As the person who oversees the Elections to the Trust Board I can say that they are conducted according to due process, in accordance with the systems of the wider Trust movement in sport. So far there have not been enough people who have come forward to have a contested election, however each Trust board member has to be publically affirmed, out in the open as it were, and in that respect the Trust Board is a perfectly sound body, properly constituted.
Look gents and i am guilty of this too, lets not get drawn into argument for its own sake. We all love this club, I am concerned about PR and whitewash thats all, and not really sure the problems are now resolvable by talk. We need actions from this ownership and rapidly.
It suddenly occurs to me that one way to hit the club would be to stop paying into Valley Gold. This would have the benefit of cutting off money without it having any real impact on those paying it. There would be no games to miss, no rumbling tummies when hungry at half time and for those that have season tickets they would not be paying for something and then not receiving it.
This was suggested at the CASTrust AGM as well. The view I expressed, for what it's worth, is that it's kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. Valley Gold contributes money into the Academy, and that's the basis of people's membership. It's been a consistent success in recent years and it's done things like sponsor player trips etc that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It's kids' development and futures, all good value to Charlton in the longer term, and whilst on the surface it might appear to be an easy hit it's the wrong target and one that will cost supporters more than the club in the long run.
I don't personally believe that the supporters are separate from the club. The club is the supporters and vice versa. Anything that costs the club costs the supporters. That is, by definition what a supporter isn't it?
I'm not saying you're wrong but I've always been sceptical that the 'donations' provide more money opposed to them just reducing someone else's contribution. If Roland is determined to have a Tier One (or whatever it is called) academy then he might feel the need to make up the shortfall.
I certainly think this would make a bigger statement than refusing to buy a burger from a company that has leased the outlets or from season ticket holders refusing to attend games they have already paid for.
I also think the very fact that it is recognised in the way you describe would make it a bigger statement to the board that we are serious.
Compared to some on here wanting us to be relegated to force his hand I think this is a lot less drastic for the future of the club. I don't think there is any way we can withhold our support (neither financial nor turning up) without the potential that it will cost supporters in the long run. I would argue that another three year spell in the third division would do much more damage than forcing the academy to cancel a few trips, but that is just my view.
Anyway, I was only floating the idea on the basis that I believe that many will have more stomach to do that than boycott games or remember to make sandwiches to bring along to avoid buying food in the ground.
It is fair to say the minimum Valley Gold commitment will be in the club's budget. I will say though that two trips for the u17s were organised this year that would not have happened had Valley Gold not been prepared to fund them.
It's not unreasonable to take a position that the club should fully fund its own Academy - but Valley Gold provides a means of a long term investment from supporters in the club, with long term success. There is some leverage there on that basis, but we have to recognise that due to the owner's wealth that leverage is probably at its lowest since its inception.
But then what is that leverage supposed to achieve? Every time there's a bit of emotion among the fans we threaten the club to withhold the funds? Unless we direct the funds elsewhere - and I'm not certain we're free to do that - all they'll do is defer the income on their balance sheet and ask the owner to cover the impact of any cash shortfall until we pay it. Or alternatively the kids will lose out, which is why I think it's self-defeating - we're not impacting the owner at all.
I think the message that members are asking us to consider withholding funds is as strong as us actually doing so, to be frank. But I'll say again, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to consider Valley Gold as a target for protest.
So has the coach steward confirmed his attendance yet ?
To be fair I think the "coach steward" is the representative of Valley Express which has a fairly large number and quite a broad demographic amongst it's user base.
It suddenly occurs to me that one way to hit the club would be to stop paying into Valley Gold. This would have the benefit of cutting off money without it having any real impact on those paying it. There would be no games to miss, no rumbling tummies when hungry at half time and for those that have season tickets they would not be paying for something and then not receiving it.
This was suggested at the CASTrust AGM as well. The view I expressed, for what it's worth, is that it's kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. Valley Gold contributes money into the Academy, and that's the basis of people's membership. It's been a consistent success in recent years and it's done things like sponsor player trips etc that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It's kids' development and futures, all good value to Charlton in the longer term, and whilst on the surface it might appear to be an easy hit it's the wrong target and one that will cost supporters more than the club in the long run.
