I really don't think now is the time to discuss the make up of the fans forum!
In the wake of this week's events, culminating with yesterday's train crash I have to say I'm appalled by the divisive comments emanating from some.
I was there yesterday and fans were angry. Equally, whether Katrien Meire was close to tears or not on the train is a side issue, albeit a very emotive one. I've not seen the Facebook video but many people are saying it's not so bad.
Now is the time for fans to unite under one banner and make their feelings known, asking the right questions and getting answers. Or not and then we have to move up a gear.
The vehicle for such activity is not this forum where energy will dissipate with every key stroke. Nor is it the fans forum which is ultimately controlled by the club. The fans forum is never going to fill the absolute void in communications created by Staprix ownership.
No, it is your supporters Trust which was built to harness the energy of the fans in times of adversity. Contact them or respond to their communications and let them know what direction you wish them to take. They are clearly spending time making considered and mature statements rather resorting to Twitter or antagonism on here.
I'm sure some hold it in contempt. But it is here and has 1,000 members and 5,000 twitter and email followers. It reaches fans on here. Also around half of its network do not use this site.
So I will be supporting the supporters Trust in its communications with fans and it's attempts to talk to the club. And I others to do same. This is no time for bickering and scoring points.
I have to agree with this. The most common sense way to attempt to harness all the energy in a positive way is to try via the Trust. Some will say the trust is impotent, some will say it's doomed to failure, some will say show us the money compared to Mr Duchatelet's, some will say it is a vehicle of self aggrandisement for the same old same old, some will say it isn't representative. All I want to say is that it is the best channel we have at the moment even if it is not ideal. The mantra goes 'if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well', but sometimes if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing badly.
As Ben and others well know, no one from the trust board nor I as the official spokesperson have suggested we have more than one person on the forum in this thread.
We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it. I also don't recall being able to vote on anything on there either. Not to say other people arent allowed to express an opinion on it.
The forum is useful for the Trust in a number of ways and one is that we get to meet the reps from other groups, and some of them are our members - although it is also supposed to be largely operational and the Trust scope goes beyond that. We do already rotate a little by the way, and for similar reasons that is also a good thing. Plus as Fanny said its currently the only communication channel open.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
If you are referring to me, I am an active Trust member but not on the Trust Board and have no input to Trust strategy. I made the comment personally, having read a comment by Rick which had some resonance.
In terms of the Fan-Forum process, maybe the minutes from the meetings could be made available sooner,Weegie addick has made a valid point and i think this could be added to Agenda for the next meeting.
As far as this thread and The KM thread is concerned i think some of the comments posted are unnecssary.
Katrien opened the Recent Fans-Forum meeting by explaining the recent Managerial appointment and these comments will be made available along with other Topics from the agenda that were discussed, I think we should respect that untill maybe we can possibly find a solution to getting the minutes published sooner for everyone to read.
It's unfortunate in my opinion that some comments made about Katrien might persuade her that it would be unwise to attend a Suporters branch meeting,something that Fans are keen for her to do so as a way to engage with them but that avenue i fear might be closed now.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information from Prague about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
In short, if the trust is to be effective, it can't accept equivalent status to about a dozen other groups, some of them very small. I'm not advocating multiple places on the FF, more illustrating that point.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
@PragueAddick - thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment. I'm not familiar with the corporate legalities and practicalities so it is good to understand the limitations you have in reporting various meetings and conversations taking place.
With all the threads that have been posted recently covering similar things I can't find it specifically, but one of your comments really stuck out around protesting for a cause rather than against one.
It seems from reading this forum, we're all united in wanting one goal - a transparent and clear communication policy from the club.
Whether that's via the Trust or not is up for debate, but given the 1000 subscriptions 5000 email addresses figure quoted above, the strength of feeling and 'traingate'it seems an opportune time for the Trust to drive this forward.
Whether that's a protest, a petition or an organised walk from somewhere to the valley doesn't really matter (as long as it's within the law and peaceful), but there needs to be a way to get the message through to the clubs hierarchy that change is needed.
The Trust has a better feeling of people's opinion than I do, but at the moment this forum, others and from talking to people this is the unhappiest I've seen our fans for a generation.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
it was a one off because we (two of us) had a meeting afterwards at the club and happened to be there Ben.
