Thanks for being the second person of the G21 to repsond Ken.
Firstly, I glad the trust were invited - it's the very least I'd expect.
However, I'm disappointed that both you and Richard have put their name to the statement, in the name of CAST, without liaising with members of the Trust in the first place.
Did you at any time discuss this with the Trust's Board before agreeing to the statement being released?
Where does the statement "to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club, and if that does not prove possible then to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events", differ so greatly from the Trust's aims that it was felt necessary to support a separate group in releasing the statement?
What was done at the meeting to encourage this 'super group' to work with the Trust in achieving the same aims. There is certainly no rush at the moment and changes to either the constituion and purpose of the Trust can be made to suit inclusion of members of this 'super group' and re-focus the Trust aims, should it be necessary.
And my final point which keeps getting ignored is how many supporters at the meeting were under the age of 25 - seeing as the statement's first point is "bringing together campaigning Charlton supporters from across the generations".
Must be eh.? I told them they could if they liked and I wouldn't have a problem with it because I was there and spoke as much as others. It was short noticr and yes perhaps it should have been via a formal meeting but until you go to a meeting you can't know whats going to be said, but I think we should be listening to fans concerns however they are expressed.
Consider the alternative. If we were not consulted or invited and this statement was made without us having any involvement? Is that preferable? Would n't that undermine us more?
People are entitled to their opinions and I've given mine.
We will carry on as before, talk about this face to face on Monday and come back with a plan.
Sorry mate sounds to me that you aren't listening at all.
The reality is if this group had gone through the trust structure and the same names were attached, many people on here would now be saying that the group had taken control of the trust and the criticism would be just the same, the existing trust board has been undermined.
What you are really saying then is mind your own business, this is for the trust not you. But as Charlton supporters it is our business.
The group includes four former directors, as well as Kevin Nolan - someone who has reported virtually every match for the last 30 years. It is far too broad to sustain the criticism that it comprises people harbouring a grudge or on some kind of ego trip, which is exactly why it needed to be so broad. It may also be worth considering the extent of the personal connections these people have collectively across the club before dismissing their concern that something is wrong.
Who exactly are you representing because this Charlton fan of fifty two years is happy with Roland. Why was this particular committee not formed when the last owners were in Power? There was no information coming out of the Club then. I also think it seriously undermines the Supporters Trust.
I think after Powell was sacked, it has all got a bit hysterical. There is no sign that we are going to be a feeder club for Standard Liege. If you believe some people Roland taking us over has saved us from Administration. He is spending a lot of money on the pitch, and is bringing down the debt in the Club, all good so far.
I didn't agree with selling two of our best players in Kermy and Stephens and I would have given Powell until the end of the season. But I can see why he did what he did.
I am going to give Roland and his regime some time to see what unfolds in the next year or two.
I would also be interested to know this
Because the whole thing is motivated and underpinned by the Powell sacking.
Which is a very large pointer to the concerns this group has about the direction the club is going in surely? If not now when?
When there is genuine evidence that the new owner has done something wrong. He sacked a manager who won 6 league games all season. Hardly crime of the century.
He sold a striker who refused to play a game to avoid an automatic contract extension and subsequently refused a contract extension. Hardly a capital offence.
He sold a midfielder who was never going to sign a new contract. Hardly genocide.
He is implementing a business model that he believes in. He thinks it will bring us stability and success. Yes its different, but that doesn't make him the devil.
None of the 20 speak for me and I suspect you will find yourselves to be a vocal minority at best.
The reality is if this group had gone through the trust structure and the same names were attached, many people on here would now be saying that the group had taken control of the trust and the criticism would be just the same, the existing trust board has been undermined.
What you are really saying then is mind your own business, this is for the trust not you. But as Charlton supporters it is our business.
The group includes four former directors, as well as Kevin Nolan - someone who has reported virtually every match for the last 30 years. It is far too broad to sustain the criticism that it comprises people harbouring a grudge or on some kind of ego trip, which is exactly why it needed to be so broad. It may also be worth considering the extent of the personal connections these people have collectively across the club before dismissing their concern that something is wrong.
