In the past Trust reps have been allowed in to all meetings, as we often have a stall and not normally about membership fee. Ken mentioned to me something was said about a point of order because something inaccurate was said. I can see Bromleys point of view but also agree that it sounds a bit 'East Kent', being members in advance and all that seemed a bit off, altho I expect there were good reasons and intentions behind it, I think East Kent also did this so it sounds a bit like trying to stop people turning up to steer the debate, and protect the speaker a bit, although a strong chair could do this.
And Yes clem I am defensive because people seem to take any example often that they didn't actually witness, and often heresay as an opportunity to put the boot in because it fits their own already held views, I suspect you didn't witness that one event? nor were you at the meeting. Anyway my bad if I am defensive, I hope you can see the reasons. People shouting down with Belgiums is not Trust policy, and never anything we've said, we can't control each individual helper, but as Nigel will tell you I have twice collared him about trying to stay on message not for sying that I might add, its not easy when people are passionate fans not robots, and not easy to do when people are grafting for nowt.
The public meeting was far longer than the video and as anyone would know who attended the overall tone, wasn't what some would have you believe. Nor was the way it was billed, perhaps the Trust didn't communicate that well enough, its a tricky one trying to give fans a voice and people seeing it as the Trusts point of view. One one hand we get accused of trying to represent everyone, on the other hand that we don't articulate our own view, tricky circle to square in my view. Perhaps I could have taken more of a role in the debate, we were however looking for it be a fan meeting not a Trust says this meeting so I took a low profile.
Ben, yes we did want you on the Board why not you have clear talents, same goes for a number of others AFKA included.
The KM thing is a shame, but lets look at facts. The Trust approached her for discussion (not the owner) she declined saying she had nothing more to add, everything else flowed from her action. We didn't ask her not to speak to anyone else. Perhaps our communication could have been better, but I hope she will reconsider and look back on that moment, because it was a genuine concern about the direction the club was travelling in relation to long term alienation of the fanbase.
In the past Trust reps have been allowed in to all meetings, as we often have a stall and not normally about membership fee. Ken mentioned to me something was said about a point of order because something inaccurate was said. I can see Bromleys point of view but also agree that it sounds a bit 'East Kent', being members in advance and all that seemed a bit off, altho I expect there were good reasons and intentions behind it, I think East Kent also did this so it sounds a bit like trying to stop people turning up to steer the debate, and protect the speaker a bit, although a strong chair could do this.
And Yes clem I am defensive because people seem to take any example often that they didn't actually witness, and often heresay as an opportunity to put the boot in because it fits their own already held views, I suspect you didn't witness that one event? nor were you at the meeting. Anyway my bad if I am defensive, I hope you can see the reasons. People shouting down with Belgiums is not Trust policy, and never anything we've said, we can't control each individual helper, but as Nigel will tell you I have twice collared him about trying to stay on message not for sying that I might add, its not easy when people are passionate fans not robots, and not easy to do when people are grafting for nowt.
The public meeting was far longer than the video and as anyone would know who attended the overall tone, wasn't what some would have you believe. Nor was the way it was billed, perhaps the Trust didn't communicate that well enough, its a tricky one trying to give fans a voice and people seeing it as the Trusts point of view. One one hand we get accused of trying to represent everyone, on the other hand that we don't articulate our own view, tricky circle to square in my view. Perhaps I could have taken more of a role in the debate, we were however looking for it be a fan meeting not a Trust says this meeting so I took a low profile.
Ben, yes we did want you on the Board why not you have clear talents, same goes for a number of others AFKA included.
The KM thing is a shame, but lets look at facts. The Trust approached her for discussion (not the owner) she declined saying she had nothing more to add, everything else flowed from her action. We didn't ask her not to speak to anyone else. Perhaps our communication could have been better, but I hope she will reconsider and look back on that moment, because it was a genuine concern about the direction the club was travelling in relation to long term alienation of the fanbase.
Sorry Razil I've got to pick you up on this.