There really isn't an issue here in that sense. Others have I think sometimes had two members, but I can see why smaller groups might be sensitive about the Trust having more, but rather than acknowledge we have done the right thing as usual people try to make something out of nothing, and spin it negatively really haven't we got better things to talk about? Trust members and fans are entitled to their opinions.
I understand what Ricks says, but I don't feel we accept the situation and frequently call for other dialogue so don't 'accept' the situation in my view. If we pulled out I think it would be more counter productive than anything.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
This is my final response on here on this absurdly tedious and irrelevant subject. I'm sure most people will say TFFT. If anyone does think we have some case to answer after reading this, please PM me or @razil
Anyway.
"Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF"
to which Razil replied : "We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it" (and i would add that we listened to and learned from people who thought that in the early days we were "trying to muscle in")
"Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
Nowadays fortunately we have quite a few "active members" . Please do not deter more people from becoming more active, for fear that they will be hauled up by you (a non-member) for perceived transgressions of the Trust they have nothing to do with. Weegie gave her opinion here above,as she explained to you, and it is the first time I've heard it from her.
"And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails"
Airman mentioned it to me in one email covering a number of issues. As he will confirm, I did not even comment that particular point.
I think that is more than enough. Our Football Club is is in crisis.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
This is my final response on here on this absurdly tedious and irrelevant subject. I'm sure most people will say TFFT. If anyone does think we have some case to answer after reading this, please PM me or @razil
Anyway.
"Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF"
to which Razil replied : "We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it" (and i would add that we listened to and learned from people who thought that in the early days we were "trying to muscle in")
"Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
Nowadays fortunately we have quite a few "active members" . Please do not deter more people from becoming more active, for fear that they will be hauled up by you (a non-member) for perceived transgressions of the Trust they have nothing to do with. Weegie gave her opinion here above,as she explained to you, and it is the first time I've heard it from her.
"And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails"
Airman mentioned it to me in one email covering a number of issues. As he will confirm, I did not even comment that particular point.
I think that is more than enough. Our Football Club is is in crisis.
As ever the Trust unable to take the slightest bit of challenge.
you are also applying a double standard by saying that as a non - trust member I can't comment on the Trust yet all the non Fans forum members are free to comment on it.
As it happens I'm still part of the mythical 5000 network as I started to be sent emails again (not by choice).
I have always been surprised that there is so little overlap between members, subscribers,Facebook likes and twitter followers of the Trust so that they can all be counted as unique trust supporters
CAS Trust 1042 Members 1702 Subscribers 1955 Followers on twitter 383 facebook Likes
So what is the agreed make up of the fans forum with regard to numbers and where those representatives come from?
Are they elected reps and if so how often are those elections held?
Who are the reps and how do we contact them if we have a query that we'd like to raise at FF meeting or added to the agenda?
Does the FF have more clout with the Club than the Trust? Are the Club listening to both groups even if there's the possibility of contradictory or indeed, even opposite priorities?
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
This is my final response on here on this absurdly tedious and irrelevant subject. I'm sure most people will say TFFT. If anyone does think we have some case to answer after reading this, please PM me or @razil
Anyway.
"Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF"
to which Razil replied : "We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it" (and i would add that we listened to and learned from people who thought that in the early days we were "trying to muscle in")
"Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
Nowadays fortunately we have quite a few "active members" . Please do not deter more people from becoming more active, for fear that they will be hauled up by you (a non-member) for perceived transgressions of the Trust they have nothing to do with. Weegie gave her opinion here above,as she explained to you, and it is the first time I've heard it from her.
"And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails"
Airman mentioned it to me in one email covering a number of issues. As he will confirm, I did not even comment that particular point.
I think that is more than enough. Our Football Club is is in crisis.
As ever the Trust unable to take the slightest bit of challenge.
you are also applying a double standard by saying that as a non - trust member I can't comment on the Trust yet all the non Fans forum members are free to comment on it.
As it happens I'm still part of the mythical 5000 network as I started to be sent emails again (not by choice).
I have always been surprised that there is so little overlap between members, subscribers,Facebook likes and twitter followers of the Trust so that they can all be counted as unique trust supporters
CAS Trust 1042 Members 1702 Subscribers 1955 Followers on twitter 383 facebook Likes
= 5082
Total Network 5000 claimed by Trust
So only 82 are known to multiple supporters.
What are you trying to achieve here?
This thread has descended into the worst kind of office politics and is not very edifying to behold.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
This is my final response on here on this absurdly tedious and irrelevant subject. I'm sure most people will say TFFT. If anyone does think we have some case to answer after reading this, please PM me or @razil
Anyway.
"Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF"
to which Razil replied : "We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it" (and i would add that we listened to and learned from people who thought that in the early days we were "trying to muscle in")
"Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
Nowadays fortunately we have quite a few "active members" . Please do not deter more people from becoming more active, for fear that they will be hauled up by you (a non-member) for perceived transgressions of the Trust they have nothing to do with. Weegie gave her opinion here above,as she explained to you, and it is the first time I've heard it from her.
"And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails"
Airman mentioned it to me in one email covering a number of issues. As he will confirm, I did not even comment that particular point.
I think that is more than enough. Our Football Club is is in crisis.
As ever the Trust unable to take the slightest bit of challenge.
you are also applying a double standard by saying that as a non - trust member I can't comment on the Trust yet all the non Fans forum members are free to comment on it.
As it happens I'm still part of the mythical 5000 network as I started to be sent emails again (not by choice).
I have always been surprised that there is so little overlap between members, subscribers,Facebook likes and twitter followers of the Trust so that they can all be counted as unique trust supporters
CAS Trust 1042 Members 1702 Subscribers 1955 Followers on twitter 383 facebook Likes
= 5082
Total Network 5000 claimed by Trust
So only 82 are known to multiple supporters.
What are you trying to achieve here?
This thread has descended into the worst kind of office politics and is not very edifying to behold.
This really, at the moment after a pretty horrendous week, their appears to be point scoring going on when really, we should be trying to pull together in some format or other. If RD was attempting to divide and conquer, then I'd suggest it would all be going in his favour judging by some of the stuff posted on here. BTW I'm a bit P****d so ignore me if necessary.
Sometimes I really wonder if Henry Irving needs to see a psychiatrist ;-)
Or should I mention rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point?
I've said this for years H.
However, Henry is raising pertinent issues here. I don't believe it's point scoring per se, just querying the actual representation of the Trust. He's been on about this for some time now and hasn't had a definitive answer.
Who do Charlton fans go to if they want answers about the direction were heading in? The Trust or the Fans Forum?
Sometimes I really wonder if Henry Irving needs to see a psychiatrist ;-)
Or should I mention rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point?
I've said this for years H.
However, Henry is raising pertinent issues here. I don't believe it's point scoring per se, just querying the actual representation of the Trust. He's been on about this for some time now and hasn't had a definitive answer.
Who do Charlton fans go to if they want answers about the direction were heading in? The Trust or the Fans Forum?
Nick, I think you know full well that the only person who has any clue about the direction we are heading in is over in Belgium and his initials are RD. That is the problem...
Henry / Ben is not raising pertinent points IMHO on this thread, but simply stirring the dudu so to speak.
Anyway, just noticed one of the deckchairs has fallen over, so better go and pick it up.
Can I ask where the 5000 email addresses that the trust have, came from?
Just a personal contribution illustrating it took, vision, energy, focus and a sense of humour and tolerance to build the Trust. Not sure why people attack it because it is there for all of us Charlton fans.
Just over two years ago at the launch (December 2012) around 100 fans joined the trust and 500 fans participated in a survey...probably 2/3 of those opted to become subscribers. Not much! But it was a start - the third attempt to get one going and the club was skint. Just booking the launch in Bartrams was a challenge!
Razil, Ken and I met the club management in Feb 2013 with perhaps 1,000 "names on the books". And by May 2013 the club gave out 4,000 Trust News with the programme and promoted another survey. This gathered 2,252 entries and in turn another 900 fans opted to become new subscribers. Membership was up to 500 and the contacts on email and twitter upto 2,500.
That survey was probably the biggest fan participation since the old supporters club or perhaps even the Valley Party?
That was followed by the six month ACV campaign (1,905 participants) in August 2013 coinciding with the beginning of the Trust stall outside the North Stand. At this stall which has now been going for 18 months, Trust volunteers talk to fans and fans sign up. When I was involved we gathered 25 members each and every game come rain or shine. It's an ongoing dialogue which kept the Trust in touch and growing.
Numbers grew and Web traffic on the Trust website was 5x the launch after just one year.
So fans who participate in surveys could opt out but most chose to stay in touch. Hopefully the above explains how the Trust grew from a concept to a launch to a mass participation organisation reaching across all demographics and all parts of the stadium in order to spread a message and listen to ordinary fans opinions. To my knowledge it's the third largest supporters Trust in the Championship after Leeds and Reading.
