For the trust to work you must be in questions and comms with regard to trust issues razil the chairman
Not answer as razil the man angered with the qs regardless of how many and of what content
Exactly, stop taking this personally and react as a Chairman. Most of us fully support the Trust and would appreciate sensible responses not a playground spat.
Like I said I have no problem answering genuine queries and criticisms publicly and have done so numerous times.
Blimey mate, you can't let it go can you? I support Henry's views 100%. His questions are valid & he does not deserve to be attacked in the way you keep doing. FFS give it a rest!!
This is going one way, Razil will jack !! Not sure whether this is good or bad, I'll leave it all for all to decide. It is evident neither Razil or Henry or me when it is levied can také public criticms, unfortunately when you head positions like these you are there to be shot at and if you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.
Ok, I never had a second term as supporters director. I was offered one but declined as I felt that was wrong as I was only elected for one two year term.
When the SD role was abolished by the board, despite protest and argument by me and a few others, I proposed an alternative of a Fans Forum. The FF is still going and is in many ways stronger and better than a SD.
Sorry, hang on this has been nagging at me. Are you saying that you were offered a second term, but when you declined it was abolished. Not sure why they (the board) would have asked you to continue and then abolished the post because it was legally untenable? How do other clubs continue to have supporter level representation?
I have to say I don't recall any statements of opposition to the abolition at the time, which might have been helpful in clarifying your position. Also, not sure that criticism of the group that is trying to regain a portion of that supporters' representation is appropriate or helpful.
Meanwhile, back at The Valley, how green is it, how's the ACV getting on, will the players get their contracts, oh and I nearly forgot, will children die of starvation in the Philippines?
Meanwhile, back at The Valley, how green is it, how's the ACV getting on, will the players get their contracts, oh and I nearly forgot, will children die of starvation in the Philippines?
It looks like Henry Irving wants to Kill the CAS trust off for what ever reason. They have answered you about the article on finance of the club, but you see it as collusion with the club. What I see is good journalism, by checking the facts and make changes when needed. Not to do so is like the worst examples of the tabloid press.
Looks like Henry Irving asked a pertinent question and got grief for it.
I applaud Razil et al and what they are trying to achieve, but it is a supporters trust and if supporters are asking/querying/complaining about some of their actions then they have to accept that as well as the plaudits many have given.
I can promise you that a game of Chinese whispers has turned in to a tornado of hearsay.
The club has categorically not rewritten any Trust articles.
Every person who has paid their £5 subscription to the Trust effectively owns an equal percentage. The Trust isn't one person, we are all Charlton and fundamentally we all strive to achieve the same thing. A time will come when the fans really need the trust and what will be left?
Fellow supporters, this is an important time for Charlton, let's make sure the future is painted red and white.
Beyond making a few mistakes, what is so evil about the likes of Randy Lerner, Steve Gibson, or, it pains me to say it, Parish at Palace? Or the late Marcus Liebherr, who rescued Southampton and left them his money in trust when he passed away? Or the directors of Swansea?
Or the owners of every German club?
It doesn't HAVE to be the preserve of spivs like TJ or ***** like Abramovic
Beyond making a few mistakes, what is so evil about the likes of Randy Lerner, Steve Gibson, or, it pains me to say it, Parish at Palace? Or the late Marcus Liebherr, who rescued Southampton and left them his money in trust when he passed away? Or the directors of Swansea?
Or the owners of every German club?
It doesn't HAVE to be the preserve of spivs like TJ or ***** like Abramovic
Does this include RB Leipzig?
Actually Rich, yes it does. Check it out on Wikipedia
There are three exceptions. Bayer Leverkusen, and VFL Wolfsburg, which are effectively 'works' teams of the type that was once common in Olde England; and TSG Hoffenheim. I am not sure quite how some software whizz kid got full control of Hoffenheim, but I do know that everyone else hates them much as we hate MK Don.
So this became a very entertaining thread. I have now run out of popcorn so here's my twopennyworth, largely in response to Prague's considered observations.
