I suppose it is understandable to be paranoid about all the Trust ruffians turning up and turning the meeting into a Watford train like slanging match, especially in the pre winning run context of when the meeting was set up. We have a heady mixture of etiquette, decorum, respect, fear, eggshells, protocol, and propriety it seems. I think it is sad that any mis information couldn't have been set right as a point of order, but these are the times we live in. It was a Bromley meeting, and in that context they are entitled to do exactly what they like, much like Roland can do what he likes with the club.
Initial thought is that she could have been better informed about the open meeting yes 'instigated' by the Trust, but not organised as an anti owner meeting. She has got that wrong, but if that is her perception then there is nothing to be done about that. I don't know if there was any discussion regarding attendances, but from the reports here mentioning respect and disrespect, I get the impression that because it is Roland's money, there remains a bit of a notion that fans ought to be not only realistic, but grateful and deferential. I was not at the meeting but I would have been tempted to press Katrien on the concept of 'my way or the highway' position which threads back to the Evening Standard article. It is nice to hear about Katriens affection for the club, and for those who encounter Katrien they, for the most part, develop an affection for her which is no surprise because on a personal level she is very charming indeed.
She is not alone in that perception, rightly or wrongly a lot of people see the recent Trust activity as at the very least aggressive towards both Katrien and Roland.
We are winning, we have a much improved team and now it would seem much improved communication; including assurances that we will try to retain squad players and improve over the summer with potential for quality Christmas signings to push us into the play offs if not better.
Would be nice if everyone put the chest thumping on hold and enjoy the ride, with perhaps at least a little optimism that it might just all work out well.
Aggressive at the least? And what at the most?
Personally I am enjoying the wins, and the prospect of a training ground development, but not enjoying the rest of it, and certainly optimism is a capricious companion at the moment. We have a splintered situation presently where each constituency seeming to say that unless you see things my way then you are out of order, and indeed somewhat threatening.
Very disappointing how a really good evening has deteriorated into internecine warfare and point scoring. I would suggest that all parties step back take a deep breath and look forward to forthcoming wins over Blackburn, Blackpool and Reading
well said Kap, just what I said but for more eloquent
What worried me about this is that when I clicked it an ad came up telling me that Russian women want me!!! Maybe they should have been invited to Bromley!
Would like to be a fly on the wall at the next Trust Board Meeting, with a new chair, where they may discuss the perceptions of CAFC supporters for and against
Would it represent a triumph for some, a victory if the Trust was disbanded? Maybe getting rid of the Trust is high up on some agendas, then again maybe some see the Trust as an irrelevance and that it will achieve nothing and wither on the vine. Having said that I didn't know I had a representative on the safety committee, but I do know who represents Trust members, so I have more faith that the Trust might voice my concerns than my hitherto mystery safety committee representative.
Would it represent a triumph for some, a victory if the Trust was disbanded? Maybe getting rid of the Trust is high up on some agendas, then again maybe some see the Trust as an irrelevance and that it will achieve nothing and wither on the vine. Having said that I didn't know I had a representative on the safety committee, but I do know who represents Trust members, so I have more faith that the Trust might voice my concerns than my hitherto mystery safety committee representative.
Voicing your concerns is currently outweighed by the Club not wanting to hear them from the Trust. The Trust really needs to find a way to get listened to and forget other objectives until this is achieved
Initial thought is that she could have been better informed about the open meeting yes 'instigated' by the Trust, but not organised as an anti owner meeting. She has got that wrong, but if that is her perception then there is nothing to be done about that. I don't know if there was any discussion regarding attendances, but from the reports here mentioning respect and disrespect, I get the impression that because it is Roland's money, there remains a bit of a notion that fans ought to be not only realistic, but grateful and deferential. I was not at the meeting but I would have been tempted to press Katrien on the concept of 'my way or the highway' position which threads back to the Evening Standard article. It is nice to hear about Katriens affection for the club, and for those who encounter Katrien they, for the most part, develop an affection for her which is no surprise because on a personal level she is very charming indeed.
She is not alone in that perception, rightly or wrongly a lot of people see the recent Trust activity as at the very least aggressive towards both Katrien and Roland.
We are winning, we have a much improved team and now it would seem much improved communication; including assurances that we will try to retain squad players and improve over the summer with potential for quality Christmas signings to push us into the play offs if not better.
Would be nice if everyone put the chest thumping on hold and enjoy the ride, with perhaps at least a little optimism that it might just all work out well.
Aggressive at the least? And what at the most?
