In response to Davo55. The headlines on the Club statement may have been written by a member of Comms and I don't know if KM would have had to approve that. If not then KM has been misrepresented there as her comments are not a reflection of the headline.
In response to Davo55. The headlines on the Club statement may have been written by a member of Comms and I don't know if KM would have had to approve that. If not then KM has been misrepresented there as her comments are not a reflection of the headline.
We can only draw our own inferences from what we have seen and heard. The heading is one thing, but the reference to a "process" was from the body of the statement.
In response to Davo55. The headlines on the Club statement may have been written by a member of Comms and I don't know if KM would have had to approve that. If not then KM has been misrepresented there as her comments are not a reflection of the headline.
That works on a newspaper - the reporter does not write the headline, but crucially he or she doesn't line-manage the sub-editor either. Your argument is akin to saying the editor is not responsible unless he or she wrote the headline. In this case, KM is the editor, because she is responsible for comms staff. She is accountable either way (although I don't think it's a big issue of itself. The whole exercise has been a shambles, which is point.)
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
I did wonder who in their right mind would have invited him to the meeting.
Given the number of coaches we seem to consume I'm not sure it's appropriate to rely upon the fans forum to meet at the right time to explain matters. Nor for it to be required that @Fanny Fanackapan to ride to the rescue of our CEO!
As people might know I have no qualms about Bob Peeters going but all this is a symptom of a much wider malaise...
The key question is that the process of strategy, appraisal and execution of all football decisions at our club is completely opaque. Who is advising on squad development, transfers and targets for this season. "Not getting relegated" is a very low ambition for the calibre of signing we have made over last summer. "wait and see" and "time will tell" can be interpreted in many ways but it certainly doesn't enthuse the faithful.
And it is this vacuum created which fosters speculation about motives and competence. A process such as firing and appointing a head coach shouldn't have to be this complex. I have complemented the precision but the comms is appalling and everyone knows it!
Many clubs and businesses have an idea about who will be next in the hot seat - it's called succession planning although it clearly went missing at CAFC in 2006!
It's never going to be easy to communicate with fans given the subject matter and the nature of the audience plus the speed of social media. But it's important and they should do better. Always subject to legal restraint and commercial confidentiality.
Right now we have a farcical situation where stalwarts were backing a coach with one win in 12 up until his sacking and the recent allegations came out. And we have a wait and see approach about Luzon, instead of fans backing him 100% to kick start things again. M.Duchatelet makes references to setting records at Liege last season but rather than look that up, many fans quite reasonably assume he left Liege under a cloud in October.
Is it because we've seen so many false dawns? Or because some fans compare this to leaving the Valley or the disaster that was 2006-07?
Or is it simply because the owner refuses to communicate the aspirations for this club and invite fans along on the journey?
For sure we have ex staff and ex fan representatives from the 90s who like to dissect events through the lens of their own experience. But we also have a 21st century organisation with a democratic charter using today's technology to stay in touch with fans. When I was involved we would secure well over 1,000 hits per article and a 55% open rate for 2-3000 emails sent every week. According to industry stats that's quite effective.
This was for independent, thought out appraisals of the club, written by a variety of bloggers and trust members. So why ignore the potential to have the club express it's direction through an independent but friendly set of analysis?
The irony is that the supporters' Trust had greater traction with the club in 2013 under the old ownership! More access to the management team and we were able to cover events such as the takeover without panic particularly in the months prior to the actual deal.
It's all a bit strange and I sense a lot of people sense that. M. Duchatelet doesn't appear to notice or perhaps not care? Whereas our CEO clearly does. This week could have and should have been dealt with in an entirely different fashion although I still hope the outcome tomorrow is more favourable than that which might have transpired should Peeters had retained his position.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
My point is that what's discussed isn't and never will be managed through agreed minutes. It's just disseminated to those "in the know" regardless. What on earth is the point of holding back the fact that people have complained about programme sales or at the other extreme of sharing secrets that can't passed on. It just creates a clique.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
You're one of my most respected posters Fanny, so please don't think I'm trying to argue!
I know Airman Brown can be our very own version of Marmite; and some of us may get a bit frustrated. However; in this case I think he was trying to point out that the current policy of secrecy is overkill as things leak anyway. In a lot of ways, that's worse. Leaks lead to rumours and rumours lead to friction.
