Do not disagree with anyone here who advise that RD would pass a fit and proper person test. He might seem to be a little bit of a megalomaniac but he appears to have earned his money by legitimate means. However the petition calls into question the fit and proper person test. You cannot own more than one club in England and I believe Scotland but RD has owned more than one in Belgium and indeed owns several clubs The transparency with which these clubs pay transfer fees between them is about as clear as mud. This is one of the fundamental reasons that the FA and FL do not allow ownership of more than one club.
The petition which was set up asks them to review the basis of the test. It is also useful as another means of highlighting the plight of the club. What it does do is show the level of concern there is amongst the support. Anyone who believes it will detract from other forms of protest must be self serving in believing that "my form of protest is best".
The simple fact is all forms of legitimate protest will work so long as we all support the concept that the wrong needs to be righted!
Do not disagree with anyone here who advise that RD would pass a fit and proper person test. He might seem to be a little bit of a megalomaniac but he appears to have earned his money by legitimate means. However the petition calls into question the fit and proper person test. You cannot own more than one club in England and I believe Scotland but RD has owned more than one in Belgium and indeed owns several clubs The transparency with which these clubs pay transfer fees between them is about as clear as mud. This is one of the fundamental reasons that the FA and FL do not allow ownership of more than one club.
The petition which was set up asks them to review the basis of the test. It is also useful as another means of highlighting the plight of the club. What it does do is show the level of concern there is amongst the support. Anyone who believes it will detract from other forms of protest must be self serving in believing that "my form of protest is best".
The simple fact is all forms of legitimate protest will work so long as we all support the concept that the wrong needs to be righted!
What you say is, I'm sure, correct. But if the REAL purpose of the petition is to get a change in the ownership criteria to include clubs in other countries, that is a whole different ball game. Charlton is a sideshow by comparison. Think Man City, New York City, Melborne Heart and Yokohame F-Marinos. The powers that be are not going to be wanting to start rocking that particular boat! In any event they would be too worried about stuff like the general concept of restraint of trade to risk the whole house of cards that is the football rule book to be tested by a higher authority like the courts, whether in this country or elsewhere. The risks of failure and having the rulebook ripped up completely are just too great. Think too, about Chelsea having - what is it? 26? - players out on loan. Is that not likely to amount to undue influence in the same way that multi-ownership of clubs could be? Take Boro's cosy relationship with Chelsea? It could be argued that it has been so beneficial to them that they might not want to risk the relationship by, say, winning a cup tie against their benefactors. This is all stuff that goes straight into the "too difficult" file never to be seen again.
This is all stuff that goes straight into the "too difficult" file never to be seen again.
Just because it is difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be challenged.
As for the restraint of trade argument that hasn't succeeded within the UK and the Man City example is outside of the EEC which is supposedly a single market.
The main point is that if people disagree with what is happening at the club then they should protest. A single route of protest may or may not attract the support its promoters hope for. As supporters, if what we see is wrong, we should support others who are getting off their backsides to raise the issues not just believe "my way is better than yours".
I thought the Fit and Proper Persons test was to prove that the owner coming in actually had enough money to ensure that the club they're buying don't do a Portsmouth and ensure that staff can be paid etc.
Seeing that there hasn't been a case like Portsmouth for a good few years now (When nearly every season you'd hear that another club were in danger of Administration etc.) it appears as though this test that the Football League is doing is working
I thought the Fit and Proper Persons test was to prove that the owner coming in actually had enough money to ensure that the club they're buying don't do a Portsmouth and ensure that staff can be paid etc.
Seeing that there hasn't been a case like Portsmouth for a good few years now (When nearly every season you'd hear that another club were in danger of Administration etc.) it appears as though this test that the Football League is doing is working
I thought the Fit and Proper Persons test was to prove that the owner coming in actually had enough money to ensure that the club they're buying don't do a Portsmouth and ensure that staff can be paid etc.
Seeing that there hasn't been a case like Portsmouth for a good few years now (When nearly every season you'd hear that another club were in danger of Administration etc.) it appears as though this test that the Football League is doing is working
I thought the Fit and Proper Persons test was to prove that the owner coming in actually had enough money to ensure that the club they're buying don't do a Portsmouth and ensure that staff can be paid etc.