Personally I am enjoying the wins, and the prospect of a training ground development, but not enjoying the rest of it, and certainly optimism is a capricious companion at the moment. We have a splintered situation presently where each constituency seeming to say that unless you see things my way then you are out of order, and indeed somewhat threatening.
At the most - Campaign to change current ownership. Nothing against the trust per se, just don't think its played the best of hands lately.
Glad you are enjoying the wins and youth development.
Would it represent a triumph for some, a victory if the Trust was disbanded? Maybe getting rid of the Trust is high up on some agendas, then again maybe some see the Trust as an irrelevance and that it will achieve nothing and wither on the vine. Having said that I didn't know I had a representative on the safety committee, but I do know who represents Trust members, so I have more faith that the Trust might voice my concerns than my hitherto mystery safety committee representative.
Would it represent a triumph for some, a victory if the Trust was disbanded? Maybe getting rid of the Trust is high up on some agendas, then again maybe some see the Trust as an irrelevance and that it will achieve nothing and wither on the vine. Having said that I didn't know I had a representative on the safety committee, but I do know who represents Trust members, so I have more faith that the Trust might voice my concerns than my hitherto mystery safety committee representative.
Two fans reps on the group and a disabled fans rep.
But then I don't send out newsletters, emails or hold meetings.
Any H&S issues you would like raised then please let me know and I will raise them.
Its 2years since that thread was last active. So it is quiet easy to understand people have forgotten about SAG. Anyway one of the biggest issues has still not been addressed. Sorry back to the Club/Trust infight.
Oh dear, I'm sorry to say I'm finding this all most confusing.
Would it be possible, do you think, that for the rest of the day we consider the opposition to be wearing blue and white shirts, not red ones, and in the meantime you agree your considerable common ground, isolate your modest differences and transfer them to a more suitable location (possibly where the sun shineth not).
Year on realise the mistakes of early on. GL has said that Champ = top 5/6 in belgium and KM tells owner that. Assess if players will adapt to English football ie JBG. Looking for more Eng experience or adaptability. have learnt that.
In an attempt to draw the fire of the anti-trust passive minority ;-) I wondered what the reaction to the above (in bold) was/is ? Surely CP, JR and BP would have told the owner this so why does GL (and KM) need to repeat it. Could it be RD is slow at taking on contra messages, or perhaps prefers to go first with his knowledge of football or even the voices in his other ear have continued to give a different view ?
I am a member of the trust albeit a very dormant one. I like its fundamental principle in the same way I am a member of the National Trust. I am a member of Bromley addicks and was there on Thursday. It was a very good evening and km shared as much if not more info than our much loved Richard Murray had done in the past. Although this forum is excellent in sharing the message this thread has gone off on tangents that don't reflect the good feeling that was in that room and the very positive feeling there is for the future. Over my 40 yrs of supporting the club my favourite years like so many others was the Richard Murray era when as a small shareholder we also got to attend those meetings too. But that is in the past. Football clubs and the ownership of them in 2015 in the prem and championship is madness. I for one feel we could do a lot worse than Rro Land and Km and perhaps it's time to give them credit for what they are doing.
Forget the points scoring, (can we leave that to our team)
As a individual who has over stepped the mark on occasions, and even when i made my return to Bromley addicks with Ben and Damien, My hectoring style was not right, and after being shown a yellow card realized that i would need to leave my soapbox at home !
The reason the Meeting went so well in my opinion, was it was individuals asking questions,finding out about the woman behind the CEO Title. That was why i asked the question about did she realize what she was letting herself in for taking the Job with the highs and lows of football. Katrien then revealed she loves her job and CAFC even with the lows. That terrible week when she had the opposite of the Midas touch, might just be the making of her. (you learn more from defeats than victories ?)
Even thou i thought we might need to by pass KM at one time, i now feel we need to have her on board, because Roland does not do dialogue. so we need the football fan that Katrien is to battle it out with Katrien the CEO ?
I hope Kat the football fan wins and we do get the cream.
I joined the Trust and have renewed .I attended the public meeting but left early because I could not see what could be usefully achieved . I went to show solidarity and demonstrate that I care about the future of the club .
The key relationship for us is with Katrien . I have been impressed to see her regularly on crowded trains and she does not ignore people when they approach her .I agree that the Bromley meeting sounds as though it was much more effective in influencing the new regime .
I also enjoy Voice of the Valley and believe it has its place as a campaigning fanzine .It is important to ensure that the club's owners are accountable . Weegie's Chris Powell interview would have been a perfect article for it . My problem was that it appeared in the Trust News on the day Powell returned as manager of Huddersfield .
I was hoping that the setting up of the Trust was going to be the unifying group which brought all of us together. It appears to be becoming just another faction , which is a shame in my view .