@Airman Brown, as you know I've been largely supportive of you over the years, but I think you've all simply got this one wrong. Your first paragraph is ludicrous - what was to stop an announcement that the Trust had convened a meeting of these individuals given the concerns expressed?
The Trust purports to give all fans a voice and represent their interest, specifically to preserve the long term future of the club and its identity. If we see a threat to the latter, the Trust is absolutely the body through which - and in whose name - any action should be taken. And absolutely the medium through which the wider fan base are alerted to the key issues involved.
In fact I'm a member of the Trust in order that I throw my weight behind response to any such threat. I've paid fees twice, but when the first issue of serious concern arises it's an entirely different group planning the way ahead.
So no, this group doesn't represent me - it can't, because we already have the Trust to do that on the objectives you guys have. Equally I don't understand the concerns - I can't understand the concerns because no-one has articulated or evidenced them. Some of what I'm hearing is certainly of concern, but I certainly don't want battle stations drawn in my name based on rumour.
My view is that this is divisive and that's evident across a number of Charlton media including this very thread. You should at the very least ensure the group is accountable to the Trust and working to the broader views of the supporter base - otherwise you're trying to secure a future that looks like a small group of like minded people want it to look. Frankly speaking, it would be hard to defend an accusation that it was self-serving and indulgent.
Excellent reasoning Rick, especially given the difficulty writing a piece against someone you always usually support to the hilt.
There are many on here that think people are motivated to be confrontational because they harbour a sense of bitterness for whatever reason.
Isn't it ironic that the only confrontation that seems to have happened thus far has not come from the Fans Forum, not come from the Trust, not come from the supporters group. The confrontation I am referring to was when Katrien said there was something insulting when VIP members met, and someone asked about the £4 mil 'relegation' clause as it were.
I personally don't have a problem about how representative the VIP members are, or if they have sought a mandate, or if they were asking through a more formal channel. There are several reports on Charlton Life about the VIP meeting, and if people are looking for signs of confrontation, then those signs are in those reports.
Just for the record, and it is no secret anyway, I really don't like it that Chris Powell has been sacked. My way of dealing with it, especially after the rawness has settled, is to focus on the future. The result today, and results to come, and if we stay up. Then more broadly the standing of the club in the future and to what degree future results matter.
Glad you bring up the VIP meeting since you are right there was confrontation and it was one of your follow signatories who claimed the some of the VIP's were out of order (or words to that effect) to Katrien.
1. Why refer to one of the new directors using her first name? It seems to me that some people are far too defensive of our new directors / owner.
2. If she finds it 'insulting' that a supporter questions the 4 million pound relegation clause then tough. It seems a bloody good point to me!
Re point 2. This is where I'm getting confused. The supporter questioned KM regarding the 4mil clause, another supporter said he was out of order to do so, then it transpires that the same bloke is a member of this new group challenging RD. Smacks a little of 'Shut up sonny, you don't know what you're getting into here, I'll deal with this myself later'.
If anything needed to be said then at that time would have been a perfectly good starting point when RM etc., were in the room.
However, I'm disappointed that both you and Richard have put their name to the statement, in the name of CAST, without liaising with members of the Trust in the first place.
It seems that all parties have misjudged this, badly. Unfortunately some supporters' representation doesn't have the aim of challenging the master, but rather it's a chance to ultimately curl up at his feet. Sadly I wonder if some saw Powell's sacking, not as a threat but as an opportunity. Rank and file trust members are simply not considered in this because their aims are not relevant.
The 21 have failed to answer any of the questions posed in the last 24 hrs
Funny that really when the opportunity to spout their intentions was taken and because most seem to think that they have acted in a way that damages the trust and wants to understand why they would do it, why now,
Simple questions non confrontational and easy to answer
Its as if the answer would be
We don't answer to anyone
Because we can
How dare anyone question us don't you know who we are
The more groups who "demand" an audience with the RD the easier they will all be to ignore.
This is the key point and one that has been made by many posters.