Seeing that there hasn't been a case like Portsmouth for a good few years now (When nearly every season you'd hear that another club were in danger of Administration etc.) it appears as though this test that the Football League is doing is working
You thought wrongly unfortunately. (For example our last owners didn't have a pot to piss in.) The test has precious little to do with money as long as someone is not actually stone broke.
For the sake of clarity here is the full extract from the FL rulebook I can't post it in full it's too long.
Of note, I suppose, is that someone like Ryan Giggs can be a (part) owner of Salford City while being a coach of Man Utd. What would happen I wonder should Salford ever get to the FL? Presumably, Man Utd would start lending them players, in the same way Alex Ferguson lent players to his son's team Preston and then pulled them out in a fit of pique when Darren got the old heave-ho. What's that if not undue influence on more than one team?
Whilst I sympathise with the feelings of 'Sam Bartram' (I wonder what our late, great goalkeeper would make of him name being used for petitioning?), I won't sign this petition - at least in its current format. I'm sorry to say it, but it strikes me as too much of a knee jerk and needs a lot more thought before it gets my support.
Firstly, as other's have said, we come under the jurisdiction of the Football League not the FA. It's also worth noting that the test is called the "Owners' and Directors' Test". I don't want to sound too harsh but by not referring to its proper name in the petition you give the impression that you haven't read it. If you haven't, it's very easy to find on google of via the following link:
Secondly, I'd want to know what particular part(s) of the the current test you think are failing or that should come under particular scrutiny. I'm no lawyer and I've only skim-read it. But on first sight the provisions seem pretty good to me. Your assertion that fans "have been undermined for too long" may be true, but there's nothing in your text that links this to the Owners' and Directors' Test. Be specific: What is it that's wrong with the test that leads to fans being undermined?
Thirdly, by linking an investigation into CAFC management with a review of the test the petition starts to look like a shopping basket of all the things you don't like. I think the petition needs to focus on one thing and one thing only. If it is the test, then it needs more about why the test isn't up to standard and what sort of improvements should be made to it. If is about Charlton, I think you need to be far more specific about what Charlton's owners/managers have done (or are doing) that would preclude them from owning/operating the club. I am no fan of the current regime at all but I can't think of one reason at all at the moment why the League would conclude that they aren't 'fit and proper'.
As much as I understand your concerns about the state of football generally and our club in particular, I still can't help but agree with @ValleyGary an ill thought-out petition like this could undermine the other planned protests.
"As much as I understand your concerns about the state of football generally and our club in particular, I still can't help but agree with @ValleyGary an ill thought-out petition like this could undermine the other planned protests"
The petition is a protest in the same way as fans gathering outside the West stand at 2.30 is a protest. It does not have to be rationally thought out and legally perfect with every I dotted and T crossed. By the time such a perfect petition were agreed the club would be down the swanny. Like all protests it is a knee jerk reaction by people who are upset with what is happening. the fact that people are signing it will indicate whether it is a sign of people being angry not the perfect wording.
The element of naval gazing as to the wording of this simply frustrates me. What next, obtaining counsel's opinion as to whether requesting fans to wear black and white scarves endangers fans in the home end since not everybody can be identified as a supporter of the club!
Get real, if we disagree with what is happening to the club we should be protesting in every way possible without reserving our position as to whether the wording of the petition is right. It, like standing in the rain at 2.30 on a Saturday, is a means to an end of showing displeasure at what is happening to our club. If you do not believe you can get behind this somewhat innocuous petition because the wording is not perfect, you are learning to play the fiddle whilst the club burns.
Examine your conscience and support as many of the ways of protesting as possible if you believe that the way the club is being run at the moment is wrong. Do not break the law of the land in doing so, but aim to raise the profile of the issue in every way possible.
"As much as I understand your concerns about the state of football generally and our club in particular, I still can't help but agree with @ValleyGary an ill thought-out petition like this could undermine the other planned protests"
The petition is a protest in the same way as fans gathering outside the West stand at 2.30 is a protest. It does not have to be rationally thought out and legally perfect with every I dotted and T crossed. By the time such a perfect petition were agreed the club would be down the swanny. Like all protests it is a knee jerk reaction by people who are upset with what is happening. the fact that people are signing it will indicate whether it is a sign of people being angry not the perfect wording.