Given the status of the CAFC company, the Trust will be most effective by maintaining a good relationship with the club. This means any criticism has to be finely balanced with the longer term aims of the club, the Trust and the dependency on that relationship. The club have to see the Trust as a force for good, even when being held to account. To me, therefore, it seems eminently sensible to leave VOTV to be the mouthpiece of criticism and for the Trust to maintain a perceptively higher ground with the club. To garner club opinion on articles is a vital part of this. It's not offering a veto or subediting facility, it's offering a voice so that communications can - to the large part - be agreeable and agreed.
"Keep your friends close, your enemies closer". It seems it's the friends bit the Trust is having most difficulty with.
On a different note, like others I too recall Ben continuing beyond his elected term as Supporters' Director, but my recollection is that this was to see the role through [beyond the normal election date] until the founding of the Fans' Forum was concluded. In my mind it was not an additional unelected term in the strictest sense.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.
Beyond making a few mistakes, what is so evil about the likes of Randy Lerner, Steve Gibson, or, it pains me to say it, Parish at Palace? Or the late Marcus Liebherr, who rescued Southampton and left them his money in trust when he passed away? Or the directors of Swansea?
Or the owners of every German club?
It doesn't HAVE to be the preserve of spivs like TJ or ***** like Abramovic
Does this include RB Leipzig?
Actually Rich, yes it does. Check it out on Wikipedia
There are three exceptions. Bayer Leverkusen, and VFL Wolfsburg, which are effectively 'works' teams of the type that was once common in Olde England; and TSG Hoffenheim. I am not sure quite how some software whizz kid got full control of Hoffenheim, but I do know that everyone else hates them much as we hate MK Don.
Are RB Leipzig not the club who only exist because Red Bull ripped off another's share?
Thank goodness it will soon be Saturday and we can get back to football and finding this week's scapegoat! Oh dear, we're not playing, carry on the debate chaps!
Comments
Pretty embarassing having several of our "higher profile" supporters trying to score points off each other in public.
Absolutely no need for this to have been played out in public.
I have to say I don't recall any statements of opposition to the abolition at the time, which might have been helpful in clarifying your position. Also, not sure that criticism of the group that is trying to regain a portion of that supporters' representation is appropriate or helpful.
Ian Botham is not without blame either.
What I see is good journalism, by checking the facts and make changes when needed. Not to do so is like the worst examples of the tabloid press.
I applaud Razil et al and what they are trying to achieve, but it is a supporters trust and if supporters are asking/querying/complaining about some of their actions then they have to accept that as well as the plaudits many have given.
Ben ?
Bloody spanner !
(Joke before it all kicks off again!)
The club has categorically not rewritten any Trust articles.
Every person who has paid their £5 subscription to the Trust effectively owns an equal percentage. The Trust isn't one person, we are all Charlton and fundamentally we all strive to achieve the same thing. A time will come when the fans really need the trust and what will be left?
Fellow supporters, this is an important time for Charlton, let's make sure the future is painted red and white.
There are three exceptions. Bayer Leverkusen, and VFL Wolfsburg, which are effectively 'works' teams of the type that was once common in Olde England; and TSG Hoffenheim. I am not sure quite how some software whizz kid got full control of Hoffenheim, but I do know that everyone else hates them much as we hate MK Don.
Given the status of the CAFC company, the Trust will be most effective by maintaining a good relationship with the club. This means any criticism has to be finely balanced with the longer term aims of the club, the Trust and the dependency on that relationship. The club have to see the Trust as a force for good, even when being held to account. To me, therefore, it seems eminently sensible to leave VOTV to be the mouthpiece of criticism and for the Trust to maintain a perceptively higher ground with the club. To garner club opinion on articles is a vital part of this. It's not offering a veto or subediting facility, it's offering a voice so that communications can - to the large part - be agreeable and agreed.
"Keep your friends close, your enemies closer". It seems it's the friends bit the Trust is having most difficulty with.
On a different note, like others I too recall Ben continuing beyond his elected term as Supporters' Director, but my recollection is that this was to see the role through [beyond the normal election date] until the founding of the Fans' Forum was concluded. In my mind it was not an additional unelected term in the strictest sense.
However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.