Posted on the other thread, but I think it belongs here too . . .
As has been said many times already, season ticket numbers are likely to drop sharply because of the way Roland is running the club. That is part of the damage being done that should concern us, therefore proposing to make it worse makes no sense, but I have not seen evidence that this is being pushed by anyone. There are simply people saying that they are out, which is their choice.
The fans' aim must be to force the club to put forward something that makes those people think again. That is part of a definition of success for any campaign - it may or may not be possible under the current ownership. I doubt it, personally.
I think it means finding means of a) embarrassing the owner and/or b) making it more difficult for the owner to continue running the club, while c) not impacting on our chances of staying in this division in the meantime.
If you take the view that RD is not the problem or the risk of him going is too great then I can see that is an argument for doing nothing. It's not my view, because I think the risk of inaction is greater.
The club won't be comfortable with a large independent public meeting discussing its performance, particularly if it is well reported in the media, believe you me. So that is the first step.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
Whats important i feel is that no one feel unrepresented, tricky of course, so one way of trying to ensure that is by making sure all the forums are aware and represented, as well as the supporters group, etc the meeting shouldn't be exclusively those people of course.
I used to talk with Bradshaw and he constantly referred to CL as if it were a single voice, that was always hypercritical which of course it isn't something I repeatedly pointed out.
While suggestions are welcome, I would ask that everyone focus on the issues, and have faith that the sub-cte running the meeting will do their very best to make it work.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
And this is the crux of the issue.
Whilst the people leading this are doing it for the right reasons I firmly believe this is a battle they can't win.
Roland has not reacted to "heavy duty" direct action from Liege fans and he won't react to a set of fans sounding off in a hall in Woolwich.
When he and the rest of the club don't react or acknowledge the meeting where do you go then?
Unless you find a very rich man to back you and launch a buy out (even then my feeling is out of sheer bloody mindedness RD wouldn't entertain selling to you) you are pissing in the wind.
Posted on the other thread, but I think it belongs here too . . .
That is part of a definition of success for any campaign - it may or may not be possible under the current ownership. I doubt it, personally..
I am sure you are right based on his previous indifference to supporter activity at Liege.
So I am very interested to know if an agenda will be set for the meeting up-front. I would see it as rather essential in order to avoid a free-for-all. Any idea AB?
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
Neither did John Fryer. So what?
Times have changed, Football was the people's game back then, now it's business - would the Valley Party have the same result now, I personally don't believe so. Also, back then people came together & fought, now we have too much apathy within the fan base.
Because Football is a business, people vote with their hard earned now which is why people will not renew ST's or simply stay away.
I want Duchatelet out or certainly to change his ways as much as the next supporter but I do not believe he gives a monkeys about a supporters meeting, as I said above, if you guys present a list of points to the board & KM/RD says No to each one, then what?
That is if they even give you the time of day in the first place.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
Neither did John Fryer. So what?
Times have changed, Football was the people's game back then, now it's business - would the Valley Party have the same result now, I personally don't believe so. Also, back then people came together & fought, now we have too much apathy within the fan base.
Because Football is a business, people vote with their hard earned now which is why people will not renew ST's or simply stay away.
I want Duchatelet out or certainly to change his ways as much as the next supporter but I do not believe he gives a monkeys about a supporters meeting, as I said above, if you guys present a list of points to the board & KM/RD says No to each one, then what?
That is if they even give you the time of day in the first place.
The use of the word "business" in this context is pretty meaningless. The Valley Party was aimed at winning votes and overturning a council decision. The campaign started well before that and was aimed at proving to the directors that playing at Selhurst Park made no financial sense. It was irrational in "business" terms. That's why it was successful. Sure there was a lot of sentimentality about The Valley, but that drove the business case.
This is no different. RD's modus operandi appears equally irrational. Since we don't know what he is trying to achieve that's an assumption, but if you look at things like, for example, Valley Express, what the club has been saying makes no "business" sense. I think that applies in other areas, including the team. The way the club is being run will not maximise profit. Therefore it should be possible to overturn it by demonstrating that.