The element of naval gazing as to the wording of this simply frustrates me. What next, obtaining counsel's opinion as to whether requesting fans to wear black and white scarves endangers fans in the home end since not everybody can be identified as a supporter of the club!
Get real, if we disagree with what is happening to the club we should be protesting in every way possible without reserving our position as to whether the wording of the petition is right. It, like standing in the rain at 2.30 on a Saturday, is a means to an end of showing displeasure at what is happening to our club. If you do not believe you can get behind this somewhat innocuous petition because the wording is not perfect, you are learning to play the fiddle whilst the club burns.
Examine your conscience and support as many of the ways of protesting as possible if you believe that the way the club is being run at the moment is wrong. Do not break the law of the land in doing so, but aim to raise the profile of the issue in every way possible.
Ok if you feel so strongly that this petition is worth signing...please explain to us doubters:
1. Who is the petition aimed at?
2. What do you want them to do as a result of seeing this petition?
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
The FA will say 'he meets the criteria.'. It's useless.
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
No hostility that I can see. It's just pointless, unless Kish suspects something that no one else knows.
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
I don't think it's a case of hostility, rather a matter of getting things right. If the petition is really "a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club", then why not call the petition, "Petition to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club". It doesn't say that though. Instead it takes us down the blind alley of looking at the FA's Fit and Proper Person Test (except that that's the wrong organisation and the wrong test title).
Whilst it's a positive thing that someone took the effort to start a petition, it does't really hit the mark. This is a shame because perhaps with a bit more care and attention it could have done. We have recently seen a brilliant example of how to manage a petition to get a positive result, the Olympic Stadium by Prague Addick. But that wasn't posted on a whim. It was posted after a lot of research, thought and discussion. It is perhaps too late now, but had 'Sam Bartram' posted his ideas here (or elsewhere) first he could have got the feedback in advance and produced something of real value.
When you see some of the charlatans that run other clubs, I don't think the FA have any idea about what a fit & proper person is. One more isn't going to worry them.
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
No hostility that I can see. It's just pointless, unless Kish suspects something that no one else knows.
Who is this "Kish" by the way? Is it the guy who runs the "Dr Kish" website? Because I visited that site and there is no word of the petition there, which itself seems odd (if it is the same person).
@Stig makes a good point about the Olympic petition. Although it has my name on it, in fact it was the collective work of the group which had been formed by then, comprising people from different Trusts, including a professional journalist (vital because of the word limit on petitions on that site) and a couple of highly experienced political campaigners. When the petition launched we had co-ordinated publicity targeting the fans of clubs across London, ready to go, bang. That's why it took off at a speed that frankly astounded us.
That's the sort of collaborative behaviour I hope we can muster if we need to go down the campaigning route.
This petition is a genuine way to express dissatisfaction with the way our owner is alienating many long-standing fans by the way he is running the club. I don't get the hostility towards it. It doesn't impinge on anyone else's protest.
It isn't though, is it ?
1) It's addressed to the wrong organisation 2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed 3) The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily
How can that be considered "legitimate" ?
The most likely outcome is that it undermines other, genuinely legitimate, fans protest movements because now we can all be considered ignorant. The most useful thing the chap who started it could do is change the ridiculous mistakes mentioned above (if that's possible) or take it down and start a new one.
" Ok if you feel so strongly that this petition is worth signing...please explain to us doubters:
1. Who is the petition aimed at?
2. What do you want them to do as a result of seeing this petition?
The petitition is just a method of raising awareness in my view. I am not the "Sam Bartram" who started it and I cannot speak for them or their intentions, however I will expound my reasons for signing it and why the questions you ask have little resonance other than justifying your personal reasons for not signing it.
You appear to fail to understand the principle behind the concept of protest. The Petition is aimed at anyone who will listen in order to raise awareness of the issues that are of concern to some supporters (maybe not you) about the way the club is being run. Specifically it is requesting the authorities to review the fit and proper person test because it does not capture the sort of management issues that the club is facing, but this is not the point. The petition is like all protest aimed to raise awareness.