Maybe he did undermine a form of mutual respect, but - he did make his point in the process, and respect aside - he didn't seem to say anything of much substance that would provoke a reaction. (Although, I concede it's still against the principles of the meeting)
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
You're one of my most respected posters Fanny, so please don't think I'm trying to argue!
I know Airman Brown can be our very own version of Marmite; and some of us may get a bit frustrated. However; in this case I think he was trying to point out that the current policy of secrecy is overkill as things leak anyway. In a lot of ways, that's worse. Leaks lead to rumours and rumours lead to friction.
Maybe he did undermine a form of mutual respect, but - he did make his point in the process, and respect aside - he didn't seem to say anything of much substance that would provoke a reaction. (Although, I concede it's still against the principles of the meeting)
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
You're one of my most respected posters Fanny, so please don't think I'm trying to argue!
I know Airman Brown can be our very own version of Marmite; and some of us may get a bit frustrated. However; in this case I think he was trying to point out that the current policy of secrecy is overkill as things leak anyway. In a lot of ways, that's worse. Leaks lead to rumours and rumours lead to friction.
Maybe he did undermine a form of mutual respect, but - he did make his point in the process, and respect aside - he didn't seem to say anything of much substance that would provoke a reaction. (Although, I concede it's still against the principles of the meeting)
Thanks for the compliment, LR and I do take your point.
Thing is, there is rarely anything of momentous proportions discussed at these meetings . But from time to time there will be...
It's the principle that's important IMO.
And this "leak" could mean that FF members are denied the opportunity to discuss any sensitive issues in future if the credibility of the group is under scrutiny. At the moment, this IS the best opportunity "we" have to put forward fans' concerns - in fact, with the current lack of communication between Katrien and CAST, it's the ONLY avenue apart from individuals contacting her directly.
Just because there were no " sensitive" matters on the agenda this time, doesn't mean there haven't been in the past , or will be in the future.....and AB has wantonly undermined the whole process.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
I did wonder who in their right mind would have invited him to the meeting.
What a totally self-serving, spiteful wanker
ha, and you kept checking back waiting for your insult to be removed so you could post it again!
I know you have been trying harder and harder of late to get a bite from your being provacative approach, but although it doesn't really seem to be having the desired effect, we are at some stage going to have to draw a line under it.
You've been posting on here for a long time and you either don't seem to have enjoyed it for a long time, or your enjoyment is increasingly out of trying to get a rise out of certain people you don't like, or just being rude.
I'd love you to go back to posting how you used to post, but if you don't feel you can then please consider calling it a day on here. Above anything else, its not fair on those who give up their time having to moderate it. Ta.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
I did wonder who in their right mind would have invited him to the meeting.
What a totally self-serving, spiteful
He's the second most predictable poster on the forum.
so do thousands of others, but most manage to offer theirs without being discuortious and predictably impolite. Its no big drama, i'm just asking you to consider changing your approach as i think the increasing angle to your contributions are crossing the line more often than acceptable and making threads less enjoyable for others, that's all.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
You're one of my most respected posters Fanny, so please don't think I'm trying to argue!
I know Airman Brown can be our very own version of Marmite; and some of us may get a bit frustrated. However; in this case I think he was trying to point out that the current policy of secrecy is overkill as things leak anyway. In a lot of ways, that's worse. Leaks lead to rumours and rumours lead to friction.
Maybe he did undermine a form of mutual respect, but - he did make his point in the process, and respect aside - he didn't seem to say anything of much substance that would provoke a reaction. (Although, I concede it's still against the principles of the meeting)
Just because there were no " sensitive" matters on the agenda this time, doesn't mean there haven't been in the past , or will be in the future.....and AB has wantonly undermined the whole process.
As has the person who talked to him. It might all be bogs and basins stuff but you can kind of understand KM being reluctant to engage if protocols can't be respected.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
You're one of my most respected posters Fanny, so please don't think I'm trying to argue!
I know Airman Brown can be our very own version of Marmite; and some of us may get a bit frustrated. However; in this case I think he was trying to point out that the current policy of secrecy is overkill as things leak anyway. In a lot of ways, that's worse. Leaks lead to rumours and rumours lead to friction.