If you want to argue that because RD is the sole owner he can do whatever he likes regardless of the logic I understand that, but it has nothing to do with "business" that we can see. I would say, however, that he doesn't have all the cards in this game, because without us there's nothing there.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
My aim would be to get new owners in as friendly a way if possible. So of course they will say no but so what!
Charlton fans will come at them with Addicks in law, tax, planning, marketing, journalism, banking and of course there will be aggressive fans too. They will sell.
My aim would be to get new owners in as friendly a way if possible. So of course they will say no but so what!
Charlton fans will come at them with Addicks in law, tax, planning, marketing, journalism, banking and of course there will be aggressive fans too. They will sell.
Roland owns,or is a major Shareholder in Four Club,s with another one rumoured.Is there any other Business Man that owns as many Football Clubs? too many fingers in the pie for any loyalty.
The Pozzo family own Watford, Udinese and Granada and I don't think it's been a complete disaster. I'd probably prefer that Charlton were the sole focus of the person that owns our club, but the "network" model in itself could possibly work provided the people overseeing it are competent.
The last six words are the key. It also needs those running it to realise that football works in different ways in different countries and is not a commodity that's the same in England as it is in ... I don't know, say Belgium.
That's just what I was thinking yesterday, mogodon.
Maybe one of the aims should be to convince RD that his network might be workable in the rest of Europe but NOT in England and highlighting the problems here now that the FFP rules have been watered down ?
Roland owns,or is a major Shareholder in Four Club,s with another one rumoured.Is there any other Business Man that owns as many Football Clubs? too many fingers in the pie for any loyalty.
The Pozzo family own Watford, Udinese and Granada and I don't think it's been a complete disaster. I'd probably prefer that Charlton were the sole focus of the person that owns our club, but the "network" model in itself could possibly work provided the people overseeing it are competent.
The last six words are the key. It also needs those running it to realise that football works in different ways in different countries and is not a commodity that's the same in England as it is in ... I don't know, say Belgium.
That's just what I was thinking yesterday, mogodon.
Maybe one of the aims should be to convince RD that his network might be workable in the rest of Europe but NOT in England and highlighting the problems here now that the FFP rules have been watered down ?
Fans we are in touch with at Standard and at Ujpest do not think this particular network is working for them any more than it is for us. On the other hand, people have pointed out recently that the Watford network seems to work better because there is better balance of clubs within it . FFP is a problem I agree, but so is the nature of his particular network. Increasingly it looks like it is not what we understood it to be.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
And this is the crux of the issue.
Whilst the people leading this are doing it for the right reasons I firmly believe this is a battle they can't win.
Roland has not reacted to "heavy duty" direct action from Liege fans and he won't react to a set of fans sounding off in a hall in Woolwich.
When he and the rest of the club don't react or acknowledge the meeting where do you go then?
Unless you find a very rich man to back you and launch a buy out (even then my feeling is out of sheer bloody mindedness RD wouldn't entertain selling to you) you are pissing in the wind.
But this "action" might be totally different to that taken by SL fans ; the way to approach the issue might be a case of thinking outside the box ( wish our players would do that more often!)
My understanding is that Prague & others have been liaising with fans of RD's other Clubs too which will highlight the route NOT to take IMO.
No pressure, guys, but I'm putting my faith in those who have demonstrated in the past that they're a cut above the average fan when it comes to tackling the serious stuff.
( However, I'm sure there are others out there who will stand up to be counted when the time comes)
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
And this is the crux of the issue.
Whilst the people leading this are doing it for the right reasons I firmly believe this is a battle they can't win.
Roland has not reacted to "heavy duty" direct action from Liege fans and he won't react to a set of fans sounding off in a hall in Woolwich.
When he and the rest of the club don't react or acknowledge the meeting where do you go then?
Unless you find a very rich man to back you and launch a buy out (even then my feeling is out of sheer bloody mindedness RD wouldn't entertain selling to you) you are pissing in the wind.