What I want them to do as a result of seeing this petition depends on the answer to the first question. If it is aimed at raising awareness I want those who are made aware to join in and support (obviously not your cup of tea) and further raise the awareness of others. With respect to the Authorities who are the token target of the petition I would like them to examine the situation and see if there is something they could do about the situation the club supporters find themselves in. This may not be to amend the fit and proper persons test, it may be to capture the EU as a single market for football and prevent ownership of multiple clubs as an experiment in ownership structure and closed book transfer dealings.
The Frankenstein nature of an owner who experiments with trying to build transplant a Belgian third division culture with a second division Hungarian football players left arm and see whether the victim a English Championship club can walk with one leg shorter than the other and a back to front footballing brain is an experiment to far on the club that I hold dear. If a real doctor hijacked a relative and tried doing this I would be alerting the authorities in protest in every possible way even if the victim had signed consent forms for the mutilation.
Apologies for the slightly tardy response but I was otherwise detained working in the north of this country and did not have an opportunity to review responses before this morning.
I guess you would agree that a petition works best when it gets a really big support?
So if only the author of the petition had just talked to some of the other active Charlton fans. If only he had waited just to attend either the Trust meeting or Bromley Addicks, tonight. If he would have attended the Trust meeting we could have showed him the work that is already being done by a lot of smart and committed fans around the country on the wider issues you are rightly concerned about. I refer to the Football Supporters Federation, and Supporters Direct (sorry can't link to their sites on this machine) . Surely you see that if you want to address the Governance of the game, it's best done at national level? Isn't it hopelessly arrogant to assume that only Charlton fans have spotted the issue, and that Charlton fans alone can lead the fight against it. Correction, one Charlton fan.
If you want to talk to a real expert on the issues you are concerned about, come along to hear Owen Gibson of the Guardian at the Trust AGM this evening
1) It's addressed to the wrong organisation 2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed 3) The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily
How can that be considered "legitimate" ?
The most likely outcome is that it undermines other, genuinely legitimate, fans protest movements because now we can all be considered ignorant. The most useful thing the chap who started it could do is change the ridiculous mistakes mentioned above (if that's possible) or take it down and start a new one.
1) Its addressed to the wrong organisation. - So what - it has garnered the support of 800 people and raised the profile of the issue which is the aim of all protest. 2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed - See 1 above. There isn't a test which says can Frankenstein take over a football club! 3)The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily irrelevant since 1 it is asking for the test to be reviewed (2) see 1 above.
Protest is legitimate so long as it does not break any laws. As far as I can see this petition is a lawful means of highlighting the situation the club is in. It is therefore legitimate. If you argued that it was "not correctly focussed" I would agree with but legitimate means within the law and this it is.
There are a few individuals who are trying to find reasons not to protest at the plight of the club. These are probably the same individuals who said that the Valley Party would never work. It didn't get elected so therefore didn't work but it raised the profile of the issue significantly enough to have an effect on the decisions of the council. Their reasons for not supporting are, to my mind at best, over analytical, or at worst, supporting the status quo. The former I can forgive as a failure to understand the nature of protest the latter is unforgivable.
If you want to talk to a real expert on the issues you are concerned about, come along to hear Owen Gibson of the Guardian at the Trust AGM this evening
1) It's addressed to the wrong organisation 2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed 3) The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily
How can that be considered "legitimate" ?
The most likely outcome is that it undermines other, genuinely legitimate, fans protest movements because now we can all be considered ignorant. The most useful thing the chap who started it could do is change the ridiculous mistakes mentioned above (if that's possible) or take it down and start a new one.
1) Its addressed to the wrong organisation. - So what - it has garnered the support of 800 people and raised the profile of the issue which is the aim of all protest. 2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed - See 1 above. There isn't a test which says can Frankenstein take over a football club! 3)The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily irrelevant since 1 it is asking for the test to be reviewed (2) see 1 above.
Protest is legitimate so long as it does not break any laws. As far as I can see this petition is a lawful means of highlighting the situation the club is in. It is therefore legitimate. If you argued that it was "not correctly focussed" I would agree with but legitimate means within the law and this it is.