As above, I won't presume to dictate what the Trust board should do right now but clearly it has a lot to consider in the forthcoming weeks.
There will be challenges together with those trying to distract the Trust board with petty details. Best stay focused lads - there is plenty to do without explaining everything, justifying it and tying up scarce resource. Do the right thing this month and always and the fans will recognise the vision and rationale behind the supporters Trust.
Having stood in the away end on Saturday, I know there will be plenty wanting to help out whatever activities are planned at this point.
Let me know if you want a hand! (I sent an email to Razil and others earlier)
If others want to help I suggest they inbox or email fans on the Trust Board. Once they've worked out the angles they're sure to need a hand.
So where did those 5,000 come from? It's you and me mate! Fans who are concerned and want the club ownership to explain the strategy to the whole fanbase. With a bit of energy and innovation maybe they can push to 7,500 and then 10,000? No pressure but the club needs the fans to have a voice, one voice!
The numbers fluctuate because some of the counters are static (subscribers and total) whereas the others are realtime. We update it periodically.
Of course there is duplication and I think that has been covered in a number of articles. But much of that would be bery long winded or impossible to discover and hence a futile exercise.
I think its fair to say the FF and its remit are operational, the Trust is strategic but there is of course cross over, both Imho are a good thing.
Hope that helps
Lapsed members are put back to subscriber status, and if anyone doesn't want the free email they can easily unsubscribe it. We've had three membership officers in the last 3 months, and badly need a couple of volunteers to operate at that level - a few monthly tasks and some computer skills, oh and an indesign person to help with TNT.
You get a fair number of problems running a large Trust on a shoestring with a small group of volunteers, we try and put as much of the funding into publishing articles and research.
So what is the agreed make up of the fans forum with regard to numbers and where those representatives come from?
Are they elected reps and if so how often are those elections held?
Who are the reps and how do we contact them if we have a query that we'd like to raise at FF meeting or added to the agenda?
Does the FF have more clout with the Club than the Trust? Are the Club listening to both groups even if there's the possibility of contradictory or indeed, even opposite priorities?
Information on the Fans Forum can be found on the below link
This shows all of the groups that are represented and their contact details (although the contact details of East Kent Addicks are incorrect as John has stepped down, with new contact details yet to be added). Therefore, you can contact any of these reps to raise any issues that will be taken to the Fans' Forum.
I don't know how the other groups elect their fans' forum representative, but at East Kent Addicks we appoint a rep from our own committee.
No idea on the final question you have, but as far as I'm aware the Trust have equal standing on the Fans Forum as the other supporters' groups etc.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
This is my final response on here on this absurdly tedious and irrelevant subject. I'm sure most people will say TFFT. If anyone does think we have some case to answer after reading this, please PM me or @razil
Anyway.
"Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF"
to which Razil replied : "We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it" (and i would add that we listened to and learned from people who thought that in the early days we were "trying to muscle in")
"Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
Nowadays fortunately we have quite a few "active members" . Please do not deter more people from becoming more active, for fear that they will be hauled up by you (a non-member) for perceived transgressions of the Trust they have nothing to do with. Weegie gave her opinion here above,as she explained to you, and it is the first time I've heard it from her.
"And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails"
Airman mentioned it to me in one email covering a number of issues. As he will confirm, I did not even comment that particular point.
I think that is more than enough. Our Football Club is is in crisis.
As ever the Trust unable to take the slightest bit of challenge.
you are also applying a double standard by saying that as a non - trust member I can't comment on the Trust yet all the non Fans forum members are free to comment on it.
As it happens I'm still part of the mythical 5000 network as I started to be sent emails again (not by choice).
I have always been surprised that there is so little overlap between members, subscribers,Facebook likes and twitter followers of the Trust so that they can all be counted as unique trust supporters
CAS Trust 1042 Members 1702 Subscribers 1955 Followers on twitter 383 facebook Likes
= 5082
Total Network 5000 claimed by Trust
So only 82 are known to multiple supporters.
What are you trying to achieve here?
This thread has descended into the worst kind of office politics and is not very edifying to behold.
Do you get irritated by the inane point scoring between these two otherwise respected posters/supporters? I just put it down to some unresolved homo-erotic tension.