The "people leading this" as far as I can see are, at the moment, only calling for a public meeting to try and ascertain a consensus from Charlton fans as to their position on the direction the club is heading in and what they would want to do to make things better. You're thinking two steps down a road which may never be traveled if you're assuming that the result will be a call for "Roland out". I wouldn't assume anything at all. I don't understand why you would assume we're fighting a battle we aren't going to win when you don't know what the battle is yet ?
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
And this is the crux of the issue.
Whilst the people leading this are doing it for the right reasons I firmly believe this is a battle they can't win.
Roland has not reacted to "heavy duty" direct action from Liege fans and he won't react to a set of fans sounding off in a hall in Woolwich.
When he and the rest of the club don't react or acknowledge the meeting where do you go then?
Unless you find a very rich man to back you and launch a buy out (even then my feeling is out of sheer bloody mindedness RD wouldn't entertain selling to you) you are pissing in the wind.
That isn't an attitude any man should possess in regards to most things in life. Most battles seem un-winnable before hand, sitting back with that attitude only worsens the matter and plays into RD's hands to let him do what he likes.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
Unless you find a very rich man to back you and launch a buy out (even then my feeling is out of sheer bloody mindedness RD wouldn't entertain selling to you) you are pissing in the wind.
But when you're desperate for a piss, you've gotta have one :-)
How can I contribute to.the costs even if I am not there
Hopefully someone sets up an internet donation site as I posted earlier, it would be well worth it and I think we will be surprised by the cash it would pick up, in the thousands for sure. It can be used for banners for games, leaflets, websites to be built, advertising of any meetings, local pub hires for casual meet ups to try progress in this whole matter with ideas and ways forward (and get pished :-)). I'll happily be first to get the ball rolling.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
And this is the crux of the issue.
Whilst the people leading this are doing it for the right reasons I firmly believe this is a battle they can't win.
Roland has not reacted to "heavy duty" direct action from Liege fans and he won't react to a set of fans sounding off in a hall in Woolwich.
When he and the rest of the club don't react or acknowledge the meeting where do you go then?
Unless you find a very rich man to back you and launch a buy out (even then my feeling is out of sheer bloody mindedness RD wouldn't entertain selling to you) you are pissing in the wind.
The "people leading this" as far as I can see are, at the moment, only calling for a public meeting to try and ascertain a consensus from Charlton fans as to their position on the direction the club is heading in and what they would want to do to make things better. You're thinking two steps down a road which may never be traveled if you're assuming that the result will be a call for "Roland out". I wouldn't assume anything at all. I don't understand why you would assume we're fighting a battle we aren't going to win when you don't know what the battle is yet ?
You seriously believe this won't descend into a Roland bashing session? If you are an organiser I urge you to consider that there is a very real chance it will.
You only have to look at some of the bile being spat on Facebook and Twitter to realise there are a sizeable number who would enjoy lighting the torches and marching on "Castle Roly"
If 10-20 with that attitude turn up after a couple of ales the thing will get hi-jacked and descend into a farce.
For me the fact that there is apparently no agenda leaves the floor open for the more extreme views who might see this as a chance to push their own agendas.
If it turns sour I'm affraid BR, Prague et al standing with a mic asking people to calm down and let others speak isn't going to cut it.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
Neither did John Fryer. So what?
Times have changed, Football was the people's game back then, now it's business - would the Valley Party have the same result now, I personally don't believe so. Also, back then people came together & fought, now we have too much apathy within the fan base.
Because Football is a business, people vote with their hard earned now which is why people will not renew ST's or simply stay away.
I want Duchatelet out or certainly to change his ways as much as the next supporter but I do not believe he gives a monkeys about a supporters meeting, as I said above, if you guys present a list of points to the board & KM/RD says No to each one, then what?
That is if they even give you the time of day in the first place.
The use of the word "business" in this context is pretty meaningless. The Valley Party was aimed at winning votes and overturning a council decision. The campaign started well before that and was aimed at proving to the directors that playing at Selhurst Park made no financial sense. It was irrational in "business" terms. That's why it was successful. Sure there was a lot of sentimentality about The Valley, but that drove the business case.