I joined the Trust and paid my £5 memberhsip fee because I felt it made sense to have a legitimate body represent the fans in our relationship with the Club. The alternative being a "rabble" with disparate views, no clear messages, no legitimacy and no credibility.
The Trust cannot stop other Groups doing their own thing. There will always be those who think they know or can do better, don't want to be bound by a majority view or be accountable to anybody but themselves. That's what happens in a functioning democracy and from the perspective of those involved its perfectly reasonable.
However, the Trust cannot achieve it's objectives, at least as I had understood them, unless it distances itself from this initiative. I simply cannot understand how it can be publically supportive.
Everybody will need to make their own mind up, of course, but I for one won't be bothering to continue with my membership if the Trust doesn't demonstrate some clarity of thought and courage in responding to this situation. What's the point? What is the Trust's raison d'être if, at the first sign of discontent by some fans, it folds and hands the baton to somebody else without any reference to its membership?
I've been very impressed by what the Trust has achieved so far, by the energy and obvious commitment of those involved, but I really can't understand the thinking behind what appears to me to be a serious error of judgement in its response to this threat to its credibility and very existence.
However, I'm disappointed that both you and Richard have put their name to the statement, in the name of CAST, without liaising with members of the Trust in the first place.
Just to be factual: They did consult, and they didn't do it the name of CAS Trust, as I have stated
Sorry, but to me this is one bunch of saps completely out of their depth being challenged by another bunch of saps who think they're better doing things themselves (which they *might be*). They both basically mean well, but deep down are motivated by ego and too much time on their hands.
They'll be as much of an irritant to the board as a tiny shaving cut.
The fact we can't get one group of passionate supporters together who know what they're doing is laughable. No wonder we're known as anoraks.
Overall I think this is a good move from the Airman group and the closer you can work with the trust the better.
In my opinion, targeting the Football League and maybe teaming up with supporter groups from Cardiff, Hull, Leeds and Watford is a better avenue to go down at that moment. They find themselves in similar situations and if we can prove to the authorities there is a growing danger of our football clubs losing their identity, then they may just take notice. There is also a risk that these clubs will stop producing English talent.
The 21 have failed to answer any of the questions posed in the last 24 hrs
Funny that really when the opportunity to spout their intentions was taken and because most seem to think that they have acted in a way that damages the trust and wants to understand why they would do it, why now,
Simple questions non confrontational and easy to answer
Its as if the answer would be
We don't answer to anyone
Because we can
How dare anyone question us don't you know who we are
What a shame
My guess would be, buy the next copy of VOTV when all will be revealed
Sorry rikofold I don't mean to aim it at individuals but I have yet to see a statement from the trust as a whole in support of this group that's what I meant and like addickted just said razils name being omitted speaks volumes
Perhaps I'm taking words out of context or not understanding their implied meaning but Airman says " I support the trust. At the same time I don't endorse everything it says and does."
It's like he feels that without his approbation - no matter what anyone else thinks - the Trust is not entitled to have a view contrary to his own and any such view is without merit.
That's what I'm inferring from it but if that's not the intention then I apologise.
If the new supporters group or after getting questions that as Charlton supporters we would like the answers to that, then the Trust can be part of that. The Trust is doing a slightly different job, more nuts and bots. Trust members can be part of the new Supporters Group and vice versa. I haven't read all this thread. I don't think one group supplants the other. The new Supporters Group is in a position to be more vocal. The Supporters Trust can agree or disagree with things as they come up.
As a Trust member, I broadly support the questions being asked by the new group. Some respect is due because of the experience and activities relating to the Valley Party. Without the actions of the Valley Party, Charlton Athletic would unlikely exist.
I am not going to agree with everything from the new group, for instance, I don't think CP and RD were a good mix. I would have preferred it for a decent and respectful settlement to be made by RD with Chris Powell in January. RD should have brought his own coach in then. CP has gone now, and it is questions about the present and future that matter.
I support enquiries from the new Supporter Group that all Charlton supporters are interested in. Ones that unite the support and not divide it. That includes supporters who are happy to see CP not at the club and happy to wait and see what RD brings.