There are a few individuals who are trying to find reasons not to protest at the plight of the club. These are probably the same individuals who said that the Valley Party would never work. It didn't get elected so therefore didn't work but it raised the profile of the issue significantly enough to have an effect on the decisions of the council. Their reasons for not supporting are, to my mind at best, over analytical, or at worst, supporting the status quo. The former I can forgive as a failure to understand the nature of protest the latter is unforgivable.
Your analogy with the Valley Party and this petition would be correct if the Valley Party had fielded candidates in the Timbuktu regional elections to try and put pressure on Greenwich Council.
it may be to capture the EU as a single market for football and prevent ownership of multiple clubs as an experiment in ownership structure and closed book transfer dealings.
So, do you think this is a good idea?
If so, do you think any such EU-wide change has a snowball in hell's chance of happening when a huge chunk of the Segunda División B in Spain is made up of teams such as Real Madrid and Barcelona B? And then there's FC Bayern München II playing in the third tier of German football along with a number of other reserve sides?
1) It's addressed to the wrong organisation 2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed 3) The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily
How can that be considered "legitimate" ?
The most likely outcome is that it undermines other, genuinely legitimate, fans protest movements because now we can all be considered ignorant. The most useful thing the chap who started it could do is change the ridiculous mistakes mentioned above (if that's possible) or take it down and start a new one.
1) Its addressed to the wrong organisation. - So what - it has garnered the support of 800 people and raised the profile of the issue which is the aim of all protest. 2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed - See 1 above. There isn't a test which says can Frankenstein take over a football club! 3)The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily irrelevant since 1 it is asking for the test to be reviewed (2) see 1 above.
Protest is legitimate so long as it does not break any laws. As far as I can see this petition is a lawful means of highlighting the situation the club is in. It is therefore legitimate. If you argued that it was "not correctly focussed" I would agree with but legitimate means within the law and this it is.
There are a few individuals who are trying to find reasons not to protest at the plight of the club. These are probably the same individuals who said that the Valley Party would never work. It didn't get elected so therefore didn't work but it raised the profile of the issue significantly enough to have an effect on the decisions of the council. Their reasons for not supporting are, to my mind at best, over analytical, or at worst, supporting the status quo. The former I can forgive as a failure to understand the nature of protest the latter is unforgivable.
Your analogy with the Valley Party and this petition would be correct if the Valley Party had fielded candidates in the Timbuktu regional elections to try and put pressure on Greenwich Council.
Or if the VP had been driven by one person, as opposed to being a disciplined collective with no leader , where people supported and learnt from each other.
I guess you would agree that a petition works best when it gets a really big support?
So if only the author of the petition had just talked to some of the other active Charlton fans. If only he had waited just to attend either the Trust meeting or Bromley Addicks, tonight. If he would have attended the Trust meeting we could have showed him the work that is already being done by a lot of smart and committed fans around the country on the wider issues you are rightly concerned about. I refer to the Football Supporters Federation, and Supporters Direct (sorry can't link to their sites on this machine) . Surely you see that if you want to address the Governance of the game, it's best done at national level? Isn't it hopelessly arrogant to assume that only Charlton fans have spotted the issue, and that Charlton fans alone can lead the fight against it. Correction, one Charlton fan.
If you want to talk to a real expert on the issues you are concerned about, come along to hear Owen Gibson of the Guardian at the Trust AGM this evening
What a pompous response. The fact is that the person who started this did so with the best of intentions and you try to belittle him/her by suggesting that they should wait until the rest of us get our acts in gear!!
To suggest arrogance is a real dose of pot and kettle. Every protest starts small and local the steps from Tolpuddle to the match girls and the ultimately the TUC is a simple example. The first world war was ignited by one man in Serbia. I am happy for others to support our effort and us theirs but do not belittle the efforts of others it demeans you
Initiatives like this should be supported alongside other forms of protest if the end game is the same. You would wait until the armoured column had flattened your house before forming a committee to deliver a response. Sorry - protest doesn't work like that.
A journo is not a real expert they are commentators, good at what they do but not an expert since they spend their lives seeking the opinions of people who really know what they are doing.