This is no different. RD's modus operandi appears equally irrational. Since we don't know what he is trying to achieve that's an assumption, but if you look at things like, for example, Valley Express, what the club has been saying makes no "business" sense. I think that applies in other areas, including the team. The way the club is being run will not maximise profit. Therefore it should be possible to overturn it by demonstrating that.
If you want to argue that because RD is the sole owner he can do whatever he likes regardless of the logic I understand that, but it has nothing to do with "business" that we can see. I would say, however, that he doesn't have all the cards in this game, because without us there's nothing there.
He may not have all the cards but I fear he has the most important one ie the title deeds to the Valley.
When we slide down the Divisions even further, attendances drop off the edge of a cliff and RD's losses become so large that even a millionaire starts to notice them, what is to stop him selling off the Valley and "suggesting" we groundshare?
I guess you will have to initially allow time for ranting as, if it comes out 'mid-agenda', it will derail the constructive part of the meeting....
But, I do think the aim of the meeting needs to be realistic. If the only outcome is a list of centre forwards to look at (I exaggerate to make the point) then it's a waste of effort.
The realistic aim, I feel, is to concentrate initial efforts on opening up effective and open communication lines.
From everything I've read there is a unanimous sense that there are problems (no shit Sherlock!) but no- one is clear as to precisely what those problems are. Many assumptions have been made but unless we actually know what the problems are it's very difficult to propose effective actions to solve. Not rocket science but it seems that there's a real danger of focusing on assumed problems, not the true ones.
The only way we're going to find out is by truly open dialogue. For this to happen KM and RD need to be motivated as to the benefit of this dialogue - the evidence so far suggests they see no benefit in it. If they are not prepared to listen then it's all just noise.
However, if they can be made to see the true rewards of strong and profound communication with the fans that will be a big step.
So, my two agenda items would be:
- why should the owners listen to the fans? This could be both positive and negative motivation, and,
- what communication lines do fans want? Deeper agenda for the Forum? Fans director (s)? Focus groups? Etc.
Once this communication is up and running it will serve as a facilitator to getting real change.
All basic stuff, I know, but unless the agenda, at this stage, is very focused it's going to fall on it's arse.
While I commend the idea, what is this looking to achieve? It's been said before that KM doesn't recognise the trust, so in theory, you could attend this meeting, come up with a strategy, approach the club only to be told no.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
Neither did John Fryer. So what?
Times have changed, Football was the people's game back then, now it's business - would the Valley Party have the same result now, I personally don't believe so. Also, back then people came together & fought, now we have too much apathy within the fan base.
Because Football is a business, people vote with their hard earned now which is why people will not renew ST's or simply stay away.
I want Duchatelet out or certainly to change his ways as much as the next supporter but I do not believe he gives a monkeys about a supporters meeting, as I said above, if you guys present a list of points to the board & KM/RD says No to each one, then what?
That is if they even give you the time of day in the first place.
I would imagine one of the objectives of this meeting though would be for somebody to be able to approach KM and request a meeting on the basis that this time it is not on behalf of a supporter's group that this would be the result of a public meeting and would be representing a far wider group of fans than the ones the Trust would have represented in the first place. And that to keep ignoring such requests will not make the fans go away but indeed keep coming back stronger and louder until they realise it is in there best interests to attend such a meeting.
The initial part of the meeting will have lots of anti RD rousing sermons, from the floor and those speaking I am certain of that and if you feel that way then rightly so vent it out, what needs to happen there after is the most important and I am with clem you need an amount of time set out via an agenda to allow for this
There must be a chair and one person who makes the call on how long you spend on each item and you need it minuted
If not you will have the same message spoken ten differnt ways by ten different people and your meeting will just end up with no plan coming out of it
Isn't there a danger of it all being a bit "chicken and egg?"
We know many of us feel discontented but can we really articulate, in terms credible to a businessman, why we feel this discontent?
A devils advocate would say that we have a spanking new pitch, the promise of a new academy and (just about still) Championship football all within a year of the new owner taking over. They are the "facts."
What "facts" contradict that view?