Maybe he did undermine a form of mutual respect, but - he did make his point in the process, and respect aside - he didn't seem to say anything of much substance that would provoke a reaction. (Although, I concede it's still against the principles of the meeting)
Just because there were no " sensitive" matters on the agenda this time, doesn't mean there haven't been in the past , or will be in the future.....and AB has wantonly undermined the whole process.
As has the person who talked to him. It might all be bogs and basins stuff but you can kind of understand KM being reluctant to engage if protocols can't be respected.
Pleased you can appreciate my point, Davo. Thanks.
The Trust was so close to gaining my membership for the first time. I agree with every word of the original statement.
I've then read through this thread and realised that yet again the Trust - an independent fans body - has agreed to be bound by the reporting restrictions of the club.
Perhaps the trust should remind themselves of what they have asked of the club and take a leaf out of their own book:
'The Trust aims to rekindle that relationship between the fans and the Club. We believe that mutual trust and openness will help channel the fans’ passion in a way which is positive financially for the club and emotionally for the fans. We have consistently sought dialogue with the Club, with this aim.'
If I can explain a few things here, maybe they will help, maybe not.
1. The Fans Forum was around for many years before the Trust. (unlike say at Swansea, where the Trust set up and run the Fans Forum). We had to work hard just to be accepted as legitimate participants. And not just on the Club side, it has to be said.
2. So having been accepted, we have to abide by the rules that were set up long before our existence. If we break those rules, we are out. Simple as that. Look at the argument that has broken out now between Fanny and AB to see how sensitive it all is.
3. We don't like that this is the only current way that we can have any kind of dialogue with Katrien. But we think it is better than nothing. Small gradual steps.
4. There will always be some confidentiality. If we ever have a Supporter Director again, it will be the same, because of corporate law compliance; as it was before. Ask @Henry Irving.
Hope that explains our position, which we are ourselves not very happy with. And if you think we could do things differently, we're open to suggestion. Here or privately.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the And this "leak" could mean that FF members are denied the opportunity to discuss any sensitive issues in future if the credibility of the group is under scrutiny. At the moment, this IS the best opportunity "we" have to put forward fans' concerns - in fact, with the current lack of communication between Katrien and CAST, it's the ONLY avenue apart from individuals contacting
Just because there were no " sensitive" matters on the agenda this time, doesn't mean there haven't been in the past , or will be in the future.....and AB has wantonly undermined the whole process.
One of the issues discussed at the forum was the large number of complaints the club has received about the hopelessness of the new programme sales arrangements, in particular the reduced number of sellers and their lack of visibility. The club is promising to improve things for the Rotherham game.
Friday night football was also discussed and the consensus was against it, but the club intends to move some matches anyway - probably because an edict has come from Belgium, but that's just my opinion.
I could go on, but I hope this illustrates the pointlessness of the present minutes arrangements!
Well, I'm presuming that the minutes have already been agreed ( not by me yet) & posted on the OS .
Why do I believe this ?
Because AB was NOT at the meeting and isn't on the list of those invited since before he left the Club.
So much for FF members being discreet & honouring the current system.
Wonder who the mole is ?
Not quite true, Fanny. I was the lead club rep at the last FF meeting before I left, having convened the previous meetings. In fact, I set it up in its current format, with groups represented, rather than self-nominating individuals.
In my experience it's a useful forum, but it had a very different role from, say, Target 40k, where the idea was that the club drew on people's experience and expertise, rather than representing others.
Nothing changes does it, AB.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
You're one of my most respected posters Fanny, so please don't think I'm trying to argue!
I know Airman Brown can be our very own version of Marmite; and some of us may get a bit frustrated. However; in this case I think he was trying to point out that the current policy of secrecy is overkill as things leak anyway. In a lot of ways, that's worse. Leaks lead to rumours and rumours lead to friction.
Maybe he did undermine a form of mutual respect, but - he did make his point in the process, and respect aside - he didn't seem to say anything of much substance that would provoke a reaction. (Although, I concede it's still against the principles of the meeting)
Thanks for the compliment, LR and I do take your point.
Thing is, there is rarely anything of momentous proportions discussed at these meetings . But from time to time there will be...
It's the principle that's important IMO.
And this "leak" could mean that FF members are denied the opportunity to discuss any sensitive issues in future if the credibility of the group is under scrutiny. At the moment, this IS the best opportunity "we" have to put forward fans' concerns - in fact, with the current lack of communication between Katrien and CAST, it's the ONLY avenue apart from individuals contacting her directly.
