Well this has been an unedifying thread hasn't it. If RD's plan was to divide and conquer, he wouldn't need to bother to do anything - we're plenty good enough to do that among ourselves.
We may not all agree on the benefits of the FF, the Supporters' Trust or anything else. But fundamentally, the FF is the only current formal conduit between fans and club, even if it has a severely constrained remit, and should be respected for that. The Supporters' Trust is trying to ensure that Charlton remains for the fans, and that's something surely we can all support even if we don't want to be a member. Frankly I'm astounded at the puerile nature of much of the criticism of the Trust on this and other threads. If you're going to criticise, at least make sure it's constructive and something valuable. Arguing whether the Trust wants 1 or 4 places on the FF because a member happened to suggest is beyond ridiculous. The stuff of Monty Python (and I'll leave others to decide who the Popular Front is).
Put your fiddles away children, Rome continues to burn around us.
I am not sure I can add much to this debate as there are significantly more people on here who have far more knowledge of the supporter "landscape" and the attempts to establish a positive dialogue with the club but I do owe Airman a response to his enquiry (about 4 pages ago) on "strict terms of reference"
I was living in hope someone might answer the question for me, maybe they have and I missed it.
I have no wish to be controversial or disrespect the efforts of others but the best way I can answer his question is, if there are no strict terms of reference, supporters have a body of representation participating in an "open" forum with the club through which to channel their concerns.
Which "representative" channel to the forum a supporter decides to use is a matter of personal choice.
I am not looking to put anyone on the spot but if the Fan Forum is in effect a "working committee" with a schedule of agreed meetings with agreed & approved participants, a formal agenda and documented minutes and has no specific terms of reference then any committee member can call for an extraordinary meeting to discuss specific matters of concern.
Other "forum members" then have the opportunity to support or disagree with the proposal.
It does not bind the club to convening such a meeting but by its inclusion in the meeting minutes (to be made public) puts the club on notice an issue has to be addressed. The forum presents the opportunity for multiple matters of concern to be formally documented in such a manner to evidence a formal "public" record of efforts the "fans collective" are making on behalf of their members.
Such inclusion in the minutes means as a permanent record they can be raised in each and every future meeting under either Matters Arising or Outstanding Actions until they are addressed by the club to a level that meets the approval of the "fan collective".
In the event the club formally confirms it will not or gives no evidence it will address the matters of concern the "fan collective" have then to address the value of such dialogue and whether recourse to other courses of action/ communication are necessary.
In terms of personalities I, like so many, am disquieted at both a personal and professional level by the events of recent days but I am not going to castigate the "executive of the day" out of hand "until and unless I have walked in their shoes".
Len Glovers comments (for me) were spot on. Nearly every manager on the planet will know "managing upwards" can on occasion be the most difficult aspect of a job. That is not to challenge the skill set of any individual merely an ability to recognise the need to manage the potential for "executive excess" to create "public" disasters.
I have in my time had the "pleasure" of "sweeping up" before, during and after the efforts of some completely bizarre individuals. Some were brilliant some most definately were not. They do not write such duties in any job description - they come under the heading of learning on the job.
If people can put aside their verbal cudgels, and the club their business egos I consider there is an opportunity for everyone to learn from recent events.
I suggest the overriding concern of many is whether there is a genuine appetite to do so. If there is not. Then we will all very quickly know exactly where we stand.
Seems to me that the FF might be more effective if they worked together better. From reading this thread it seems they are all bickering amongst themselves when it would be far more useful if they found some common ground and pushed the issues as a group rather than each having their own agenda.
I am not sure I can add much to this debate as there are significantly more people on here who have far more knowledge of the supporter "landscape" and the attempts to establish a positive dialogue with the club but I do owe Airman a response to his enquiry (about 4 pages ago) on "strict terms of reference"
I was living in hope someone might answer the question for me, maybe they have and I missed it.
I have no wish to be controversial or disrespect the efforts of others but the best way I can answer his question is, if there are no strict terms of reference, supporters have a body of representation participating in an "open" forum with the club through which to channel their concerns.
Which "representative" channel to the forum a supporter decides to use is a matter of personal choice.
I am not looking to put anyone on the spot but if the Fan Forum is in effect a "working committee" with a schedule of agreed meetings with agreed & approved participants, a formal agenda and documented minutes and has no specific terms of reference then any committee member can call for an extraordinary meeting to discuss specific matters of concern.
Other "forum members" then have the opportunity to support or disagree with the proposal.
