This thread also reminds me of Fawlty Towers when Basil pretended Sybil was ill in bed. One of Sybil's male friends was just gaffawing at the silly nonsense.
Personally, I believe that both parties are damaging the trust & supporters' groups, with this disagreement played out in public.
Unless one of the trust is prepared to take a poo on Jimenez's desk before the end of the week, then it's pretty clear that they've gone over to the dark side. Great shame because we've had such forceful fan representation in recent years, until we surrendered it
* edit if TJ doesn't have a desk then it would be ok to post the poo in a jiffy envelope.
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
I totally agree and I've had enough of it.. we have enough difficulty dealing with a Board who largely aren't interested in the supporters, yet we've made some progress.. but get constant negative sniping from someone who should know better, its totally undermining. No one will step up and fight our corner if this is how they are treated, it goes way beyond constructive criticism.
as someone looking in from the outside I think you are being way too sensitive. When you take these things on you know you are going to get criticism, warranted or otherwise. If you didn't then you are very naive. I doubt you thought it was going to be easy and it's a thankless task. You put in many, many hours and don't get much thanks for it in return. A lot of what you do goes un-noticed but some is noticed and of that some is good, some bad. Some will get criticised, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly. Unfortunately that goes with the territory. I've been involved in the CASC in the distant past and so know a bit of what it entails although I was not as involved as many others were as I didn't want to be that involved. Didn't stop me making my thoughts known at various committee meetings though. I am not involved in the trust because I choose not to be but that won't stop me putting in my two penneth if I feel like it, either praising or criticising. Whether Henry has gone over the top is open to debate but it seems to me as if both sides have given as good as they have got.
Well. Lots of people quite rightly calling for everybody to calm down. Having done so myself, and tried to depersonalize the key issue of the Trust article in my last comment above, only Stig and Airman have commented back so far. If anybody else has constructive criticisms of the ISSUE, I am listening and would welcome your comments. Privately if you prefer.
Well. Lots of people quite rightly calling for everybody to calm down. Having done so myself, and tried to depersonalize the key issue of the Trust article in my last comment above, only Stig and Airman have commented back so far. If anybody else has constructive criticisms of the ISSUE, I am listening and would welcome your comments. Privately if you prefer.
I don't believe anyone, the Trust, the museum or the people involved ever really win these online squabbles and actually everyone ends up looking ridiculous.
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
I totally agree and I've had enough of it.. we have enough difficulty dealing with a Board who largely aren't interested in the supporters, yet we've made some progress.. but get constant negative sniping from someone who should know better, its totally undermining. No one will step up and fight our corner if this is how they are treated, it goes way beyond constructive criticism.
So are you saying Trust Members are unable to question Trust actions without being accused of 'sniping' or 'undermining' what's trying to be acheived?
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
I totally agree and I've had enough of it.. we have enough difficulty dealing with a Board who largely aren't interested in the supporters, yet we've made some progress.. but get constant negative sniping from someone who should know better, its totally undermining. No one will step up and fight our corner if this is how they are treated, it goes way beyond constructive criticism.
So are you saying Trust Members are unable to question Trust actions without being accused of 'sniping' or 'undermining' what's trying to be acheived?
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
I totally agree and I've had enough of it.. we have enough difficulty dealing with a Board who largely aren't interested in the supporters, yet we've made some progress.. but get constant negative sniping from someone who should know better, its totally undermining. No one will step up and fight our corner if this is how they are treated, it goes way beyond constructive criticism.
So are you saying Trust Members are unable to question Trust actions without being accused of 'sniping' or 'undermining' what's trying to be acheived?
no I'm not, and if you read back a vast number of my responses and comments to criticisms I believe that will be very evident
I don't have time to go back reading all the post at the moment.
To me the main question is why did the Trust allow the Board to have an input into a Trust article on finances?
That is not a 'right of reply' that is, to my mind, a veto.