East Kent made no secret that the members only was to ensure that all members could attend in a limited numbers venue. East Kent has a decent membership and there were concerns that those that have supported the events both in attendance and financially would have to be turned away - especially as it was believed that KM could be a big draw at this point in time. I asked if my Dad could come along and was told that he couldn't because he was it a member - it had nothing to do with concerns about him giving KM a hard time.
So you are correct that the attendance was limited to members that had joined before the event was announced but you have guessed and, in effect, accused them of some kind of conspiracy and I think you should acknowledge that.
Secondly, Bromley made it clear that you could not join on the night but could do so up to the day before and I believe that there were new members there. The fact that this made the event cost £5 for entry (for non-members) should not have been sufficient to discourage someone that wanted to come and ask the kind of questions that you've suggested were being prevented.
I think that you have failed to understand the friendly atmosphere at these two events and the fact that people chose not to ask the questions that you seem to think we're missing rather than them being told not to.
Thirdly, and, in my view, most significantly, the question (well statement, really) that caused all this fuss was not even aimed at the Trust. There was no mention of the Trust and when Ken asked if he could just respond to it he had clearly made an incorrect assumption that it was an attack on the Trust - which it most certainly was not!
@razil I find your comment "being members in advance seems a bit off" a tad strange. After all, do you not need to be a member of the trust to go to their AGM??
no thats about voting rights so that people can't just turn up and join and expect to vote, normal meetings are join on the night. I'm not making a big deal on this just echoing concern mentioned by others, bottom line is its up to EK (altho they tell me no amount of advertising every brings more fans to their meetings so) and BA to run their own affairs as they say fit, as I said I expect they had their rightful reasons.
So do you have to join on the night to enter the meeting??
I know BA used to operate a 'join on the night' policy and indeed many did join not soon after they announced that KM was going to be a guest, me included. Maybe one of there committee can explain more accurately.
So do you have to join on the night to enter the meeting??
I know BA used to operate a 'join on the night' policy and indeed many did join not soon after they announced that KM was going to be a guest, me included. Maybe one of there committee can explain more accurately.
At the end of the day, it's BA gig and BA rules
I agree and I respect that.
Trust AGM its purely about that you can not vote unless you have been a member for a period of time, its in the rules I think handed down. As for join on the night generally thats always been available.
As far as I'm aware (being a member for years), Bromley meetings are members only. However, you can usually, pay on the night and it's quite relaxed. I presume, the KM meeting, was pay in advance, to ensure that the maximum numbers, were known in advance, as the Con Club certainly couldn't hold say 200+ people.
As far as I'm aware (being a member for years), Bromley meetings are members only. However, you can usually, pay on the night and it's quite relaxed. I presume, the KM meeting, was pay in advance, to ensure that the maximum numbers, were known in advance, as the Con Club certainly couldn't hold say 200+ people.
Without ploughing through all the pre meeting correspondence / posting, I believe that Bromley Addicks clearly stated that because they expected a large turnout for this meeting hence they would not accept membership application or renewal on the night.
I've kept out of this, but am grateful to Henry and others for their account of the meeting. On a small point of fact in Razil's post the video covers 90 minutes of the meeting and not the last half hour, which is unfortunate but due to battery life rather than any desire to be selective. However, I think the 90 minutes is a fair representation.
In many respects I think Katien Meire comes out of her public appearances well, although talks a certain amount of rot which goes unchallenged. From the beginning, for whatever reason, she has avoided any dialogue with supporters and staff previously involved in running the club from Peter Varney and Steve Kavanagh down. Indeed there is a whole saga of people trying to set up contacts with Varney on her behalf and instigation and then withdrawing them. I have seen Richard Murray's hand in this at times, but she is quite capable of making her own choices so I think she must be regarded as responsible. The Trust, with no disrespect, is at the end of that line, but the question would be why would you not want to understand what all of these people know about the business, because clearly in Varney's case it is a great deal?
The counter-argument might be that from 2006-2012 they oversaw the decline of the club, which in my view is unfair because that decline was really dictated by football decisions. However, for better or worse the person most responsible for the mistakes made is the current chairman, which is not intended to open a debate about RM, who in my view remains in credit overall, but make the point that this explanation would not stand up.