It does not bind the club to convening such a meeting but by its inclusion in the meeting minutes (to be made public) puts the club on notice an issue has to be addressed. The forum presents the opportunity for multiple matters of concern to be formally documented in such a manner to evidence a formal "public" record of efforts the "fans collective" are making on behalf of their members.
Such inclusion in the minutes means as a permanent record they can be raised in each and every future meeting under either Matters Arising or Outstanding Actions until they are addressed by the club to a level that meets the approval of the "fan collective".
In the event the club formally confirms it will not or gives no evidence it will address the matters of concern the "fan collective" have then to address the value of such dialogue and whether recourse to other courses of action/ communication are necessary.
In terms of personalities I, like so many, am disquieted at both a personal and professional level by the events of recent days but I am not going to castigate the "executive of the day" out of hand "until and unless I have walked in their shoes".
Len Glovers comments (for me) were spot on. Nearly every manager on the planet will know "managing upwards" can on occasion be the most difficult aspect of a job. That is not to challenge the skill set of any individual merely an ability to recognise the need to manage the potential for "executive excess" to create "public" disasters.
I have in my time had the "pleasure" of "sweeping up" before, during and after the efforts of some completely bizarre individuals. Some were brilliant some most definately were not. They do not write such duties in any job description - they come under the heading of learning on the job.
If people can put aside their verbal cudgels, and the club their business egos I consider there is an opportunity for everyone to learn from recent events.
I suggest the overriding concern of many is whether there is a genuine appetite to do so. If there is not. Then we will all very quickly know exactly where we stand.
Thanks for responding, Grapevine. Without re-opening the whole issue, I would say that the FF is an informal group convened or not convened by the club at its discretion.
The minutes on the website evidence that it only met three times in 2014 and once in the near nine months between April 23rd and January 15th, which is bound to limit its role.
Also thanks to @Grapevine49 for once again expressing what I was trying to put across in a far more precise manner!
I also think this debate is healthy and don't view some of the comments as either provocative or creating a 'split' between various groups or factions within the supporter base.
Come off it Henry - it was a point that didn't need labouring and had no relevance to this thread. You know as well as I do that Heather didn't raise it to provoke that discussion. In fairness, you're not alone - this thread really has brought out the very worst of Charlton Life's characters.
As I said, each of these organisations has its place and value. My personal hope is that all fan organisations stop the destructive and frankly petty political in-fights and unite for the greater good. We have more in common than that which separates us.
Seems to me that the FF might be more effective if they worked together better. From reading this thread it seems they are all bickering amongst themselves when it would be far more useful if they found some common ground and pushed the issues as a group rather than each having their own agenda.
I have undoubtedly got this wrong but I am not sure the groups are bickering - I think the only groups offering comments here is razil etc / The CAS Trust and Fanny's lot.
The others are individuals just offering their very important opinion.
Fair enough, if I've got it wrong I apologise. But it certainly looks that way to me.
WCA, I'm about as qualified in subtlety and tact as I am neuroscience but as I see it the 2 formal groups (as above) aren't bickering amongst themselves at all - the non elected internet pirates are the ones playing the prat.
Well this has been an unedifying thread hasn't it. If RD's plan was to divide and conquer, he wouldn't need to bother to do anything - we're plenty good enough to do that among ourselves.
We may not all agree on the benefits of the FF, the Supporters' Trust or anything else. But fundamentally, the FF is the only current formal conduit between fans and club, even if it has a severely constrained remit, and should be respected for that. The Supporters' Trust is trying to ensure that Charlton remains for the fans, and that's something surely we can all support even if we don't want to be a member. Frankly I'm astounded at the puerile nature of much of the criticism of the Trust on this and other threads. If you're going to criticise, at least make sure it's constructive and something valuable. Arguing whether the Trust wants 1 or 4 places on the FF because a member happened to suggest is beyond ridiculous. The stuff of Monty Python (and I'll leave others to decide who the Popular Front is).
Put your fiddles away children, Rome continues to burn around us.
Fair enough, if I've got it wrong I apologise. But it certainly looks that way to me.
WCA, I'm about as qualified in subtlety and tact as I am neuroscience but as I see it the 2 formal groups (as above) aren't bickering amongst themselves at all - the non elected internet pirates are the ones playing the prat.
Edit - having looked at it, it would seem at least one other formal group has been getting involved - the bickering one. Your sentiment of togetherness is a good one but beyond some individual agendas.