Bickering aside, it is clear that The CEO of the club has little time for The Trust.
Could be two reasons for that ?
One of the guys giving out leaflets said come along to the meeting to help get rid of Roland. (that's not how it panned out on the night)
Maybe we should by pass Katrien and reach RD through Murray. ( i was siding towards this view)
If you heard this feedback, in her position the Trust would be the Enemy within, yet the truth appears to me that they had the best intentions but some how they scored an OG with the CEO.
Forget the points scoring, (can we leave that to our team)
As a individual who has over stepped the mark on occasions, and even when i made my return to Bromley addicks with Ben and Damien, My hectoring style was not right, and after being shown a yellow card realized that i would need to leave my soapbox at home !
The reason the Meeting went so well in my opinion, was it was individuals asking questions,finding out about the woman behind the CEO Title. That was why i asked the question about did she realize what she was letting herself in for taking the Job with the highs and lows of football. Katrien then revealed she loves her job and CAFC even with the lows. That terrible week when she had the opposite of the Midas touch, might just be the making of her. (you learn more from defeats than victories ?)
Even thou i thought we might need to by pass KM at one time, i now feel we need to have her on board, because Roland does not do dialogue. so we need the football fan that Katrien is to battle it out with Katrien the CEO ?
I hope Kat the football fan wins and we do get the cream.
Just to build on this and I am not sure if it has been covered, KM covered RD's personality a little bit, she said that he was reserved and enjoyed coming to London because no one recognised him, he liked to keep a low profile, he had also had a bad experience with Liege fans. At this point she also mentioned that when getting his rtcket for the Underground he called her to finds out whether to buy a daily or weekly ticket. ( Ithink the last bit was covered above).
Year on realise the mistakes of early on. GL has said that Champ = top 5/6 in belgium and KM tells owner that. Assess if players will adapt to English football ie JBG. Looking for more Eng experience or adaptability. have learnt that.
In an attempt to draw the fire of the anti-trust passive minority ;-) I wondered what the reaction to the above (in bold) was/is ? Surely CP, JR and BP would have told the owner this so why does GL (and KM) need to repeat it. Could it be RD is slow at taking on contra messages, or perhaps prefers to go first with his knowledge of football or even the voices in his other ear have continued to give a different view ?
I think this seen out of context looks more sinister than it is. KM was putting the Championship in context and how thye all had misjudged it at the begining, I don't feel that RD has only juts realsied since GL arrived.
I think that it is a shame that a group of Charlton Supporters (does not matter whether it is Bromley or any other group), have a meeting with one of the most important people (yes she is) at our club, ask her questions and then report the replies to the rest of us who live too far away to attend. What happens, it sounds more like a meeting between the Tories and Dems trying to make new laws. Why can't people read the report and take in the information given, except it is not a perfect world, but we are all supposed to be Charlton supporters, stop all the ridiculous arguing about whether the Trust is right or wrong, which group is best and get on with supporting our club, which at the moment (if you hadn't noticed) is doing quite well. Thank you for any group that meets with KM or any other club representative, including players, and brings the information to the rest of us on here. I may not always agree with the report, but I am certainly not going to have a moan about the person who wrote it.
Year on realise the mistakes of early on. GL has said that Champ = top 5/6 in belgium and KM tells owner that. Assess if players will adapt to English football ie JBG. Looking for more Eng experience or adaptability. have learnt that.
In an attempt to draw the fire of the anti-trust passive minority ;-) I wondered what the reaction to the above (in bold) was/is ? Surely CP, JR and BP would have told the owner this so why does GL (and KM) need to repeat it. Could it be RD is slow at taking on contra messages, or perhaps prefers to go first with his knowledge of football or even the voices in his other ear have continued to give a different view ?
I think this seen out of context looks more sinister than it is. KM was putting the Championship in context and how thye all had misjudged it at the begining, I don't feel that RD has only juts realsied since GL arrived.
Thanks Kap, it was the context I was interested in.
I went to the Bromley meeting, go to all the meetings, and had a another good evening. I really liked Katrien and listened intently to what she said. I find it rather sad that everyone is having a go at one another, we are all Charlton fans.
Thanks to all for the very interesting reports and feedback on the meeting. The acid test will be if and when we receive concrete offers for our best players but some encouraging and reassuring noises are being, so that's all to the good.
As to the rest of the thread, I confess to being a little baffled by the criticism of the Trust. A month ago they were being quite rightly congratulated for facilitating the meeting in Woolwich, whilst their subsequent communications have been both temperate and constructive. What has changed since then ? The impression is that some of the underlying politics and agendas - which I neither understand nor wish to - would not be out of place in House of Cards. In terms of constructive communication with the club, it cannot be helpful to give the (false) impression that the support base is somehow riven by factions - leaving aside the fact that it's all a little tedious.