So although KM herself acknowledged to me that there is a big knowledge gap within the club, she has also been determined not to listen to those who could help close it. Now you can say that she and RD have been criticised by some of the people concerned, possibly from the Powell sacking onwards, but those offers were on the table from the outset and she knows that. Using the meeting as a reason not to engage with the Trust is a bit flimsy on that basis - it's been her policy from the beginning not to engage seriously.
As to whether a desire to meet the owner is unreasonable or disrespectful to her, let's consider who attended these meetings from, say, 1995 to 2010, because it was much more often the owner than the chief executive - even though the RM board was much less hands on than RD appears to be.
She positions herself as the decision maker, which may or may not be true, but then says of Riga - if I recall accurately - that she can't be expected to know RD's mind from day to day. That's why I simply don't believe that she appointed Guy Luzon and to be honest I'd be concerned if she did, as I'd expect the owner to appoint the manager, whether in consultation with other directors or not. She may not be a puppet, but clearly she is very dependent on RD's patronage for her position because she would not get a similar job elsewhere if he decided to replace her. That, I think, is why she is here, as well as having other qualities that are more visible.
The main characteristic of the regime for me has been naivety. I suspect it was naive - or reckless - over due diligence, over the quality needed for the Championship, possibly over FFP, over season ticket sales and revenue last year, and I strongly suspect it is now over the training ground development, over growth in attendances going forward and what can be done with the shop.
This is more visible to fans at a lower level of operation in things like the programme sales, the comms around the Luzon appointment, the season ticket publicity this year, the Millwall ticket priorities and not managing the PR firm properly.
That doesn't mean there haven't been good things done and of course we all fit what we see into the narrative that suits ourselves, me included.
There are a number of other issues around player purchase and team selection that interest fans but which they can't reasonably expect to influence and never have - even so they do affect perceptions of trust.
Since we're not going down, a clear credit, the opportunity is there for KM to be inclusve and break down the apparent divisions. She won't do it with a slogan and if she won't do it at all, even at the level of the Trust, then I'd have to assume it's because she thinks they can add no value to the business at all, which is not just arrogant but simply wrong.
It makes sense to me that it was a members meeting, and this time membership in advance. It helps keep numbers proportional to the venue, and helps keep people like me from turning up on impulse and possibly hijacking the meeting to suit my personal agenda.
Airman, have you told KM that you could help close that knowledge gap that the club have..??
She has known from the outset that I would offer any help that I could (on a voluntary basis) but the issue is much wider than anything I might or might not be able to contribute.
Airman, I pretty much agree with your post. I can see all points of view. RD, KM, The Trust, Supporters Clubs etc. If I were "them" I'd probably take "their" view (meaning all parties).
In conclusion, the club want to make their own decisions, without interference from outside and that's the club's perogative.
Whilst I'm not happy with this. I suppose, if I think back, to my years in business and when I've come in as a manager to run departments or branches, I suppose the last thing I would have wanted was constant inteference from the people I had replaced.
Personally, I think we should wait and see what transpires in the summer transfer window.
Airman, I pretty much agree with your post. I can see all points of view. RD, KM, The Trust, Supporters Clubs etc. If I were "them" I'd probably take "their" view (meaning all parties).
In conclusion, the club want to make their own decisions, without interference from outside and that's the club's perogative.
Whilst I'm not happy with this. I suppose, if I think back, to my years in business and when I've come in as a manager to run departments or branches, I suppose the last thing I would have wanted was constant inteference from the people I had replaced.
Personally, I think we should wait and see what transpires in the summer transfer window.
Anyway, logging off now re mothers day etc.
I do understand that argument, but 1) the relationships are more complex than those of ex-employees - indeed the majority of people I would include in those who could add value have never been employees and 2) the business is peculiarly short of knowledge about itself because most of it was driven out under the previous owners, in one way or another.
I know running a football club is unique because of the emotions involved, But having worked for a company that had new owners with a track record for success, thou not in that field. They did listen, but wanted to do it their way and made lots of mistakes, alienated lots of old customers.
My opinion is as well as Katrien came across at the meeting, she is not sure of Roland's views at times ? Bizarre i know.