When you mention representation, I am not sure if you are asking "how representative of fans is the Trust currently?" but it's a reasonable question anyway so maybe I can offer a few facts and thoughts:
A few months ago Supporters Direct said that we were the 3rd biggest Trust in the Championship. The two ahead of us are Leeds and Blackburn (not Reading). Both these clubs have significant long term ownership issues. But we have been closing in on Blackburn who have around 1500. SD also say that we are one of the most active Trusts in their spectrum. They've given us material support and advice as a result, including on the Olympic Stadium issue, the fruits of which should be more apparent soon.
Most people who study Trusts say that Swansea is the model. We have good links to them. Their membership though has dwindled to 800. At its peak it was 3,000, and as such represented 60% of the fan base at that time. But that was when they were bottom of the Fourth, and at one minute to midnight. It was at that time that they took their part ownership of the club (20%), of £50k which they still have. They say that nowadays sitting in the Prem, things look rosy beyond belief to most Swans, and inevitably there are fans who don't see the Trust as the priority it was.
Even before we met them, it was clear that most Trusts at big clubs which are not facing imminent extinction struggle to get into four figures in paid membership. The vast majority of fans seem generally interested in what goes on on the pitch, until there is a danger that even the pitch won't be there any more. I've always argued within the Trust that therefore 1,500 is probably the max we can get to unless we too are one minute to midnight. And we are not there yet, I think people agree.
However, one could understand if Katrien, arriving from Belgium, isn't familiar with any of that, and may have said to herself, it's "only" 1,000. So far we have not had a chance to explain her the history of Trusts, their role, and what she can expect from ours. We continue to work on the best way to persuade her to see things differently.
In the meantime therefore, it's clear that every single one of you who joins us now will help us to get that dialogue with the Club going.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
. Agree with whoever said above that the Trust should actually have 3 or 4 reps on FF given size of member base.
I really hope that that isn't Trust official policy.
Ten months ago there was a lot of discussion on here to the effect that all or any grievances with the club should articulated through the trust.
However the club seems determined to treat the trust as if it is on a par with much smaller organisations representing very narrow constituencies and engage with it alongside them at a controlled meeting, the issues with which have been explored above and we needn't revisit.
So do we now believe the trust is on a par with Syd's train travellers or however many members there are in East Kent Addicks or similar, and if so how does this square with the previous position?
That's not a slight on the other groups, just a question as to whether the trust is in a different category as previously implied or is just another group among many?
If that is how the Trust feels then maybe it should leave the fans forum.
I'm sure the high esteem in which they are held by so many at all levels within the club will mean that they can have even more influence and access than they do now.
Nobody from the Trust has even mentioned this idea to each other, let alone to the outside world, Henry, so pack it in.
Yes they have. On this thread.
Well I can assure you that the first time I heard such an idea was when @airman brown floated it in his VOTV online article last week. Personally while I appreciate the point Airman makes, I don't think it would actually make any difference. I think he was mainly pointing out how unsatisfactory the clubs approach to dialogue has been.
And I've been in touch with all other board members all week, pulling together that statement, which was very much a team effort and bloody hard work to complete.The Fans Forum didn't feature once in our consideration of what we should say or do. I doubt it will feature on the next one tonight or tomorrow, either. There are far more important issues to discuss.
Not correct, I'm afraid. It's drawn from a private email, in which I made a similar point to my earlier post above in response to information about KM's attitude to the trust, which itself is in the public domain.
I stand corrected. The point remains, the idea didn't come from the Trust board, nor have we discussed it since. We don't think it has any bearing on the issues facing us all.
Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
This is my final response on here on this absurdly tedious and irrelevant subject. I'm sure most people will say TFFT. If anyone does think we have some case to answer after reading this, please PM me or @razil
Anyway.
"Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF"
to which Razil replied : "We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it" (and i would add that we listened to and learned from people who thought that in the early days we were "trying to muscle in")
"Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
Nowadays fortunately we have quite a few "active members" . Please do not deter more people from becoming more active, for fear that they will be hauled up by you (a non-member) for perceived transgressions of the Trust they have nothing to do with. Weegie gave her opinion here above,as she explained to you, and it is the first time I've heard it from her.
"And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails"
Airman mentioned it to me in one email covering a number of issues. As he will confirm, I did not even comment that particular point.
I think that is more than enough. Our Football Club is is in crisis.
As ever the Trust unable to take the slightest bit of challenge.
you are also applying a double standard by saying that as a non - trust member I can't comment on the Trust yet all the non Fans forum members are free to comment on it.