Just because there were no " sensitive" matters on the agenda this time, doesn't mean there haven't been in the past , or will be in the future.....and AB has wantonly undermined the whole process.
You seem to be worried about the club's opinion of the credibility of this meeting but not the opinion of fans who are not in any of the small groups on this panel.
Your faith in being able to effect sensitive matters is quite touching given the apparent control the club has over the way this meeting is organised, how it's participants are chosen and how it's discussions are disseminated. It's just a talking shop the club can use to say look at us aren't we open and sensitive to fans concerns.
Are there any Terms of Reference for this group that can be seen by non attenders?
Fanny you seem to be worried about the club's opinion of the credibility of this meeting but not the opinion of fans who are not in any of the small groups on this panel.
Your faith in being able to effect sensitive matters is quite touching given the apparent control the club has over the way this meeting is organised, how it's participants are chosen and how it's discussions are disseminated. It's just a talking shop the club can use to say look at us aren't we open and sensitive to fans concerns.
Are there any Terms of Reference for this group that can be seen by non attenders?
The Trust was so close to gaining my membership for the first time. I agree with every word of the original statement.
I've then read through this thread and realised that yet again the Trust - an independent fans body - has agreed to be bound by the reporting restrictions of the club.
Perhaps the trust should remind themselves of what they have asked of the club and take a leaf out of their own book:
'The Trust aims to rekindle that relationship between the fans and the Club. We believe that mutual trust and openness will help channel the fans’ passion in a way which is positive financially for the club and emotionally for the fans. We have consistently sought dialogue with the Club, with this aim.'
If I can explain a few things here, maybe they will help, maybe not.
1. The Fans Forum was around for many years before the Trust. (unlike say at Swansea, where the Trust set up and run the Fans Forum). We had to work hard just to be accepted as legitimate participants. And not just on the Club side, it has to be said.
2. So having been accepted, we have to abide by the rules that were set up long before our existence. If we break those rules, we are out. Simple as that. Look at the argument that has broken out now between Fanny and AB to see how sensitive it all is.
3. We don't like that this is the only current way that we can have any kind of dialogue with Katrien. But we think it is better than nothing. Small gradual steps.
4. There will always be some confidentiality. If we ever have a Supporter Director again, it will be the same, because of corporate law compliance; as it was before. Ask @Henry Irving.
Hope that explains our position, which we are ourselves not very happy with. And if you think we could do things differently, we're open to suggestion. Here or privately.
But aren't the CAST people concerned that AB ( and his trusty mole) might have royally peed off Katrien with this juvenile jape ?
If the FF is disbanded then no-one ( inc the Trust rep that attends meetings) will have any face to face dialogue.
Comments
Highlight was when @Razil tried to sync a fart with a cough but was out by a good two seconds
AFKA - S.A.F.A representative
What a totally self-serving, spiteful
As people might know I have no qualms about Bob Peeters going but all this is a symptom of a much wider malaise...
The key question is that the process of strategy, appraisal and execution of all football decisions at our club is completely opaque. Who is advising on squad development, transfers and targets for this season. "Not getting relegated" is a very low ambition for the calibre of signing we have made over last summer. "wait and see" and "time will tell" can be interpreted in many ways but it certainly doesn't enthuse the faithful.
And it is this vacuum created which fosters speculation about motives and competence. A process such as firing and appointing a head coach shouldn't have to be this complex. I have complemented the precision but the comms is appalling and everyone knows it!
Many clubs and businesses have an idea about who will be next in the hot seat - it's called succession planning although it clearly went missing at CAFC in 2006!
It's never going to be easy to communicate with fans given the subject matter and the nature of the audience plus the speed of social media. But it's important and they should do better. Always subject to legal restraint and commercial confidentiality.
Right now we have a farcical situation where stalwarts were backing a coach with one win in 12 up until his sacking and the recent allegations came out. And we have a wait and see approach about Luzon, instead of fans backing him 100% to kick start things again. M.Duchatelet makes references to setting records at Liege last season but rather than look that up, many fans quite reasonably assume he left Liege under a cloud in October.
Is it because we've seen so many false dawns? Or because some fans compare this to leaving the Valley or the disaster that was 2006-07?