"new broom" is the best way to sum up Roland Duchatelet ownership so far.
Great post Airman and believe it or not, it's how I generally believe how the regime has operated since taking over.
The question remains is how we can ensure KM sees that the fans can help deliver added value to the Club?
It appears that, at the moment, the owner is not in the least bit interested in using the undoubted knowledge and experiences gained out there - whether it's from well meaning fans or ex employees. All current approaches have been knocked back or referred onto operational staff, who are limited in the decisions they can make.
Perhaps it's just time to sit back and watch what unfolds. I'm fairly sure, that barring a disasterous run between now and the end of the season, they believe they have a formula that will provide success, both on and off the pitch.
When they eventually hit a brick wall over something, whether on the footballing side or because of 'regional' difficulties, perhaps then is the time to step back into the fray and offer assistance?
Judging by recent events in reality, and on message boards, we are now a very splintered and disunited support. The museum has a great archive from the days of direct action around the Selhurst park times, I wonder if in future if the museum will have a similar archive about the present fan disunity.
Judging by recent events in reality, and on message boards, we are now a very splintered and disunited support. The museum has a great archive from the days of direct action around the Selhurst park times, I wonder if in future if the museum will have a similar archive about the present fan disunity.
I wouldn't compare the current disunity amongst fans with the direct action around the Selhurst years.
Judging by recent events in reality, and on message boards, we are now a very splintered and disunited support.
Disagree.
There may be differing views of the current situation, but we all want what's best for this football club.
As I've said before. I believe this debate is healthy and is better off out in the open. That some people see the robustness of it as petty point scoring and it being about 'egos' are, I believe, just wrong.
Judging by recent events in reality, and on message boards, we are now a very splintered and disunited support. The museum has a great archive from the days of direct action around the Selhurst park times, I wonder if in future if the museum will have a similar archive about the present fan disunity.
I suspect there is a strong correlation between perception of disunity and the existence of internet forums.
And Yes clem I am defensive because people seem to take any example often that they didn't actually witness, and often heresay as an opportunity to put the boot in because it fits their own already held views,
Yes, as with the many people on this thread who weren't at the Bromley meeting last week but all of whom knew exactly what happpened, why and what the motives were.
Ben, yes we did want you on the Board why not you have clear talents, same goes for a number of others AFKA included.
Thank you for the compliment but maybe you could tell uboat who insinuated that my motives for criticising the trust are based on it not being my idea and me not being in charge. You know that to not be the case.
I can see Bromleys point of view but also agree that it sounds a bit 'East Kent', being members in advance and all that seemed a bit off
Maybe we should have done what the Trust did when it had a Q & A with a board member last year and degree that nothing mentioned on the night was allowed to be mentioned on here or anywhere else.
We won't because we strongly believe that sharing the information from our meeting is of use and interest to other fans regardless of who the guests are but especially when they are board members. The questions and answers help fans to make an informed judgement on what is happening at our club.
Is that the only or best type of "meaningful dialogue"? IMO no, but it is something, it is managed by a fans group not the club and it is better than nothing at all.
Judging by recent events in reality, and on message boards, we are now a very splintered and disunited support. The museum has a great archive from the days of direct action around the Selhurst park times, I wonder if in future if the museum will have a similar archive about the present fan disunity.
I suspect there is a strong correlation between perception of disunity and the existence of internet forums.
Agree entirely. Just because 10-15 people on an internet forum are at opposite ends of the opinion spectrum, doesn't mean there is widespread disunity.
I keep banging on about it, but I firmly believe that for 90% of our support it is all about results. If we're winning they have little or no interest in anything else going on off the field.
Comments
And Yes clem I am defensive because people seem to take any example often that they didn't actually witness, and often heresay as an opportunity to put the boot in because it fits their own already held views, I suspect you didn't witness that one event? nor were you at the meeting. Anyway my bad if I am defensive, I hope you can see the reasons. People shouting down with Belgiums is not Trust policy, and never anything we've said, we can't control each individual helper, but as Nigel will tell you I have twice collared him about trying to stay on message not for sying that I might add, its not easy when people are passionate fans not robots, and not easy to do when people are grafting for nowt.