Any meeting, in my humble opinion, needs to aim to come up with a cogent list of grievances and suggested resolution of those grievances based on fact.
That said I subscribe to Airman's view that the mere act of holding such a meeting is a significant statement in itself.
My circumstances at the moment are such that I cannot definitely promise to be there myself but will be if I can.
If 10-20 with that attitude turn up after a couple of ales the thing will get hi-jacked and descend into a farce.
For me the fact that there is apparently no agenda leaves the floor open for the more extreme views who might see this as a chance to push their own agendas.
If it turns sour I'm affraid BR, Prague et al standing with a mic asking people to calm down and let others speak isn't going to cut it.
I would imagine the meeting would acknowledge from the outset the range of views/concerns/anger. Is there confusion over the word "agenda" which can be used to mean an objective rather than its natural meaning of a discussion point leading to action? There will I am sure be an Agenda issued before or at the meeting.
If someone's "agenda' is a call for "action" they are pre-empting the whole point of the meeting. Actions are what comes from following the meeting's agenda, listening to different views and ideas and attempting to find a consensus for action. If you have a minority view it will be a valid view, but may or may not be the consensus view of those at the meeting. Ranting because your view might be a minority view is hardly logical and wholly pointless. I really don't think it will be a problem as long as all views, relevant to the agenda, are allowed to be aired. If they don't like the agenda they can find another meeting to attend which does have an agenda they like.
The convention of all speakers addressing their remarks through the chairperson, and only on agenda items, is to eliminate people shouting at one another or ranting about something that is off the agenda. If there are no rules then anarchy will prevail, which is why you have an agenda and one person, a chairman to manage the agenda and to whom remarks are addressed.
If people at the meeting don't want to abide by the rules of the meeting, stick to the agenda and understand they are talking to this meeting's agenda and not a different meeting's agenda, then yes, they are capable of ruining the meeting.
I think we should be respecting and thanking the people for their efforts who are attempting to arrange this meeting, not predict how it is going to fail.
I don't think it's predicting how to fail, dippenhall
I know I certainly don't want that to be the case, I hope people go there with no hidden agendas and not to just shout people down, I doubt that you will get many there who don't follow the concerns of most that have posted, which Is a shame, but why would they go I spose
I hope that there is respect for the time effort and finance of those who have allowed it to take place
Duchâtelet has made plenty of mistakes, and it looks like he's got many more in his locker. However, I don't think he's model has failed (yet) and I am bloody sure he doesn't. So telling Duchâtelet 'Your model has failed, give it up!' will fall on deaf ears.
Why don't I think his failing model has failed?
He has invested an awful lot of time and money into it and he has plenty more of both in hand, so he will plough on with his 'I know best' cum 'trial and error tactics'. And although a little shaken I still believe that and over time he will find the right balance and we will be ok. I even think we will get back to the premiership.
So if you are going to protest (and you are), please protest for the right things. Don't tell him he is shit and destroying our club (the club will be just fine). Don't tell him to 'give up' on his experiment (that won't work). Don't tell him to '**** off' (He just might, and that's not likely to be good news).
Protests for dialogue, for transparency and closer working relationships. Offer understanding, compromise and time in return.
Whatever your protest plans, please don't let it include making the matchday experience any worse than it already is. Keep the 'hate' atmosphere reserved for Millwall and Palace!
Comments
As has been said many times already, season ticket numbers are likely to drop sharply because of the way Roland is running the club. That is part of the damage being done that should concern us, therefore proposing to make it worse makes no sense, but I have not seen evidence that this is being pushed by anyone. There are simply people saying that they are out, which is their choice.
The fans' aim must be to force the club to put forward something that makes those people think again. That is part of a definition of success for any campaign - it may or may not be possible under the current ownership. I doubt it, personally.
I think it means finding means of a) embarrassing the owner and/or b) making it more difficult for the owner to continue running the club, while c) not impacting on our chances of staying in this division in the meantime.
If you take the view that RD is not the problem or the risk of him going is too great then I can see that is an argument for doing nothing. It's not my view, because I think the risk of inaction is greater.