I don't personally believe that the supporters are separate from the club. The club is the supporters and vice versa. Anything that costs the club costs the supporters. That is, by definition what a supporter isn't it?
I'm not saying you're wrong but I've always been sceptical that the 'donations' provide more money opposed to them just reducing someone else's contribution. If Roland is determined to have a Tier One (or whatever it is called) academy then he might feel the need to make up the shortfall.
I certainly think this would make a bigger statement than refusing to buy a burger from a company that has leased the outlets or from season ticket holders refusing to attend games they have already paid for.
I also think the very fact that it is recognised in the way you describe would make it a bigger statement to the board that we are serious.
Compared to some on here wanting us to be relegated to force his hand I think this is a lot less drastic for the future of the club. I don't think there is any way we can withhold our support (neither financial nor turning up) without the potential that it will cost supporters in the long run. I would argue that another three year spell in the third division would do much more damage than forcing the academy to cancel a few trips, but that is just my view.
Anyway, I was only floating the idea on the basis that I believe that many will have more stomach to do that than boycott games or remember to make sandwiches to bring along to avoid buying food in the ground.
It is fair to say the minimum Valley Gold commitment will be in the club's budget. I will say though that two trips for the u17s were organised this year that would not have happened had Valley Gold not been prepared to fund them.
It's not unreasonable to take a position that the club should fully fund its own Academy - but Valley Gold provides a means of a long term investment from supporters in the club, with long term success. There is some leverage there on that basis, but we have to recognise that due to the owner's wealth that leverage is probably at its lowest since its inception.
But then what is that leverage supposed to achieve? Every time there's a bit of emotion among the fans we threaten the club to withhold the funds? Unless we direct the funds elsewhere - and I'm not certain we're free to do that - all they'll do is defer the income on their balance sheet and ask the owner to cover the impact of any cash shortfall until we pay it. Or alternatively the kids will lose out, which is why I think it's self-defeating - we're not impacting the owner at all.
I think the message that members are asking us to consider withholding funds is as strong as us actually doing so, to be frank. But I'll say again, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to consider Valley Gold as a target for protest.
Valley Gold is money in the Belgians pocket. The only thing addicks should be giving him Murray and Cruella is grief. Retutn funds already collected to the members
It certainly comes across, to some, as belittling.
The Trust elections were held as usual at the AGM, and subject to the same rules as most other Supporters' Trusts and rules that have a lot in common with many membership organisations. It is a democratic organisation.
The point is that every single member of the board has stood for election. There's an innuendo that it's all jobs for the boys, but we don't know when we stand whether we will be in a contest or not. In many ways it would be good if more stood and gave members a choice of more, different talents. If it helps, at the AGM I did appeal for others to get involved and consider standing for that very reason.
There is perhaps though also a sense that the members are content with how the board have managed this year, and that too has to be respected in a democratic organisation.
All that said, I think the key thing about the names on this particular list is reach as well as representation. If we are able to glean a consensus from the supporters we can reach, then the club cannot run away from the fact that there is broad representation of a small number of important messages - because the reach was broad.
As for John the coach steward, he will have another opportunity to gauge opinion tonight but is actively participating in feeding back to the fans' group. Let's not belittle him too, eh.
Slightly depressing the way this thread has gone. Even if the system is less than ideal, we need to present a united front for the meeting. We all know we will get nothing out of KM or Murray. If that is because the questions from the floor are unrepresentative of the feeling of a large number of hardcore supporters, then that's the time to start asking questions of those attending. For now, keep united. KM will be laughing out loud if she thinks this is splitting the opposition to her and her puppetmaster.
The evidence of the club struggles under this regime is there for all to see.
We now have a "further planned dialogue" with supporters. There is genuine concern it will do little more than pay lip service to the concept rather than offer a meaningful attempt to interact with those who follow the club.
The reason for the concern is all too simple. The fear is "the emperor has no clothes", that the executive really has very little to say. I apologise if I have repeated much of that I have commented on before but have added below a "few more lines" on my expectations of any executive running any mid-corporate people business.