The public meeting was far longer than the video and as anyone would know who attended the overall tone, wasn't what some would have you believe. Nor was the way it was billed, perhaps the Trust didn't communicate that well enough, its a tricky one trying to give fans a voice and people seeing it as the Trusts point of view. One one hand we get accused of trying to represent everyone, on the other hand that we don't articulate our own view, tricky circle to square in my view. Perhaps I could have taken more of a role in the debate, we were however looking for it be a fan meeting not a Trust says this meeting so I took a low profile.
Ben, yes we did want you on the Board why not you have clear talents, same goes for a number of others AFKA included.
The KM thing is a shame, but lets look at facts. The Trust approached her for discussion (not the owner) she declined saying she had nothing more to add, everything else flowed from her action. We didn't ask her not to speak to anyone else. Perhaps our communication could have been better, but I hope she will reconsider and look back on that moment, because it was a genuine concern about the direction the club was travelling in relation to long term alienation of the fanbase.
East Kent made no secret that the members only was to ensure that all members could attend in a limited numbers venue. East Kent has a decent membership and there were concerns that those that have supported the events both in attendance and financially would have to be turned away - especially as it was believed that KM could be a big draw at this point in time. I asked if my Dad could come along and was told that he couldn't because he was it a member - it had nothing to do with concerns about him giving KM a hard time.
So you are correct that the attendance was limited to members that had joined before the event was announced but you have guessed and, in effect, accused them of some kind of conspiracy and I think you should acknowledge that.
Secondly, Bromley made it clear that you could not join on the night but could do so up to the day before and I believe that there were new members there. The fact that this made the event cost £5 for entry (for non-members) should not have been sufficient to discourage someone that wanted to come and ask the kind of questions that you've suggested were being prevented.
I think that you have failed to understand the friendly atmosphere at these two events and the fact that people chose not to ask the questions that you seem to think we're missing rather than them being told not to.
Thirdly, and, in my view, most significantly, the question (well statement, really) that caused all this fuss was not even aimed at the Trust. There was no mention of the Trust and when Ken asked if he could just respond to it he had clearly made an incorrect assumption that it was an attack on the Trust - which it most certainly was not!
KH I am more than willing to accept your point.
I know BA used to operate a 'join on the night' policy and indeed many did join not soon after they announced that KM was going to be a guest, me included. Maybe one of there committee can explain more accurately.
At the end of the day, it's BA gig and BA rules
Trust AGM its purely about that you can not vote unless you have been a member for a period of time, its in the rules I think handed down. As for join on the night generally thats always been available.
Anyway time to move on, particularly for me
However, you can usually, pay on the night and it's quite relaxed.
I presume, the KM meeting, was pay in advance, to ensure that the maximum numbers, were known in advance, as the Con Club certainly couldn't hold say 200+ people.
In many respects I think Katien Meire comes out of her public appearances well, although talks a certain amount of rot which goes unchallenged. From the beginning, for whatever reason, she has avoided any dialogue with supporters and staff previously involved in running the club from Peter Varney and Steve Kavanagh down. Indeed there is a whole saga of people trying to set up contacts with Varney on her behalf and instigation and then withdrawing them. I have seen Richard Murray's hand in this at times, but she is quite capable of making her own choices so I think she must be regarded as responsible. The Trust, with no disrespect, is at the end of that line, but the question would be why would you not want to understand what all of these people know about the business, because clearly in Varney's case it is a great deal?
The counter-argument might be that from 2006-2012 they oversaw the decline of the club, which in my view is unfair because that decline was really dictated by football decisions. However, for better or worse the person most responsible for the mistakes made is the current chairman, which is not intended to open a debate about RM, who in my view remains in credit overall, but make the point that this explanation would not stand up.
So although KM herself acknowledged to me that there is a big knowledge gap within the club, she has also been determined not to listen to those who could help close it. Now you can say that she and RD have been criticised by some of the people concerned, possibly from the Powell sacking onwards, but those offers were on the table from the outset and she knows that. Using the meeting as a reason not to engage with the Trust is a bit flimsy on that basis - it's been her policy from the beginning not to engage seriously.