The club won't be comfortable with a large independent public meeting discussing its performance, particularly if it is well reported in the media, believe you me. So that is the first step.
RD clearly isn't interested in the fans, look at Liege as an example of this, we are his plaything & like Mike Ashley at Newcastle, he doesn't give a toss what the fans think
I used to talk with Bradshaw and he constantly referred to CL as if it were a single voice, that was always hypercritical which of course it isn't something I repeatedly pointed out.
While suggestions are welcome, I would ask that everyone focus on the issues, and have faith that the sub-cte running the meeting will do their very best to make it work.
Whilst the people leading this are doing it for the right reasons I firmly believe this is a battle they can't win.
Roland has not reacted to "heavy duty" direct action from Liege fans and he won't react to a set of fans sounding off in a hall in Woolwich.
When he and the rest of the club don't react or acknowledge the meeting where do you go then?
Unless you find a very rich man to back you and launch a buy out (even then my feeling is out of sheer bloody mindedness RD wouldn't entertain selling to you) you are pissing in the wind.
So I am very interested to know if an agenda will be set for the meeting up-front. I would see it as rather essential in order to avoid a free-for-all. Any idea AB?
Because Football is a business, people vote with their hard earned now which is why people will not renew ST's or simply stay away.
I want Duchatelet out or certainly to change his ways as much as the next supporter but I do not believe he gives a monkeys about a supporters meeting, as I said above, if you guys present a list of points to the board & KM/RD says No to each one, then what?
That is if they even give you the time of day in the first place.
This is no different. RD's modus operandi appears equally irrational. Since we don't know what he is trying to achieve that's an assumption, but if you look at things like, for example, Valley Express, what the club has been saying makes no "business" sense. I think that applies in other areas, including the team. The way the club is being run will not maximise profit. Therefore it should be possible to overturn it by demonstrating that.
If you want to argue that because RD is the sole owner he can do whatever he likes regardless of the logic I understand that, but it has nothing to do with "business" that we can see. I would say, however, that he doesn't have all the cards in this game, because without us there's nothing there.
Charlton fans will come at them with Addicks in law, tax, planning, marketing, journalism, banking and of course there will be aggressive fans too. They will sell.
Maybe one of the aims should be to convince RD that his network might be workable in the rest of Europe but NOT in England and highlighting the problems here now that the FFP rules have been watered down ?
My understanding is that Prague & others have been liaising with fans of RD's other Clubs too which will highlight the route NOT to take IMO.
No pressure, guys, but I'm putting my faith in those who have demonstrated in the past that they're a cut above the average fan when it comes to tackling the serious stuff.
( However, I'm sure there are others out there who will stand up to be counted when the time comes)
You only have to look at some of the bile being spat on Facebook and Twitter to realise there are a sizeable number who would enjoy lighting the torches and marching on "Castle Roly"
If 10-20 with that attitude turn up after a couple of ales the thing will get hi-jacked and descend into a farce.
For me the fact that there is apparently no agenda leaves the floor open for the more extreme views who might see this as a chance to push their own agendas.
If it turns sour I'm affraid BR, Prague et al standing with a mic asking people to calm down and let others speak isn't going to cut it.
When we slide down the Divisions even further, attendances drop off the edge of a cliff and RD's losses become so large that even a millionaire starts to notice them, what is to stop him selling off the Valley and "suggesting" we groundshare?
But, I do think the aim of the meeting needs to be realistic. If the only outcome is a list of centre forwards to look at (I exaggerate to make the point) then it's a waste of effort.
The realistic aim, I feel, is to concentrate initial efforts on opening up effective and open communication lines.
From everything I've read there is a unanimous sense that there are problems (no shit Sherlock!) but no- one is clear as to precisely what those problems are. Many assumptions have been made but unless we actually know what the problems are it's very difficult to propose effective actions to solve. Not rocket science but it seems that there's a real danger of focusing on assumed problems, not the true ones.
The only way we're going to find out is by truly open dialogue. For this to happen KM and RD need to be motivated as to the benefit of this dialogue - the evidence so far suggests they see no benefit in it. If they are not prepared to listen then it's all just noise.