As it happens I'm still part of the mythical 5000 network as I started to be sent emails again (not by choice).
I have always been surprised that there is so little overlap between members, subscribers,Facebook likes and twitter followers of the Trust so that they can all be counted as unique trust supporters
CAS Trust 1042 Members 1702 Subscribers 1955 Followers on twitter 383 facebook Likes
= 5082
Total Network 5000 claimed by Trust
So only 82 are known to multiple supporters.
What are you trying to achieve here?
This thread has descended into the worst kind of office politics and is not very edifying to behold.
Do you get irritated by the inane point scoring between these two otherwise respected posters/supporters? I just put it down to some unresolved homo-erotic tension.
I agree, problem is I have a 'duty' to respond to many points, I do try and do so without point scoring if possible. I am only human tho..
The supporters Trust movement is a positive to come from the fanzine era, the forum era, the various disparate crises that have happened at various clubs, and it is a way of sharing information, and help for supporters to try to influence the people in control of the clubs they love. Trusts often represent a flag to rally round. In the old days the overall movement was more organic, and believe it or not Charlton fans have proved to be a big help to others, the travails of Brighton is one area we helped in the early days. There will always be those who sneer, or want to introduce personalities into things, but the overall value of Supporters Trusts manifests itself at places like Portsmouth, or Swansea, or Brighton, or Dulwich Hamlet and many others. In the vacuum, supporters trusts may not be ideal, but they are the best we have at the moment, and they have greater credibility with more members joining. People who work on Trusts are usually unselfish people prepared to put in a lot of hours, not in my experience 'look at me' people on a power and glory trip. It is as clear as a punch in the face right now, that Charlton supporters need some way of expressing their fears that might (only might) have some impact on the owners. If there is another way beyond chanting at games and 'conversing' on trains then OK go for it. To me the only other way of expressing how a supporter feels is not to bother attending, and to lose interest. At the moment I get the feeling that the parent club has lost interest in the support not the other way round, maybe a direst engagement with fans will convince us they want us in the Valley.
Comments
The mantra goes 'if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well', but sometimes if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing badly.
We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it. I also don't recall being able to vote on anything on there either. Not to say other people arent allowed to express an opinion on it.
The forum is useful for the Trust in a number of ways and one is that we get to meet the reps from other groups, and some of them are our members - although it is also supposed to be largely operational and the Trust scope goes beyond that. We do already rotate a little by the way, and for similar reasons that is also a good thing. Plus as Fanny said its currently the only communication channel open.
As far as this thread and The KM thread is concerned i think some of the comments posted are unnecssary.
Katrien opened the Recent Fans-Forum meeting by explaining the recent Managerial appointment and these comments will be made available along with other Topics from the agenda that were discussed, I think we should respect that untill maybe we can possibly find a solution to getting the minutes published sooner for everyone to read.
It's unfortunate in my opinion that some comments made about Katrien might persuade her that it would be unwise to attend a Suporters branch meeting,something that Fans are keen for her to do so as a way to engage with them but that avenue i fear might be closed now.
In short, if the trust is to be effective, it can't accept equivalent status to about a dozen other groups, some of them very small. I'm not advocating multiple places on the FF, more illustrating that point.
Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails.
But apart from that.....
With all the threads that have been posted recently covering similar things I can't find it specifically, but one of your comments really stuck out around protesting for a cause rather than against one.
It seems from reading this forum, we're all united in wanting one goal - a transparent and clear communication policy from the club.
Whether that's via the Trust or not is up for debate, but given the 1000 subscriptions 5000 email addresses figure quoted above, the strength of feeling and 'traingate'it seems an opportune time for the Trust to drive this forward.
Whether that's a protest, a petition or an organised walk from somewhere to the valley doesn't really matter (as long as it's within the law and peaceful), but there needs to be a way to get the message through to the clubs hierarchy that change is needed.
The Trust has a better feeling of people's opinion than I do, but at the moment this forum, others and from talking to people this is the unhappiest I've seen our fans for a generation.
It's time for change.
There really isn't an issue here in that sense. Others have I think sometimes had two members, but I can see why smaller groups might be sensitive about the Trust having more, but rather than acknowledge we have done the right thing as usual people try to make something out of nothing, and spin it negatively really haven't we got better things to talk about? Trust members and fans are entitled to their opinions.
I understand what Ricks says, but I don't feel we accept the situation and frequently call for other dialogue so don't 'accept' the situation in my view. If we pulled out I think it would be more counter productive than anything.
members, subscribers to our email service that aren't members, twitter followers, Facebook likes
Anyway.