If it's to ensure closer working with the higher echelons of the Club, then surely that's balanced against members like Prague, calling our Chairman 'a spiv' in this thread?
And because HI has picked up on this and rightly questioned it, suddenly we're finding HI and his history with the Club as FD being questioned and toys being thrown out of the pram.
Can you not see that allowing the Club to have any kind of editorial veto over an article apparantly by a thrid party leads to disappointment from some Trust members? The pronged attack on HI's integrity doesn't help either.
If you'd have the time to at least read my post of 10.03a.m, and then tell me whtehr it answers your question, I would be interested.
You make a reasonable point regarding my "spiv" remark, however I should point out that it was referring not to the Chairman, but to Tony Jiminez and this after reading the court judgement against him in full.
"A veto – Latin for "I forbid" – is the power (used by an officer of the state, for example) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation.
A veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States of America) can block any resolution. Or it can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation. A veto only gives power to stop changes, not to adopt them (except for the rare "amendatory veto"). Thus a veto allows its holder to protect the status quo.
The concept of a veto body originated with the Roman consuls and tribunes. Either of the two consuls holding office in a given year could block a military or civil decision by the other; any tribune had the power to unilaterally block legislation passed by the Roman Senate."
Did the Trust really give the CAFC Board the power of veto over its article on the Club's finances? Or did it simply give the Club (or one of its employees) the opportunity to comment, subsequently choosing to edit in response, despite having absolutely no obligation to do so?
Others are obviously much better placed than I to answer this question, but I would suggest that the two options are fundamentally and profoundly different. I may be missing something, but if it's the latter I really can't understand what the fuss is about.
If people didn't like the article then fair enough, but that's an entirely different matter isn't it?
From what HI is implying, a repsonse wasn't requested from the Club. The Club was shown the article and sub-edited it. The sub-edited article was then published.
I doubt if the Club would have commented on the VoTV article even if Airman had asked them to - only he could tell you that. Indeed, I don't believe they've commented on it at all since it's publication. Indeed, SB (initially) denied he'd even seen it at a Fans meeting last week. Airman certainly has had replies to his articles - they're generally on the letters page, What with that and his response to Lawsons article on CL in the last issue, I'd hardly call the publication just a 'polemic'.
But Addickted, I have on my computer all the drafts, and the emails to and from the club regarding the article. There is no question of any "sub-editing" going on. The club representative was invited to make comments (for reasons I explain) and the Trust guys agreed that some, not all, of the comments he made were valid. For example the first draft referred to David Joyes article being 'hidden away' in the programme. He pointed out that the position of his article was a regular one for articles of that type. So they changed that phrase, and quite right too. That's the level of change we are talking about here.
I accept that polemic was an incorrect word to use as characterisation of the VOTV edition. My point is rather that VOTV has a different purpose as a publication to that of Trust News. I am very glad that VOTV is back. But that makes it even more important that Trust News takes a distinctively different approach to VOTV.
I have no idea as to the level of sub editing. I would have thought fromHIs response that it was more that just removing the words 'hidden away'. It would be unlike him to comment on only a triviality.
here is our club rudderless and gently moving on the tide of owners indifference towards oblivion and what can the more "knowledgable supporters do but argue amongst themselves and call each other names.
you should be ashamed
As a Trust member I agree with Henry in his criticism of the Trust obtaining feedback from the club on an article, if the Trust can't write an accurate article then they should not write it, rather than get the club to correct it. I don't know what Prague said at 10.03 as that thread is not there but I would like to know why the Trust decided to get the article proof read by the club - it is a valid question.
Having said that can't you put this one to bed and all try in our various guises to work together to back CP and the players and not argue amongst ourselves about something that really won't make any difference to our club's future.
Well there you are. I have seen the whole lot. I read it all again last night. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. You don't know me, but I can assure you that if anything like what is being alleged had been done to that article, I would have an almighty ruck with the others about it, and resign from the Trust if it carried on in such a vein. Nothing remotely like that was necessary.