Barnie has got his personal opinion, I am sure and he should be able to state it. It is excellent though that Barnie is considering how to engage and speak about it as one of the main Trust spoke persons. Good not to jump in with two feet. Maybe it can be added as a question on the next survey to help Barnie acurately reflect Trust members opinions ?
I had many misgivings about the Trust from the start and was not convinced that they would have any influence. Based on the arguments that they provided about trusts at other clubs, I decided to join ... still not convinced but at least it gave us a collective voice.
And they have had some successes for which they should rightly be proud. However, their prime argument that convinced me to join was that if we ever hit a major issue that could dramatically affect the club and the fans, then they would be able to lead from the front.
As I have said many times, I do not believe that such an issue faces us, however a number of prominent supporters have a contrary view and believe that there may be an issue ... not that anyone has actually come out and told us exactly what that issue is.
And because there is an 'issue' a new supporters group has been established to tackle this 'issue'. So why did I bother joining the Trust? This can only undermine you ... the story being told, quite clearly, is that for one reason or another, you are not up to it or are unable to lead it. If that is the case, then I have completely misunderstood your potential effectiveness.
The Trust do not appear to agree that this move has undermined them ... well, it has certainly undermined my own support of the Trust ... as I said, I was wary to begin with about joining, but your arguments about the way trusts were active at other clubs 'in danger' swayed me. No longer ... it is doubtful I will renew my membership.
If it emerges that there is an 'issue ... although I am very doubtful about this ... I will support the new group as it would appear that they will be the driving force.
If there is not an issue ... which is my stance ... then the new group is not required.
However this goes, my confidence in the Trust is now very low.
Comments
Firstly, I glad the trust were invited - it's the very least I'd expect.
However, I'm disappointed that both you and Richard have put their name to the statement, in the name of CAST, without liaising with members of the Trust in the first place.
Did you at any time discuss this with the Trust's Board before agreeing to the statement being released?
Where does the statement "to seek a constructive and positive dialogue with the new owner of the club, and if that does not prove possible then to create a basis to recommend and to co-ordinate any appropriate action to respond to events", differ so greatly from the Trust's aims that it was felt necessary to support a separate group in releasing the statement?
What was done at the meeting to encourage this 'super group' to work with the Trust in achieving the same aims. There is certainly no rush at the moment and changes to either the constituion and purpose of the Trust can be made to suit inclusion of members of this 'super group' and re-focus the Trust aims, should it be necessary.
And my final point which keeps getting ignored is how many supporters at the meeting were under the age of 25 - seeing as the statement's first point is "bringing together campaigning Charlton supporters from across the generations".
Know your enemy.
Glad you bring up the VIP meeting since you are right there was confrontation and it was one of your follow signatories who claimed the some of the VIP's were out of order (or words to that effect) to Katrien.
2. If she finds it 'insulting' that a supporter questions the 4 million pound relegation clause then tough. It seems a bloody good point to me!
If anything needed to be said then at that time would have been a perfectly good starting point when RM etc., were in the room.
The more groups who "demand" an audience with the RD the easier they will all be to ignore.
Funny that really when the opportunity to spout their intentions was taken and because most seem to think that they have acted in a way that damages the trust and wants to understand why they would do it, why now,
Simple questions non confrontational and easy to answer
Its as if the answer would be
We don't answer to anyone
Because we can
How dare anyone question us don't you know who we are
What a shame
I joined the Trust and paid my £5 memberhsip fee because I felt it made sense to have a legitimate body represent the fans in our relationship with the Club. The alternative being a "rabble" with disparate views, no clear messages, no legitimacy and no credibility.
The Trust cannot stop other Groups doing their own thing. There will always be those who think they know or can do better, don't want to be bound by a majority view or be accountable to anybody but themselves. That's what happens in a functioning democracy and from the perspective of those involved its perfectly reasonable.
However, the Trust cannot achieve it's objectives, at least as I had understood them, unless it distances itself from this initiative. I simply cannot understand how it can be publically supportive.