And the chair who asked for extra members and the board member who discussed it in a private email. But let's not mention that any more and try and laugh it off.
Point stands. The Trust continues to think it deserves more than the other groups.
Remember when Roland took over and it thought it had a private audience with Richard Murray. The Trust told the other groups they couldnt come to the meeting but could submit questions. So generous of them.
If you dare criticise the Trust then you are told you need psychiatric help. Nice but that's standard Groupthink. Attack the messenger rather than address the point raised.
If you dare criticise the Trust then you are told you need psychiatric help. Nice but that's standard Groupthink. Attack the messenger rather than address the point raised.
anyway, that 5000. Nice round number.
Yes, but I still don't know what the point raised is and you haven't answered my question about what it is you want? Presumably there is some back-story I don't know, because this seems to have more to do with personal rivalry and point scoring than supporter representation at CAFC.
If you dare criticise the Trust then you are told you need psychiatric help. Nice but that's standard Groupthink. Attack the messenger rather than address the point raised.
anyway, that 5000. Nice round number.
Yes, but I still don't know what the point raised is and you haven't answered my question about what it is you want? Presumably there is some back-story I don't know, because this seems to have more to do with personal rivalry and point scoring than supporter representation at CAFC.
The point was and is that many people were happy to criticise the FF when it is the only formal open channel to club staff.
Mostly it was criticised because minutes did not appear the same night as the meeting.
This was all seen as OK.
Then people started to float the idea that the Trust deserved more members and a bigger role.
When I asked "I hope that isn't Trust policy" the trust went on the attack.
Double standard that people can attack the FF but must not criticise the Trust.
OK, apologies to everyone else, but for the very last time, so that everyone else at least is clear:
Despite my location I've been in virtually every Trust meeting in the last year because most of them are on Skype. They even patch me in when they meet in the Beehive. I am also on every email about any significant Trust issue, and that is a lot of emails.
Certainly in the last 12 months and probably longer than that, this issue has never been raised, still less discussed, by anyone on the Trust Board. What you see in this thread is the sum total of the Trust board's interest in the "issue". Zero. When @Addickted says the "debate" is healthy, I'm puzzled because as far as we are concerned there is nothing to debate. One seat per group is just fine by us. As for the "discussion" between @Airman Brown, and I in an email,I repeat, he mentioned it as his opinion, in passing, among a range of topics, and I didn't think it was even worth commenting on, so I didn't. Not because it was silly but simply because there are far more important things to discuss, and you know, like all of us I have a day job.
Sorry again to all, I promised I would say no more on the subject. I'm saying it one more time mainly for the benefit of @Uboat and others who wonder what it is all about. Frankly, I wish I decking knew.
If anyone else thinks we have a "challenge" to face, again as I said above, do PM me or @razil, but lets not clog up threads with senseless bickering over a monstrous irrelevance.
Personally I don't think a week is too long for publication.
I was shocked to hear that it's the East Stand that keeps running out of Bovril and not the West! I can only assume that they haven't taken proper account of the demographics of "A" block......
Comments
We may not all agree on the benefits of the FF, the Supporters' Trust or anything else. But fundamentally, the FF is the only current formal conduit between fans and club, even if it has a severely constrained remit, and should be respected for that. The Supporters' Trust is trying to ensure that Charlton remains for the fans, and that's something surely we can all support even if we don't want to be a member. Frankly I'm astounded at the puerile nature of much of the criticism of the Trust on this and other threads. If you're going to criticise, at least make sure it's constructive and something valuable. Arguing whether the Trust wants 1 or 4 places on the FF because a member happened to suggest is beyond ridiculous. The stuff of Monty Python (and I'll leave others to decide who the Popular Front is).
Put your fiddles away children, Rome continues to burn around us.
I was living in hope someone might answer the question for me, maybe they have and I missed it.
I have no wish to be controversial or disrespect the efforts of others but the best way I can answer his question is, if there are no strict terms of reference, supporters have a body of representation participating in an "open" forum with the club through which to channel their concerns.
Which "representative" channel to the forum a supporter decides to use is a matter of personal choice.
I am not looking to put anyone on the spot but if the Fan Forum is in effect a "working committee" with a schedule of agreed meetings with agreed & approved participants, a formal agenda and documented minutes and has no specific terms of reference then any committee member can call for an extraordinary meeting to discuss specific matters of concern.
Other "forum members" then have the opportunity to support or disagree with the proposal.