Or is it simply because the owner refuses to communicate the aspirations for this club and invite fans along on the journey?
For sure we have ex staff and ex fan representatives from the 90s who like to dissect events through the lens of their own experience. But we also have a 21st century organisation with a democratic charter using today's technology to stay in touch with fans. When I was involved we would secure well over 1,000 hits per article and a 55% open rate for 2-3000 emails sent every week. According to industry stats that's quite effective.
This was for independent, thought out appraisals of the club, written by a variety of bloggers and trust members. So why ignore the potential to have the club express it's direction through an independent but friendly set of analysis?
The irony is that the supporters' Trust had greater traction with the club in 2013 under the old ownership! More access to the management team and we were able to cover events such as the takeover without panic particularly in the months prior to the actual deal.
It's all a bit strange and I sense a lot of people sense that. M. Duchatelet doesn't appear to notice or perhaps not care? Whereas our CEO clearly does. This week could have and should have been dealt with in an entirely different fashion although I still hope the outcome tomorrow is more favourable than that which might have transpired should Peeters had retained his position.
VERY quick to blow your own trumpet and I'm sure we're all pleased to hear you still think it serves a purpose, albeit without your presence.
Without expecting to receive an acceptable response in the manner of a typical politician, maybe I should ask the question directly.
Are you prepared to name your source or is your aim to disrupt this "useful forum " ?
I know Airman Brown can be our very own version of Marmite; and some of us may get a bit frustrated. However; in this case I think he was trying to point out that the current policy of secrecy is overkill as things leak anyway. In a lot of ways, that's worse. Leaks lead to rumours and rumours lead to friction.
Maybe he did undermine a form of mutual respect, but - he did make his point in the process, and respect aside - he didn't seem to say anything of much substance that would provoke a reaction. (Although, I concede it's still against the principles of the meeting)
Thing is, there is rarely anything of momentous proportions discussed at these meetings . But from time to time there will be...
It's the principle that's important IMO.
And this "leak" could mean that FF members are denied the opportunity to discuss any sensitive issues in future if the credibility of the group is under scrutiny. At the moment, this IS the best opportunity "we" have to put forward fans' concerns - in fact, with the current lack of communication between Katrien and CAST, it's the ONLY avenue apart from individuals contacting her directly.
Just because there were no " sensitive" matters on the agenda this time, doesn't mean there haven't been in the past , or will be in the future.....and AB has wantonly undermined the whole process.
I know you have been trying harder and harder of late to get a bite from your being provacative approach, but although it doesn't really seem to be having the desired effect, we are at some stage going to have to draw a line under it.
You've been posting on here for a long time and you either don't seem to have enjoyed it for a long time, or your enjoyment is increasingly out of trying to get a rise out of certain people you don't like, or just being rude.
I'd love you to go back to posting how you used to post, but if you don't feel you can then please consider calling it a day on here. Above anything else, its not fair on those who give up their time having to moderate it. Ta.
He's the second most predictable poster on the forum.
I thought that was the point of this place?
You can't stand AB - I think we all get that.
What else?
1. The Fans Forum was around for many years before the Trust. (unlike say at Swansea, where the Trust set up and run the Fans Forum). We had to work hard just to be accepted as legitimate participants. And not just on the Club side, it has to be said.
2. So having been accepted, we have to abide by the rules that were set up long before our existence. If we break those rules, we are out. Simple as that. Look at the argument that has broken out now between Fanny and AB to see how sensitive it all is.
3. We don't like that this is the only current way that we can have any kind of dialogue with Katrien. But we think it is better than nothing. Small gradual steps.
4. There will always be some confidentiality. If we ever have a Supporter Director again, it will be the same, because of corporate law compliance; as it was before. Ask @Henry Irving.
Hope that explains our position, which we are ourselves not very happy with. And if you think we could do things differently, we're open to suggestion. Here or privately.
Your faith in being able to effect sensitive matters is quite touching given the apparent control the club has over the way this meeting is organised, how it's participants are chosen and how it's discussions are disseminated. It's just a talking shop the club can use to say look at us aren't we open and sensitive to fans concerns.
Are there any Terms of Reference for this group that can be seen by non attenders?
If the FF is disbanded then no-one ( inc the Trust rep that attends meetings) will have any face to face dialogue.