As to whether a desire to meet the owner is unreasonable or disrespectful to her, let's consider who attended these meetings from, say, 1995 to 2010, because it was much more often the owner than the chief executive - even though the RM board was much less hands on than RD appears to be.
She positions herself as the decision maker, which may or may not be true, but then says of Riga - if I recall accurately - that she can't be expected to know RD's mind from day to day. That's why I simply don't believe that she appointed Guy Luzon and to be honest I'd be concerned if she did, as I'd expect the owner to appoint the manager, whether in consultation with other directors or not. She may not be a puppet, but clearly she is very dependent on RD's patronage for her position because she would not get a similar job elsewhere if he decided to replace her. That, I think, is why she is here, as well as having other qualities that are more visible.
The main characteristic of the regime for me has been naivety. I suspect it was naive - or reckless - over due diligence, over the quality needed for the Championship, possibly over FFP, over season ticket sales and revenue last year, and I strongly suspect it is now over the training ground development, over growth in attendances going forward and what can be done with the shop.
This is more visible to fans at a lower level of operation in things like the programme sales, the comms around the Luzon appointment, the season ticket publicity this year, the Millwall ticket priorities and not managing the PR firm properly.
That doesn't mean there haven't been good things done and of course we all fit what we see into the narrative that suits ourselves, me included.
There are a number of other issues around player purchase and team selection that interest fans but which they can't reasonably expect to influence and never have - even so they do affect perceptions of trust.
Since we're not going down, a clear credit, the opportunity is there for KM to be inclusve and break down the apparent divisions. She won't do it with a slogan and if she won't do it at all, even at the level of the Trust, then I'd have to assume it's because she thinks they can add no value to the business at all, which is not just arrogant but simply wrong.
I can see all points of view. RD, KM, The Trust, Supporters Clubs etc.
If I were "them" I'd probably take "their" view (meaning all parties).
In conclusion, the club want to make their own decisions, without interference from outside and that's the club's perogative.
Whilst I'm not happy with this. I suppose, if I think back, to my years in business and when I've come in as a manager to run departments or branches, I suppose the last thing I would have wanted was constant inteference from the people I had replaced.
Personally, I think we should wait and see what transpires in the summer transfer window.
Anyway, logging off now re mothers day etc.
But having worked for a company that had new owners with a track record for success,
thou not in that field. They did listen, but wanted to do it their way and made lots of mistakes, alienated lots of old customers.
My opinion is as well as Katrien came across at the meeting, she is not sure of Roland's
views at times ? Bizarre i know.
"new broom" is the best way to sum up Roland Duchatelet ownership so far.
The question remains is how we can ensure KM sees that the fans can help deliver added value to the Club?
It appears that, at the moment, the owner is not in the least bit interested in using the undoubted knowledge and experiences gained out there - whether it's from well meaning fans or ex employees. All current approaches have been knocked back or referred onto operational staff, who are limited in the decisions they can make.
Perhaps it's just time to sit back and watch what unfolds. I'm fairly sure, that barring a disasterous run between now and the end of the season, they believe they have a formula that will provide success, both on and off the pitch.
When they eventually hit a brick wall over something, whether on the footballing side or because of 'regional' difficulties, perhaps then is the time to step back into the fray and offer assistance?
There may be differing views of the current situation, but we all want what's best for this football club.
As I've said before. I believe this debate is healthy and is better off out in the open. That some people see the robustness of it as petty point scoring and it being about 'egos' are, I believe, just wrong.
We won't because we strongly believe that sharing the information from our meeting is of use and interest to other fans regardless of who the guests are but especially when they are board members. The questions and answers help fans to make an informed judgement on what is happening at our club.
Is that the only or best type of "meaningful dialogue"? IMO no, but it is something, it is managed by a fans group not the club and it is better than nothing at all.
I keep banging on about it, but I firmly believe that for 90% of our support it is all about results. If we're winning they have little or no interest in anything else going on off the field.
If you, or any trust member can point me in the right direction then I shall stand corrected. Maybe I cannot see the wood for the tree's.
For the record, This is not a criticism, just an observation