It does not bind the club to convening such a meeting but by its inclusion in the meeting minutes (to be made public) puts the club on notice an issue has to be addressed. The forum presents the opportunity for multiple matters of concern to be formally documented in such a manner to evidence a formal "public" record of efforts the "fans collective" are making on behalf of their members.
Such inclusion in the minutes means as a permanent record they can be raised in each and every future meeting under either Matters Arising or Outstanding Actions until they are addressed by the club to a level that meets the approval of the "fan collective".
In the event the club formally confirms it will not or gives no evidence it will address the matters of concern the "fan collective" have then to address the value of such dialogue and whether recourse to other courses of action/ communication are necessary.
In terms of personalities I, like so many, am disquieted at both a personal and professional level by the events of recent days but I am not going to castigate the "executive of the day" out of hand "until and unless I have walked in their shoes".
Len Glovers comments (for me) were spot on. Nearly every manager on the planet will know "managing upwards" can on occasion be the most difficult aspect of a job. That is not to challenge the skill set of any individual merely an ability to recognise the need to manage the potential for "executive excess" to create "public" disasters.
I have in my time had the "pleasure" of "sweeping up" before, during and after the efforts of some completely bizarre individuals. Some were brilliant some most definately were not. They do not write such duties in any job description - they come under the heading of learning on the job.
If people can put aside their verbal cudgels, and the club their business egos I consider there is an opportunity for everyone to learn from recent events.
I suggest the overriding concern of many is whether there is a genuine appetite to do so. If there is not. Then we will all very quickly know exactly where we stand.
The minutes on the website evidence that it only met three times in 2014 and once in the near nine months between April 23rd and January 15th, which is bound to limit its role.
Also thanks to @Grapevine49 for once again expressing what I was trying to put across in a far more precise manner!
I also think this debate is healthy and don't view some of the comments as either provocative or creating a 'split' between various groups or factions within the supporter base.
It seems it is OK to slate and cast doubts about one fans grouping (the fans forum) but don't ever criticise the Trust in the slightest.
remember it wasn't me who raised the issue of multiple trust membership of the FF.
back the multiple memberships and the 5000
As I said, each of these organisations has its place and value. My personal hope is that all fan organisations stop the destructive and frankly petty political in-fights and unite for the greater good. We have more in common than that which separates us.
The others are individuals just offering their very important opinion.
Upper Silesia,
And an ice cream
Point stands. The Trust continues to think it deserves more than the other groups.
Remember when Roland took over and it thought it had a private audience with Richard Murray. The Trust told the other groups they couldnt come to the meeting but could submit questions. So generous of them.
If you dare criticise the Trust then you are told you need psychiatric help. Nice but that's standard Groupthink. Attack the messenger rather than address the point raised.
anyway, that 5000. Nice round number.
I assumed you were.
Mostly it was criticised because minutes did not appear the same night as the meeting.
This was all seen as OK.
Then people started to float the idea that the Trust deserved more members and a bigger role.
When I asked "I hope that isn't Trust policy" the trust went on the attack.
Double standard that people can attack the FF but must not criticise the Trust.
Despite my location I've been in virtually every Trust meeting in the last year because most of them are on Skype. They even patch me in when they meet in the Beehive. I am also on every email about any significant Trust issue, and that is a lot of emails.
Certainly in the last 12 months and probably longer than that, this issue has never been raised, still less discussed, by anyone on the Trust Board. What you see in this thread is the sum total of the Trust board's interest in the "issue". Zero. When @Addickted says the "debate" is healthy, I'm puzzled because as far as we are concerned there is nothing to debate. One seat per group is just fine by us. As for the "discussion" between @Airman Brown, and I in an email,I repeat, he mentioned it as his opinion, in passing, among a range of topics, and I didn't think it was even worth commenting on, so I didn't. Not because it was silly but simply because there are far more important things to discuss, and you know, like all of us I have a day job.
Sorry again to all, I promised I would say no more on the subject. I'm saying it one more time mainly for the benefit of @Uboat and others who wonder what it is all about. Frankly, I wish I decking knew.
If anyone else thinks we have a "challenge" to face, again as I said above, do PM me or @razil, but lets not clog up threads with senseless bickering over a monstrous irrelevance.
Personally I don't think a week is too long for publication.
I was shocked to hear that it's the East Stand that keeps running out of Bovril and not the West! I can only assume that they haven't taken proper account of the demographics of "A" block......
"East stand keeps running out of Bovril"
Jesus Christ, no wonder they can't be published straight away...
Bovril should have been redacted.
Good to see that important issues are being addressed.