the idea of 'groupthink' sounds like a concept from Orwell's 1984. I attended nearly all of the initial meetings of the Trust, have conducted some surveys in person, and helped out with petitions and on the Trust stall. I also was returning officer for the initial formal elections, and liaised with Ben Shave from the wider Trust movement. During those times I never felt that we were self-brainwashing and creating a 'groupthink' sort of thingy. Actually quite the reverse, there have always been diverse views expressed and openly discussed, and those views have always been welcomed and treated with respect. Wider participation to reflect the wider fanbase has been encouraged by one and all at every step of the way. The trust is not the security services, or a branch of the North Korean government, but ordinary Charlton Athletic supporters like you and me trying to help the club to continue to exist in the long term. Henry if you think that I would succumb to 'groupthink', then you are mistaken about me, and knowing what I know of other trust members I think you may be mistaken there too. Why on earth would the Trust emerge when it did, how it does, if the aim was to become the poodle of the current regime? The concept of 'groupthink' is as unsettling to me as the concept of 'sweating the asset'. It is language used unhelpfully, and to me both phrases are alienating. We all should step back from this civil dispute as it does nobody any good conducted in the manner in which it is being conducted.
Ben lets talk about that load of bollocks Groupthink theory. Was that in play when you surrendered the fans Director position (and got an unelected second term if I recall out of it)?
I just mentioned we asked you to contribute throughout, selective reading, perhaps a visit to specsavers?
90% of your sniping cos thats what it is, is based on negative twist or wholly incorrect speculation and assumption on your part. There are 10 members of the trust board all of whom I hold in high regard your comments are unfounded without basis and deeply offensive to them. You ruin the 10% of comments that are worth listening to.
What a deep deep shame.
I don't remember Ben Hayes getting an unelected second term, he was voted in for 2 seasons and that is what he did
perhaps a third term then?
my point is not actually to criticise Ben on that but point out what a load of bollocks he is spouting.
Indeed Seth anyone who as actually present at Trust meetings, rather than just making it up to suit their bullshit, would know reaching an agreement is in fact very difficult a lot of the time, but if that is how it has to be so be it.
Frankly when people give up an enormous amount of their time and energy and receive abuse like this (which is what it is - constructive criticism can be levelled in a productive positive way) from people who should know better, it makes them think why the fk am I bothering, and that is where I'm at right now.
I also notice not one comment from Ben about yesterdays potentially very serious news that the council prevaricating on ACV, we know exactly where his priorities are - putting the boot in on the trust.
Comments
self important beast with no interest in productive work
Harsh, but probably fair from what nla tells us.
;o)
'lol think you and I know that I was referring to that well known "trust supporter" Henry Irving..'
What's going on? I very clearly recall that HI said that his £5 membership was the best £5.00 he had ever spent. I reckon that's a pretty good endorsement of the Trusts work. I very much agree with Large on this one.
Bit of a cool down needed here methinks.
That said there does appear to be an element of implied criticism and one upmanship regarding the Trust coming through in my opinion.
I'm not saying it's intentional on Henry's part but that's how it reads to me, somebody with no axe to grind either way.
Criticism certainly and not implied but stated, oneupmanship not at all.
Allowing the Club to have a say on both the content and style of articles, especially those on important issues such as finance, is a dangerous precedent which undermines both its credibility and independence IMO.
The Trust needs to walk a difficult line between being supportive of the management of the Club while at the same time retaining the independence to freely and constructively criticise the actions of the management when required.
That is not easy and they will never please all the fans as some will see them as too critical and others as not critical enough. However, as long as they can show that they are acting independently and with the best interests of the fans and the Club (rather than the management or owners of the Club which is a different entity to me) then they are doing the best they can.
But once you give up that independent voice and allow the management to veto their comments you are on a slippery slope to being like the old supporters club in 1985 that backed the move away from the Valley and was then swept away by the young guns that became the Valley party.
It isn't anything like that bad yet, the Trust is still a sound concept and its a great achievement to have such a big membership in such a short time with no clear and present crisis. All the more reason to protect what has been built by guarding that independence and ability to think and say what needs to be said, rather than what the management wants to be said,
Anything to say about you allowing the Club to edit your articles and tell you what to say? No, nothing.
Of course you are free to argue amongst yourselves but you might want to consider taking it offline as I don't think any of you are going to do yourselves any favours.
Given the position you held and the benefit of the doubt afforded you I am amazed by your approach of public attack, twisting of facts, etc
You may have not noticed but this independent voice was forged by the hard work of the trust board, we have admitted we are learning and have made mistakes but still you persist in a one man campaign to destroy us. You had an opportunity to form a trust and had you succeeded we might not be in the position we are now. I have never criticised you for walking away when no one else would take the lead, but your attitude now in my view given that is a disgrace.
You have been invited throughout that period to contribute at the highest level and declined throughout.
You are causing a rift between our supporter base which is highly damaging by constant sniping.
You are constantly forcing us on to the defensive which is damaging our ability to be open for fear of attack or twist.