My thanks to the those contributing their "reports" on what sounds as if it was a very positive evening.
Though I appreciate the efforts of any party who seeks to act in the interest of the club, after 15 tiring years of sitting on/ working with various sports club committees, I am not a member of any supporter "group". I have therefore no interest in participating in any supporter group "pissing contest". I left the "my gang" is better/ bigger/ smarter/ etc., debate in the school playground many, many decades ago.
I am interested in seeing the best possible engagement between supporters and the club in the interest of a creative and constructive dialogue. I am very happy for the Bromley group to spend their time and effort in organising a meeting with the club executive which it seems went very well. I am chuffed for them and it is heartening such reasonable dialogue can be held.
However while I reiterate I am not a member of the trust and I am not privy to any of the interaction between them and the club if the CEO has taken offence at any of their actions I have to suggest it is often wise to try to understand why they took such actions.
If they sought to go over the head of the CEO then the CEO needs to ask herself why? Rather than challenge how many other clubs' supporters demanded to see their owners why not reflect on the supporters interaction with the previous regimes in place at Charlton, one of which involved the author of the excellent summary of the evenings events.
Rather than dismiss what "from arms length" appeared to a democratically held public fans' meeting as simply anti-Duchatelet a wiser approach would be to understand the rationale behind it to diffuse any misconceptions that may have arisen. Such events do not occur for no reason, a more experienced approach would be to secure a better understanding of the cause and effect dynamic involved. It is too simplistic to do otherwise.
In terms of respect, would it not also be respectful to recognise, just like those in East Kent, Bromley and elsewhere, a) under the Trust another group of people have chosen to give up their free time and expended effort in support of something they also hold very dear b) this group as an organisation have a mandate to represent the interests of their members which will by its nature cover a very broad church.
As I believe I have reflected on before respect is a two way street.
I have no problem with a perspective which asks people "to move on" in terms of certain aspects of the performance of the executive of the club. If it is a genuine and legitimate approach then surely any failure to do so in respect of the past actions of the Trust seems not only more than a little churlish, but a clear example of double standards.
The Trust is an organisation representing supporters of the club. They may not represent you, they do not represent me, but no matter the numbers involved those supporters they do represent are entitled to have their views heard as much as anybody else.
I can but repeat it is heartening a reasonable dialogue can be established with certain strands of the supporter base. It is to be applauded.
Comments
It was a Bromley meeting, and in that context they are entitled to do exactly what they like, much like Roland can do what he likes with the club.
Personally I am enjoying the wins, and the prospect of a training ground development, but not enjoying the rest of it, and certainly optimism is a capricious companion at the moment. We have a splintered situation presently where each constituency seeming to say that unless you see things my way then you are out of order, and indeed somewhat threatening.
Maybe getting rid of the Trust is high up on some agendas, then again maybe some see the Trust as an irrelevance and that it will achieve nothing and wither on the vine.
Having said that I didn't know I had a representative on the safety committee, but I do know who represents Trust members, so I have more faith that the Trust might voice my concerns than my hitherto mystery safety committee representative.
Glad you are enjoying the wins and youth development.
Two fans reps on the group and a disabled fans rep.
But then I don't send out newsletters, emails or hold meetings.
Any H&S issues you would like raised then please let me know and I will raise them.
Private Godfrey here ....
Oh dear, I'm sorry to say I'm finding this all most confusing.
Would it be possible, do you think, that for the rest of the day we consider the opposition to be wearing blue and white shirts, not red ones, and in the meantime you agree your considerable common ground, isolate your modest differences and transfer them to a more suitable location (possibly where the sun shineth not).
Thank you so much.
I am a member of Bromley addicks and was there on Thursday. It was a very good evening and km shared as much if not more info than our much loved Richard Murray had done in the past.
Although this forum is excellent in sharing the message this thread has gone off on tangents that don't reflect the good feeling that was in that room and the very positive feeling there is for the future. Over my 40 yrs of supporting the club my favourite years like so many others was the Richard Murray era when as a small shareholder we also got to attend those meetings too. But that is in the past. Football clubs and the ownership of them in 2015 in the prem and championship is madness. I for one feel we could do a lot worse than Rro Land and Km and perhaps it's time to give them credit for what they are doing.
As a individual who has over stepped the mark on occasions,
and even when i made my return to Bromley addicks with Ben and Damien,
My hectoring style was not right, and after being shown a yellow card realized that i would need to leave my soapbox at home !