"Except that the Trust chair has just said that they have already asked for two places o the FF"
to which Razil replied : "We did ask to have two a while back for practical reasons I forget what, but we respected the views of others who were against it" (and i would add that we listened to and learned from people who thought that in the early days we were "trying to muscle in")
"Also Weegie may not be a part of the Trust board but she is a very active member who interviewed KM for the trust newsletter.
Nowadays fortunately we have quite a few "active members" . Please do not deter more people from becoming more active, for fear that they will be hauled up by you (a non-member) for perceived transgressions of the Trust they have nothing to do with. Weegie gave her opinion here above,as she explained to you, and it is the first time I've heard it from her.
"And it seems you and Airman have been discussing it in private emails"
Airman mentioned it to me in one email covering a number of issues. As he will confirm, I did not even comment that particular point.
I think that is more than enough. Our Football Club is is in crisis.
you are also applying a double standard by saying that as a non - trust member I can't comment on the Trust yet all the non Fans forum members are free to comment on it.
As it happens I'm still part of the mythical 5000 network as I started to be sent emails again (not by choice).
I have always been surprised that there is so little overlap between members, subscribers,Facebook likes and twitter followers of the Trust so that they can all be counted as unique trust supporters
CAS Trust 1042 Members
1702 Subscribers
1955 Followers on twitter
383 facebook Likes
= 5082
Total Network 5000 claimed by Trust
So only 82 are known to multiple supporters.
Are they elected reps and if so how often are those elections held?
Who are the reps and how do we contact them if we have a query that we'd like to raise at FF meeting or added to the agenda?
Does the FF have more clout with the Club than the Trust? Are the Club listening to both groups even if there's the possibility of contradictory or indeed, even opposite priorities?
This thread has descended into the worst kind of office politics and is not very edifying to behold.
Sometimes I really wonder if Henry Irving needs to see a psychiatrist ;-)
Or should I mention rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point?
However, Henry is raising pertinent issues here. I don't believe it's point scoring per se, just querying the actual representation of the Trust. He's been on about this for some time now and hasn't had a definitive answer.
Who do Charlton fans go to if they want answers about the direction were heading in? The Trust or the Fans Forum?
Henry / Ben is not raising pertinent points IMHO on this thread, but simply stirring the dudu so to speak.
Anyway, just noticed one of the deckchairs has fallen over, so better go and pick it up.
Just over two years ago at the launch (December 2012) around 100 fans joined the trust and 500 fans participated in a survey...probably 2/3 of those opted to become subscribers. Not much! But it was a start - the third attempt to get one going and the club was skint. Just booking the launch in Bartrams was a challenge!
Razil, Ken and I met the club management in Feb 2013 with perhaps 1,000 "names on the books". And by May 2013 the club gave out 4,000 Trust News with the programme and promoted another survey. This gathered 2,252 entries and in turn another 900 fans opted to become new subscribers. Membership was up to 500 and the contacts on email and twitter upto 2,500.
That survey was probably the biggest fan participation since the old supporters club or perhaps even the Valley Party?
That was followed by the six month ACV campaign (1,905 participants) in August 2013 coinciding with the beginning of the Trust stall outside the North Stand. At this stall which has now been going for 18 months, Trust volunteers talk to fans and fans sign up. When I was involved we gathered 25 members each and every game come rain or shine. It's an ongoing dialogue which kept the Trust in touch and growing.
Numbers grew and Web traffic on the Trust website was 5x the launch after just one year.
So fans who participate in surveys could opt out but most chose to stay in touch. Hopefully the above explains how the Trust grew from a concept to a launch to a mass participation organisation reaching across all demographics and all parts of the stadium in order to spread a message and listen to ordinary fans opinions. To my knowledge it's the third largest supporters Trust in the Championship after Leeds and Reading.
As above, I won't presume to dictate what the Trust board should do right now but clearly it has a lot to consider in the forthcoming weeks.
There will be challenges together with those trying to distract the Trust board with petty details. Best stay focused lads - there is plenty to do without explaining everything, justifying it and tying up scarce resource. Do the right thing this month and always and the fans will recognise the vision and rationale behind the supporters Trust.
Having stood in the away end on Saturday, I know there will be plenty wanting to help out whatever activities are planned at this point.