Do you really think this healthy or helpful to the plight of charlton fans? What a sad sorry state of affairs and a massive turn off for everyone who witnesses what is largely bickering and personal vendetta which ruins any reasonable points you make.
What is also not helpful is the Chair of the said ST coming out with personal attacks on Henry who has raised a valid point.
Unfortunately some the people at the top of the Trust have developed "Groupthink" where they can no longer accept or listen to any criticism. One of the characteristics of "groupthink" is that you disallow any adverse comments from "outsiders" because they are not part of the group.
So you dismiss the critic as a "sniper" as that is easier than addressing the points raised.
or you say, as Seriously Red did, that the critic has "no interest in productive work" despite them knowing that not to be true. In fact so keen where both SR and Barnie to make use of my productive work that they have constantly asked me to join the trust board, something I have no wish to do as I have said from the start.
Anyway, where is the 2nd article on Club finances with analysis? Has it been written? Is it waiting approval by the Club.
I know it's an extremely fine line between working with the club's ownership and battling against them and that you don't wan't to make enemies of people that you'll be asking favours of. But I think that when someone has given you a very coherent and logical explanation of their criticism, it would pay dividends to listen rather than to have a pop at something they did (or didn't do) in the past.
I agree fully with stonemuse.
that load of bollocksGroupthink theory. Was that in play when you surrendered the fans Director position (and got an unelected second term if I recall out of it)?I just mentioned we asked you to contribute throughout, selective reading, perhaps a visit to specsavers?
90% of your sniping cos thats what it is, is based on negative twist or wholly incorrect speculation and assumption on your part. There are 10 members of the trust board all of whom I hold in high regard your comments are unfounded without basis and deeply offensive to them. You ruin the 10% of comments that are worth listening to.
What a deep deep shame.
Ok let's step back and depersonalize this.
The question is, if the Trust proposes to publish an article commenting on the Clubs finances, is it a good tactic or not to show a draft to the Club first?
1. Trust News is not VOTV. Personally I welcome the return of VOTV and I welcome the publication of "that" article. However a number of people didn't like that article, and that includes people who are active supporters of the Trust. There is one important point about editorial policy here: VOTV is a polemic. Nothing wrong with that, but if the story was in the BBC or the FT, those guys would have sought a comment from the club before publishing. You hear it all the time: " we asked the club for a comment but non one was available..."
2. There is nothing that pisses off an organization more than people outside that org commenting in public in a tone that suggests they know everything, when they do not. While we don't have a seat in the Board, we will not know everything, so we have to try and find out as much as we can( pooling our knowledge with anyone who has good sources, BTW). If you show such an article to the org. you uncover factual errors and also the unintended effect of certain phrases, which can easily be changed without altering the message. Who here has not later gone over what they wrote on CL in the heat of the moment, and winced?
3. Had the Trust published without showing it to the club, in my opinion Michael Slater would have taken the earliest opportunity to rubbish it at the next public meeting ( or some other method). That would damage the legitimacy of the Trust in the eyes of a lot of its current supporters, as well as reducing the opportunity for further dialogue with the Club.
Not wishing to personalize it, but I will mention that I didn't have a hand in any aspect of the article's development. However I read through the drafts and the emails around it last night and believe with the great value of hindsight, that the Trust did it right.
Those are the issues, all comments on the issues welcome
I am less au fait with the detail of the degree that 'the club' would influence any article, and I agree that one must keep a watching brief in order to maintain independence.
If there has been any slippage in that area, and it seems that HI has made a point worth considering, then I feel sure that it will be reflected upon, and more stringent efforts made.
But the idea of 'groupthink' sounds like a concept from Orwell's 1984. I attended nearly all of the initial meetings of the Trust, have conducted some surveys in person, and helped out with petitions and on the Trust stall. I also was returning officer for the initial formal elections, and liaised with Ben Shave from the wider Trust movement.
During those times I never felt that we were self-brainwashing and creating a 'groupthink' sort of thingy. Actually quite the reverse, there have always been diverse views expressed and openly discussed, and those views have always been welcomed and treated with respect. Wider participation to reflect the wider fanbase has been encouraged by one and all at every step of the way.
The trust is not the security services, or a branch of the North Korean government, but ordinary Charlton Athletic supporters like you and me trying to help the club to continue to exist in the long term.
Henry if you think that I would succumb to 'groupthink', then you are mistaken about me, and knowing what I know of other trust members I think you may be mistaken there too.
Why on earth would the Trust emerge when it did, how it does, if the aim was to become the poodle of the current regime?
The concept of 'groupthink' is as unsettling to me as the concept of 'sweating the asset'. It is language used unhelpfully, and to me both phrases are alienating.
We all should step back from this civil dispute as it does nobody any good conducted in the manner in which it is being conducted.
my point is not actually to criticise Ben on that but point out what a load of bollocks he is spouting.
Frankly when people give up an enormous amount of their time and energy and receive abuse like this (which is what it is - constructive criticism can be levelled in a productive positive way) from people who should know better, it makes them think why the fk am I bothering, and that is where I'm at right now.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/55993/cas-trust-should-we-protect-valley-with-acv-e-petition-launched#latest