The reason the Meeting went so well in my opinion, was it was individuals asking questions,finding out about the woman behind the CEO Title.
That was why i asked the question about did she realize what she was letting herself in for taking the Job with the highs and lows of football.
Katrien then revealed she loves her job and CAFC even with the lows.
That terrible week when she had the opposite of the Midas touch, might just be the making of her. (you learn more from defeats than victories ?)
Even thou i thought we might need to by pass KM at one time, i now feel we need to have her on board, because Roland does not do dialogue. so we need the football fan that Katrien is to battle it out with Katrien the CEO ?
I hope Kat the football fan wins and we do get the cream.
The key relationship for us is with Katrien . I have been impressed to see her regularly on crowded trains and she does not ignore people when they approach her .I agree that the Bromley meeting sounds as though it was much more effective in influencing the new regime .
I also enjoy Voice of the Valley and believe it has its place as a campaigning fanzine .It is important to ensure that the club's owners are accountable . Weegie's Chris Powell interview would have been a perfect article for it . My problem was that it appeared in the Trust News on the day Powell returned as manager of Huddersfield .
I was hoping that the setting up of the Trust was going to be the unifying group which brought all of us together. It appears to be becoming just another faction , which is a shame in my view .
One of the guys giving out leaflets said come along to the meeting to help get rid of Roland. (that's not how it panned out on the night)
Maybe we should by pass Katrien and reach RD through Murray.
( i was siding towards this view)
If you heard this feedback, in her position the Trust would be the Enemy within,
yet the truth appears to me that they had the best intentions but some how they scored an OG with the CEO.
I think this seen out of context looks more sinister than it is. KM was putting the Championship in context and how thye all had misjudged it at the begining, I don't feel that RD has only juts realsied since GL arrived.
As to the rest of the thread, I confess to being a little baffled by the criticism of the Trust. A month ago they were being quite rightly congratulated for facilitating the meeting in Woolwich, whilst their subsequent communications have been both temperate and constructive. What has changed since then ? The impression is that some of the underlying politics and agendas - which I neither understand nor wish to - would not be out of place in House of Cards. In terms of constructive communication with the club, it cannot be helpful to give the (false) impression that the support base is somehow riven by factions - leaving aside the fact that it's all a little tedious.
Though I appreciate the efforts of any party who seeks to act in the interest of the club, after 15 tiring years of sitting on/ working with various sports club committees, I am not a member of any supporter "group". I have therefore no interest in participating in any supporter group "pissing contest". I left the "my gang" is better/ bigger/ smarter/ etc., debate in the school playground many, many decades ago.
I am interested in seeing the best possible engagement between supporters and the club in the interest of a creative and constructive dialogue. I am very happy for the Bromley group to spend their time and effort in organising a meeting with the club executive which it seems went very well. I am chuffed for them and it is heartening such reasonable dialogue can be held.
However while I reiterate I am not a member of the trust and I am not privy to any of the interaction between them and the club if the CEO has taken offence at any of their actions I have to suggest it is often wise to try to understand why they took such actions.
If they sought to go over the head of the CEO then the CEO needs to ask herself why? Rather than challenge how many other clubs' supporters demanded to see their owners why not reflect on the supporters interaction with the previous regimes in place at Charlton, one of which involved the author of the excellent summary of the evenings events.
Rather than dismiss what "from arms length" appeared to a democratically held public fans' meeting as simply anti-Duchatelet a wiser approach would be to understand the rationale behind it to diffuse any misconceptions that may have arisen. Such events do not occur for no reason, a more experienced approach would be to secure a better understanding of the cause and effect dynamic involved. It is too simplistic to do otherwise.
In terms of respect, would it not also be respectful to recognise, just like those in East Kent, Bromley and elsewhere, a) under the Trust another group of people have chosen to give up their free time and expended effort in support of something they also hold very dear b) this group as an organisation have a mandate to represent the interests of their members which will by its nature cover a very broad church.
As I believe I have reflected on before respect is a two way street.
I have no problem with a perspective which asks people "to move on" in terms of certain aspects of the performance of the executive of the club. If it is a genuine and legitimate approach then surely any failure to do so in respect of the past actions of the Trust seems not only more than a little churlish, but a clear example of double standards.
The Trust is an organisation representing supporters of the club. They may not represent you, they do not represent me, but no matter the numbers involved those supporters they do represent are entitled to have their views heard as much as anybody else.
I can but repeat it is heartening a reasonable dialogue can be established with certain strands of the supporter base. It is to be applauded.
Long may it continue and EXPAND!