Comments
The petition which was set up asks them to review the basis of the test. It is also useful as another means of highlighting the plight of the club. What it does do is show the level of concern there is amongst the support. Anyone who believes it will detract from other forms of protest must be self serving in believing that "my form of protest is best".
The simple fact is all forms of legitimate protest will work so long as we all support the concept that the wrong needs to be righted!
Think too, about Chelsea having - what is it? 26? - players out on loan. Is that not likely to amount to undue influence in the same way that multi-ownership of clubs could be? Take Boro's cosy relationship with Chelsea? It could be argued that it has been so beneficial to them that they might not want to risk the relationship by, say, winning a cup tie against their benefactors.
This is all stuff that goes straight into the "too difficult" file never to be seen again.
This is all stuff that goes straight into the "too difficult" file never to be seen again.
Just because it is difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be challenged.
As for the restraint of trade argument that hasn't succeeded within the UK and the Man City example is outside of the EEC which is supposedly a single market.
The main point is that if people disagree with what is happening at the club then they should protest. A single route of protest may or may not attract the support its promoters hope for. As supporters, if what we see is wrong, we should support others who are getting off their backsides to raise the issues not just believe "my way is better than yours".
Seeing that there hasn't been a case like Portsmouth for a good few years now (When nearly every season you'd hear that another club were in danger of Administration etc.) it appears as though this test that the Football League is doing is working
For the sake of clarity here is the full extract from the FL rulebook I can't post it in full it's too long.
football-league.co.uk/global/appendix3.aspx
It is called the Owners and Directors test.
Of note, I suppose, is that someone like Ryan Giggs can be a (part) owner of Salford City while being a coach of Man Utd. What would happen I wonder should Salford ever get to the FL? Presumably, Man Utd would start lending them players, in the same way Alex Ferguson lent players to his son's team Preston and then pulled them out in a fit of pique when Darren got the old heave-ho. What's that if not undue influence on more than one team?
RD is not evil, he is not nicking money from the club or using the proceeds of the Hatton Garden jewellery heist to fund the Academy project.
He just isn't worried if we play in the Premier League or the Evo-Stick League Southern which are both affiliated to the FA.
Firstly, as other's have said, we come under the jurisdiction of the Football League not the FA. It's also worth noting that the test is called the "Owners' and Directors' Test". I don't want to sound too harsh but by not referring to its proper name in the petition you give the impression that you haven't read it. If you haven't, it's very easy to find on google of via the following link:
http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/appendix3.aspx
Secondly, I'd want to know what particular part(s) of the the current test you think are failing or that should come under particular scrutiny. I'm no lawyer and I've only skim-read it. But on first sight the provisions seem pretty good to me. Your assertion that fans "have been undermined for too long" may be true, but there's nothing in your text that links this to the Owners' and Directors' Test. Be specific: What is it that's wrong with the test that leads to fans being undermined?
Thirdly, by linking an investigation into CAFC management with a review of the test the petition starts to look like a shopping basket of all the things you don't like. I think the petition needs to focus on one thing and one thing only. If it is the test, then it needs more about why the test isn't up to standard and what sort of improvements should be made to it. If is about Charlton, I think you need to be far more specific about what Charlton's owners/managers have done (or are doing) that would preclude them from owning/operating the club. I am no fan of the current regime at all but I can't think of one reason at all at the moment why the League would conclude that they aren't 'fit and proper'.
As much as I understand your concerns about the state of football generally and our club in particular, I still can't help but agree with @ValleyGary an ill thought-out petition like this could undermine the other planned protests.
The petition is a protest in the same way as fans gathering outside the West stand at 2.30 is a protest. It does not have to be rationally thought out and legally perfect with every I dotted and T crossed. By the time such a perfect petition were agreed the club would be down the swanny. Like all protests it is a knee jerk reaction by people who are upset with what is happening. the fact that people are signing it will indicate whether it is a sign of people being angry not the perfect wording.
The element of naval gazing as to the wording of this simply frustrates me. What next, obtaining counsel's opinion as to whether requesting fans to wear black and white scarves endangers fans in the home end since not everybody can be identified as a supporter of the club!