However, if they can be made to see the true rewards of strong and profound communication with the fans that will be a big step.
So, my two agenda items would be:
- why should the owners listen to the fans? This could be both positive and negative motivation, and,
- what communication lines do fans want? Deeper agenda for the Forum? Fans director (s)? Focus groups? Etc.
Once this communication is up and running it will serve as a facilitator to getting real change.
All basic stuff, I know, but unless the agenda, at this stage, is very focused it's going to fall on it's arse.
There must be a chair and one person who makes the call on how long you spend on each item and you need it minuted
If not you will have the same message spoken ten differnt ways by ten different people and your meeting will just end up with no plan coming out of it
We know many of us feel discontented but can we really articulate, in terms credible to a businessman, why we feel this discontent?
A devils advocate would say that we have a spanking new pitch, the promise of a new academy and (just about still) Championship football all within a year of the new owner taking over. They are the "facts."
What "facts" contradict that view?
Any meeting, in my humble opinion, needs to aim to come up with a cogent list of grievances and suggested resolution of those grievances based on fact.
That said I subscribe to Airman's view that the mere act of holding such a meeting is a significant statement in itself.
My circumstances at the moment are such that I cannot definitely promise to be there myself but will be if I can.
If 10-20 with that attitude turn up after a couple of ales the thing will get hi-jacked and descend into a farce.
For me the fact that there is apparently no agenda leaves the floor open for the more extreme views who might see this as a chance to push their own agendas.
If it turns sour I'm affraid BR, Prague et al standing with a mic asking people to calm down and let others speak isn't going to cut it.
I would imagine the meeting would acknowledge from the outset the range of views/concerns/anger. Is there confusion over the word "agenda" which can be used to mean an objective rather than its natural meaning of a discussion point leading to action? There will I am sure be an Agenda issued before or at the meeting.
If someone's "agenda' is a call for "action" they are pre-empting the whole point of the meeting. Actions are what comes from following the meeting's agenda, listening to different views and ideas and attempting to find a consensus for action. If you have a minority view it will be a valid view, but may or may not be the consensus view of those at the meeting. Ranting because your view might be a minority view is hardly logical and wholly pointless. I really don't think it will be a problem as long as all views, relevant to the agenda, are allowed to be aired. If they don't like the agenda they can find another meeting to attend which does have an agenda they like.
The convention of all speakers addressing their remarks through the chairperson, and only on agenda items, is to eliminate people shouting at one another or ranting about something that is off the agenda. If there are no rules then anarchy will prevail, which is why you have an agenda and one person, a chairman to manage the agenda and to whom remarks are addressed.
If people at the meeting don't want to abide by the rules of the meeting, stick to the agenda and understand they are talking to this meeting's agenda and not a different meeting's agenda, then yes, they are capable of ruining the meeting.
I think we should be respecting and thanking the people for their efforts who are attempting to arrange this meeting, not predict how it is going to fail.
I know I certainly don't want that to be the case, I hope people go there with no hidden agendas and not to just shout people down, I doubt that you will get many there who don't follow the concerns of most that have posted, which Is a shame, but why would they go I spose
I hope that there is respect for the time effort and finance of those who have allowed it to take place
Why don't I think his failing model has failed?
He has invested an awful lot of time and money into it and he has plenty more of both in hand, so he will plough on with his 'I know best' cum 'trial and error tactics'. And although a little shaken I still believe that and over time he will find the right balance and we will be ok. I even think we will get back to the premiership.
So if you are going to protest (and you are), please protest for the right things. Don't tell him he is shit and destroying our club (the club will be just fine). Don't tell him to 'give up' on his experiment (that won't work). Don't tell him to '**** off' (He just might, and that's not likely to be good news).
Protests for dialogue, for transparency and closer working relationships. Offer understanding, compromise and time in return.
Whatever your protest plans, please don't let it include making the matchday experience any worse than it already is. Keep the 'hate' atmosphere reserved for Millwall and Palace!