Everybody will need to make their own mind up, of course, but I for one won't be bothering to continue with my membership if the Trust doesn't demonstrate some clarity of thought and courage in responding to this situation. What's the point? What is the Trust's raison d'être if, at the first sign of discontent by some fans, it folds and hands the baton to somebody else without any reference to its membership?
I've been very impressed by what the Trust has achieved so far, by the energy and obvious commitment of those involved, but I really can't understand the thinking behind what appears to me to be a serious error of judgement in its response to this threat to its credibility and very existence.
They'll be as much of an irritant to the board as a tiny shaving cut.
The fact we can't get one group of passionate supporters together who know what they're doing is laughable. No wonder we're known as anoraks.
In my opinion, targeting the Football League and maybe teaming up with supporter groups from Cardiff, Hull, Leeds and Watford is a better avenue to go down at that moment. They find themselves in similar situations and if we can prove to the authorities there is a growing danger of our football clubs losing their identity, then they may just take notice. There is also a risk that these clubs will stop producing English talent.
P.S. Where do I sign up?
I believe that one or two may but on a whole I would suggest they actually see it as a dangerous and disfunctional group of trouble makers
Still no real response from the G21.
Are they all in Ashford?
BUT, at least the Trust has a semblance of democracy. All members have a vote,and a say on how the Trust goes about its aims.
This new group has its own agenda, and its own undemocratic aims.
Do they intend to ask supporters what they want to be raised? Or is that decision already made amongst themselves?
For instance, are any in the group in favour of the sacking of Chris Powell? Because some supporters clearly think it was time for him to go...
It's like he feels that without his approbation - no matter what anyone else thinks - the Trust is not entitled to have a view contrary to his own and any such view is without merit.
That's what I'm inferring from it but if that's not the intention then I apologise.
Aren't they Trust Board members?
I'm sure we'll find out on saturday for £2, as we obviously aren't going to get a response on here.
As a Trust member, I broadly support the questions being asked by the new group. Some respect is due because of the experience and activities relating to the Valley Party. Without the actions of the Valley Party, Charlton Athletic would unlikely exist.
I am not going to agree with everything from the new group, for instance, I don't think CP and RD were a good mix. I would have preferred it for a decent and respectful settlement to be made by RD with Chris Powell in January. RD should have brought his own coach in then. CP has gone now, and it is questions about the present and future that matter.
I support enquiries from the new Supporter Group that all Charlton supporters are interested in. Ones that unite the support and not divide it. That includes supporters who are happy to see CP not at the club and happy to wait and see what RD brings.
Barnie has got his personal opinion, I am sure and he should be able to state it. It is excellent though that Barnie is considering how to engage and speak about it as one of the main Trust spoke persons. Good not to jump in with two feet. Maybe it can be added as a question on the next survey to help Barnie acurately reflect Trust members opinions ?
And they have had some successes for which they should rightly be proud. However, their prime argument that convinced me to join was that if we ever hit a major issue that could dramatically affect the club and the fans, then they would be able to lead from the front.
As I have said many times, I do not believe that such an issue faces us, however a number of prominent supporters have a contrary view and believe that there may be an issue ... not that anyone has actually come out and told us exactly what that issue is.
And because there is an 'issue' a new supporters group has been established to tackle this 'issue'. So why did I bother joining the Trust? This can only undermine you ... the story being told, quite clearly, is that for one reason or another, you are not up to it or are unable to lead it. If that is the case, then I have completely misunderstood your potential effectiveness.
The Trust do not appear to agree that this move has undermined them ... well, it has certainly undermined my own support of the Trust ... as I said, I was wary to begin with about joining, but your arguments about the way trusts were active at other clubs 'in danger' swayed me. No longer ... it is doubtful I will renew my membership.
If it emerges that there is an 'issue ... although I am very doubtful about this ... I will support the new group as it would appear that they will be the driving force.
If there is not an issue ... which is my stance ... then the new group is not required.
However this goes, my confidence in the Trust is now very low.