Get real, if we disagree with what is happening to the club we should be protesting in every way possible without reserving our position as to whether the wording of the petition is right. It, like standing in the rain at 2.30 on a Saturday, is a means to an end of showing displeasure at what is happening to our club. If you do not believe you can get behind this somewhat innocuous petition because the wording is not perfect, you are learning to play the fiddle whilst the club burns.
Examine your conscience and support as many of the ways of protesting as possible if you believe that the way the club is being run at the moment is wrong. Do not break the law of the land in doing so, but aim to raise the profile of the issue in every way possible.
1. Who is the petition aimed at?
2. What do you want them to do as a result of seeing this petition?
Whilst it's a positive thing that someone took the effort to start a petition, it does't really hit the mark. This is a shame because perhaps with a bit more care and attention it could have done. We have recently seen a brilliant example of how to manage a petition to get a positive result, the Olympic Stadium by Prague Addick. But that wasn't posted on a whim. It was posted after a lot of research, thought and discussion. It is perhaps too late now, but had 'Sam Bartram' posted his ideas here (or elsewhere) first he could have got the feedback in advance and produced something of real value.
@Stig makes a good point about the Olympic petition. Although it has my name on it, in fact it was the collective work of the group which had been formed by then, comprising people from different Trusts, including a professional journalist (vital because of the word limit on petitions on that site) and a couple of highly experienced political campaigners. When the petition launched we had co-ordinated publicity targeting the fans of clubs across London, ready to go, bang. That's why it took off at a speed that frankly astounded us.
That's the sort of collaborative behaviour I hope we can muster if we need to go down the campaigning route.
1) It's addressed to the wrong organisation
2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed
3) The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily
How can that be considered "legitimate" ?
The most likely outcome is that it undermines other, genuinely legitimate, fans protest movements because now we can all be considered ignorant. The most useful thing the chap who started it could do is change the ridiculous mistakes mentioned above (if that's possible) or take it down and start a new one.
I guess you would agree that a petition works best when it gets a really big support?
So if only the author of the petition had just talked to some of the other active Charlton fans. If only he had waited just to attend either the Trust meeting or Bromley Addicks, tonight. If he would have attended the Trust meeting we could have showed him the work that is already being done by a lot of smart and committed fans around the country on the wider issues you are rightly concerned about. I refer to the Football Supporters Federation, and Supporters Direct (sorry can't link to their sites on this machine) . Surely you see that if you want to address the Governance of the game, it's best done at national level? Isn't it hopelessly arrogant to assume that only Charlton fans have spotted the issue, and that Charlton fans alone can lead the fight against it. Correction, one Charlton fan.
If you want to talk to a real expert on the issues you are concerned about, come along to hear Owen Gibson of the Guardian at the Trust AGM this evening
2) It's asking for the wrong test to be reviewed - See 1 above. There isn't a test which says can Frankenstein take over a football club!
3)The test and organisation that we're all supposed to magically understand the petition is referring to Roland would pass easily irrelevant since 1 it is asking for the test to be reviewed (2) see 1 above.
Protest is legitimate so long as it does not break any laws. As far as I can see this petition is a lawful means of highlighting the situation the club is in. It is therefore legitimate. If you argued that it was "not correctly focussed" I would agree with but legitimate means within the law and this it is.
There are a few individuals who are trying to find reasons not to protest at the plight of the club. These are probably the same individuals who said that the Valley Party would never work. It didn't get elected so therefore didn't work but it raised the profile of the issue significantly enough to have an effect on the decisions of the council. Their reasons for not supporting are, to my mind at best, over analytical, or at worst, supporting the status quo. The former I can forgive as a failure to understand the nature of protest the latter is unforgivable.
To suggest arrogance is a real dose of pot and kettle. Every protest starts small and local the steps from Tolpuddle to the match girls and the ultimately the TUC is a simple example. The first world war was ignited by one man in Serbia. I am happy for others to support our effort and us theirs but do not belittle the efforts of others it demeans you
Initiatives like this should be supported alongside other forms of protest if the end game is the same. You would wait until the armoured column had flattened your house before forming a committee to deliver a response. Sorry - protest doesn't work like that.
A journo is not a real expert they are commentators, good at what they do but not an expert since they spend their lives seeking the opinions of people who really know what they are doing.