Let me know if you want a hand! (I sent an email to Razil and others earlier)
If others want to help I suggest they inbox or email fans on the Trust Board. Once they've worked out the angles they're sure to need a hand.
So where did those 5,000 come from? It's you and me mate! Fans who are concerned and want the club ownership to explain the strategy to the whole fanbase. With a bit of energy and innovation maybe they can push to 7,500 and then 10,000? No pressure but the club needs the fans to have a voice, one voice!
Of course there is duplication and I think that has been covered in a number of articles. But much of that would be bery long winded or impossible to discover and hence a futile exercise.
I think its fair to say the FF and its remit are operational, the Trust is strategic but there is of course cross over, both Imho are a good thing.
Hope that helps
Lapsed members are put back to subscriber status, and if anyone doesn't want the free email they can easily unsubscribe it. We've had three membership officers in the last 3 months, and badly need a couple of volunteers to operate at that level - a few monthly tasks and some computer skills, oh and an indesign person to help with TNT.
You get a fair number of problems running a large Trust on a shoestring with a small group of volunteers, we try and put as much of the funding into publishing articles and research.
http://www.cafc.co.uk/fans/fans_forum/
This shows all of the groups that are represented and their contact details (although the contact details of East Kent Addicks are incorrect as John has stepped down, with new contact details yet to be added). Therefore, you can contact any of these reps to raise any issues that will be taken to the Fans' Forum.
I don't know how the other groups elect their fans' forum representative, but at East Kent Addicks we appoint a rep from our own committee.
No idea on the final question you have, but as far as I'm aware the Trust have equal standing on the Fans Forum as the other supporters' groups etc.
@Addickted
When you mention representation, I am not sure if you are asking "how representative of fans is the Trust currently?" but it's a reasonable question anyway so maybe I can offer a few facts and thoughts:
A few months ago Supporters Direct said that we were the 3rd biggest Trust in the Championship. The two ahead of us are Leeds and Blackburn (not Reading). Both these clubs have significant long term ownership issues. But we have been closing in on Blackburn who have around 1500. SD also say that we are one of the most active Trusts in their spectrum. They've given us material support and advice as a result, including on the Olympic Stadium issue, the fruits of which should be more apparent soon.
Most people who study Trusts say that Swansea is the model. We have good links to them. Their membership though has dwindled to 800. At its peak it was 3,000, and as such represented 60% of the fan base at that time. But that was when they were bottom of the Fourth, and at one minute to midnight. It was at that time that they took their part ownership of the club (20%), of £50k which they still have. They say that nowadays sitting in the Prem, things look rosy beyond belief to most Swans, and inevitably there are fans who don't see the Trust as the priority it was.
Even before we met them, it was clear that most Trusts at big clubs which are not facing imminent extinction struggle to get into four figures in paid membership. The vast majority of fans seem generally interested in what goes on on the pitch, until there is a danger that even the pitch won't be there any more. I've always argued within the Trust that therefore 1,500 is probably the max we can get to unless we too are one minute to midnight. And we are not there yet, I think people agree.
However, one could understand if Katrien, arriving from Belgium, isn't familiar with any of that, and may have said to herself, it's "only" 1,000. So far we have not had a chance to explain her the history of Trusts, their role, and what she can expect from ours. We continue to work on the best way to persuade her to see things differently.
In the meantime therefore, it's clear that every single one of you who joins us now will help us to get that dialogue with the Club going.
Hope that helps, @Addickted.
In the old days the overall movement was more organic, and believe it or not Charlton fans have proved to be a big help to others, the travails of Brighton is one area we helped in the early days.
There will always be those who sneer, or want to introduce personalities into things, but the overall value of Supporters Trusts manifests itself at places like Portsmouth, or Swansea, or Brighton, or Dulwich Hamlet and many others.
In the vacuum, supporters trusts may not be ideal, but they are the best we have at the moment, and they have greater credibility with more members joining. People who work on Trusts are usually unselfish people prepared to put in a lot of hours, not in my experience 'look at me' people on a power and glory trip.
It is as clear as a punch in the face right now, that Charlton supporters need some way of expressing their fears that might (only might) have some impact on the owners. If there is another way beyond chanting at games and 'conversing' on trains then OK go for it.
To me the only other way of expressing how a supporter feels is not to bother attending, and to lose interest. At the moment I get the feeling that the parent club has lost interest in the support not the other way round, maybe a direst engagement with fans will convince us they want us in the Valley.