However as a result of all this crap in the last 24 hours, I am sure that we will think about how we can reassure most people that our output is independent in thought. We also though have to make sure that we get our facts right. There's not much value in being independent/critical if you are also factually incorrect. Its almost inevitable that not everyone will be satisfied, and for those who feel that a different POV on the same subject can be presented, there's always VOTV. And that's a good thing.
Have to love the fact the current owners are the devil in disguise and the old ones are still gods. Have people really forgotten some of the ridiculous decisions that ended with us in league 1 ? People see Dowie as the downfall of our club spunking all that cash, but he didnt employ himself or write his own cheques !
here is our club rudderless and gently moving on the tide of owners indifference towards oblivion and what can the more "knowledgable supporters do but argue amongst themselves and call each other names.
you should be ashamed
As a Trust member I agree with Henry in his criticism of the Trust obtaining feedback from the club on an article, if the Trust can't write an accurate article then they should not write it, rather than get the club to correct it. I don't know what Prague said at 10.03 as that thread is not there but I would like to know why the Trust decided to get the article proof read by the club - it is a valid question.
Having said that can't you put this one to bed and all try in our various guises to work together to back CP and the players and not argue amongst ourselves about something that really won't make any difference to our club's future.
Looks like 09.03 (GMT) is where you'll find it, page 3.
How else do we get the club to share financial information? CAFC is not a plc. The primary aim of the article I wanted to see was an examination and hopefully enlargement of what DJ had mentioned in the programme - which in some ways was a step towards more openness on Finances, certainly in timing at the very least. Keeping a watching brief on club finance is a key aim of the trust, and if we can persuade the SMT to be more open on that isn't it a good thing? I had concerns about the piece that went over to CAFC (no disrespect to the author who I value greatly) so that coupled with the feedback and environmental factors, CP equalling Forest, after looking sure relegation fodder against Millwall, etc lead me to look again at the piece. It is a challenging process generally getting contributors and establishing exactly what should be written about what, and I don't pretend we are 100% right in every judgement call on that.
We categorically do not allow the club to sub edit our articles, but ask for feedback when we want more information from them or a comment - I think this is the only one so far that is not part of a deliberate joint statement for example.
There have been a number of articles of pieces on our site that are critical over the last month or two including on player contracts, squad investment, policing, and this week about the pitch and more will follow where appropriate, so if you think we are a poodle to the club I suggest a read.
I understand this is a concern for many but I don't appreciate people leveling accusations in the way that has been evident on here. I signed up to this sure but no I didn't expect that from certain people.
Comments
Personally, I believe that both parties are damaging the trust & supporters' groups, with this disagreement played out in public.
Please sort it out offline guys.
What a shame, you're on the same side !
* edit if TJ doesn't have a desk then it would be ok to post the poo in a jiffy envelope.
Can I please have a 30 word synopsis of where we are with all this.
:-)
EDIT: See 10:38 am 13 November 2013
To me the main question is why did the Trust allow the Board to have an input into a Trust article on finances?
That is not a 'right of reply' that is, to my mind, a veto.
If it's to ensure closer working with the higher echelons of the Club, then surely that's balanced against members like Prague, calling our Chairman 'a spiv' in this thread?
And because HI has picked up on this and rightly questioned it, suddenly we're finding HI and his history with the Club as FD being questioned and toys being thrown out of the pram.
Can you not see that allowing the Club to have any kind of editorial veto over an article apparantly by a thrid party leads to disappointment from some Trust members? The pronged attack on HI's integrity doesn't help either.
If you'd have the time to at least read my post of 10.03a.m, and then tell me whtehr it answers your question, I would be interested.
You make a reasonable point regarding my "spiv" remark, however I should point out that it was referring not to the Chairman, but to Tony Jiminez and this after reading the court judgement against him in full.
"A veto – Latin for "I forbid" – is the power (used by an officer of the state, for example) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation.
A veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States of America) can block any resolution. Or it can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation. A veto only gives power to stop changes, not to adopt them (except for the rare "amendatory veto"). Thus a veto allows its holder to protect the status quo.
The concept of a veto body originated with the Roman consuls and tribunes. Either of the two consuls holding office in a given year could block a military or civil decision by the other; any tribune had the power to unilaterally block legislation passed by the Roman Senate."
Did the Trust really give the CAFC Board the power of veto over its article on the Club's finances? Or did it simply give the Club (or one of its employees) the opportunity to comment, subsequently choosing to edit in response, despite having absolutely no obligation to do so?
Others are obviously much better placed than I to answer this question, but I would suggest that the two options are fundamentally and profoundly different. I may be missing something, but if it's the latter I really can't understand what the fuss is about.
If people didn't like the article then fair enough, but that's an entirely different matter isn't it?
No it doesn't I'm afraid.
From what HI is implying, a repsonse wasn't requested from the Club. The Club was shown the article and sub-edited it. The sub-edited article was then published.
I doubt if the Club would have commented on the VoTV article even if Airman had asked them to - only he could tell you that. Indeed, I don't believe they've commented on it at all since it's publication. Indeed, SB (initially) denied he'd even seen it at a Fans meeting last week. Airman certainly has had replies to his articles - they're generally on the letters page, What with that and his response to Lawsons article on CL in the last issue, I'd hardly call the publication just a 'polemic'.
I accept that polemic was an incorrect word to use as characterisation of the VOTV edition. My point is rather that VOTV has a different purpose as a publication to that of Trust News. I am very glad that VOTV is back. But that makes it even more important that Trust News takes a distinctively different approach to VOTV.
here is our club rudderless and gently moving on the tide of owners indifference towards oblivion and what can the more "knowledgable supporters do but argue amongst themselves and call each other names.
you should be ashamed
As a Trust member I agree with Henry in his criticism of the Trust obtaining feedback from the club on an article, if the Trust can't write an accurate article then they should not write it, rather than get the club to correct it. I don't know what Prague said at 10.03 as that thread is not there but I would like to know why the Trust decided to get the article proof read by the club - it is a valid question.
Having said that can't you put this one to bed and all try in our various guises to work together to back CP and the players and not argue amongst ourselves about something that really won't make any difference to our club's future.
Well there you are. I have seen the whole lot. I read it all again last night. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. You don't know me, but I can assure you that if anything like what is being alleged had been done to that article, I would have an almighty ruck with the others about it, and resign from the Trust if it carried on in such a vein. Nothing remotely like that was necessary.
However as a result of all this crap in the last 24 hours, I am sure that we will think about how we can reassure most people that our output is independent in thought. We also though have to make sure that we get our facts right. There's not much value in being independent/critical if you are also factually incorrect. Its almost inevitable that not everyone will be satisfied, and for those who feel that a different POV on the same subject can be presented, there's always VOTV. And that's a good thing.
Looks like 09.03 (GMT) is where you'll find it, page 3.
We categorically do not allow the club to sub edit our articles, but ask for feedback when we want more information from them or a comment - I think this is the only one so far that is not part of a deliberate joint statement for example.
There have been a number of articles of pieces on our site that are critical over the last month or two including on player contracts, squad investment, policing, and this week about the pitch and more will follow where appropriate, so if you think we are a poodle to the club I suggest a read.
http://www.castrust.org/2013/08/squad-churn-affecting-addicks-stomachs/
http://www.castrust.org/2013/09/cafc-vs-nffc-preview/
http://www.castrust.org/2013/09/club-confirm-derby-policing-cafc-vs-mfc-1215-21-9-13/
http://www.castrust.org/2013/11/fans-pitch-concerns/
I understand this is a concern for many but I don't appreciate people leveling accusations in the way that has been evident on here. I signed up to this sure but no I didn't expect that from certain people.