What does strike me today is the almost "corner shop" mentality in evidence, which can be great if you are running a corner shop. Sadly it offers little for the progressing the club which it appears has essentially been relegated to a player distribution "outlet". I can but determine the real business and the real P & L rests with acquiring, developing & selling players. Staprix do appear to have some past success with their Liege outlet.
From a trading perspective our "shop" is just the price of doing business. We even had the standard shop refit.
It reflects on those hired to "run" the shop to a) maintain the "status quo" b) put the right players in the shop window. Hence Peeters (used young players at Waasland) selected over Riga, Luzon ex Israel U21 coach, De Sart (at Leige) ex Belgian U21 coach, and now Euell ex our U21s'. If you read the Fraeye comments concerning his background you will see he fits the required profile perfectly.
Young & small squads reduce costs with the benefit of keeping the "right" players in the shop window!
The paradox is to consistently sell players for maximum profit they need to be playing well at a competitive level in a successful side. The concept (not being relegated) is easier to deliver in a weaker Belgian Jupiler Pro League. The Championship offers a greater challenge. Playing demands are greater (46 games v 30 initial games plus play offs) and teams are more competitive.
Early signs are not promising. Have we yet "turned over" one player at a profit? All the player sales revenue generated has come from players previously at the club (though in accounting terms they were of course “assets” acquired on the purchase of the club).
Any idea our "shop" might actually move "up market" (to the Premier League) now seems likely to be purely incidental. It is not a priority.
In terms of the next steps I would estimate 90% supporters could legitimately raise their concerns over any number of issues. On such a basis Meire & Duchatelet and even Murray now are easy targets. A scenario heightened, whether by accident or design, by the extraordinary executive inability to communicate.
It does present a major difficulty. For every criticism levied, for every negative comment there seems to be a further retreat into a "bunker" mentality. I recognize supporters’ emotions, which run alongside their concerns, can range from being "pissed off" to incandescent anger which will ultimately lead to increasing disinterest and apathy.
With respect to other views I have absolutely no interest in the corporate personalities involved or any supporter “pecking” order. I acknowledge the work of many in furthering the interests of supporters. I further acknowledge the senior executive and the investor are operating in, at best, their 2nd/3rd language. I sympathize with their minimal industry & market knowledge but it is not about being Belgian, being female or operating as a virtual recluse nor any other agenda. It is about the club and the executive performance in running the club - nothing more, nothing less.
I note the "translated quote" dismissing supporter concerns as arising from people "living in the past". If true it is an immature, inaccurate and frankly lazy comment. No matter such references we want to talk about the present and the future. To be fair many have wanted to talk about the present and the future for 21 months
I accept it is natural to want to vent our frustration. Such an approach may temporarily ease the blood pressure but will likely achieve little more. With respect to others there is primarily just one voice I want to hear. It is that of the CEO. If this is a genuine attempt to communicate I do not need to hear soothing words from an avuncular Chairman. Nor do I wish to hear of sundry personnel running interference. CEOs are not meant to be a protected species.
In this brave "new world" it is time for the club to stop exploiting peoples "living in the past" emotional ties in an empty plea for us "to go forward together". We want to go forward but on an informed basis so please Ms Meire tell us about the future;
- Tell us what exactly what you are trying to achieve - Tell us what are your precise plans for the club. - Tell us how you propose to build a financially viable and sustainable football club and in what timeline - Tell us how you plan to build, drive and inspire new success. - Tell us how and where we play a part in that new success - Tell us why we should "invest" in your business - Tell us why you have followed the current coaching appointment policy - Tell us why you have followed the current player recruitment policy - Tell us why you think the results of these policies have to date been so desperately disappointing
We do indeed have our memories. We have our experiences, for some of us going back decades, which we draw on to judge the evidence of our own eyes. It is what we see that prompts the questions we raise because at the moment we still care about "your" and "our" business. "Living in the past" does not preclude the provision of:
- a clear vision statement - clearly defined goals and deliverables on ANY aspect of the business (playing performance, revenue, attendances, academy development) - marketing strategy - communication strategy - commitment to service excellence
Maybe it is a cultural issue (though I doubt it) but if you cannot define what you are trying to achieve how on earth do you expect to achieve it?
Where is the cohesive business plan to bring all of the above together?
Where is the cohesive plan to bring us and the club together because whether it is understood or not it is the business you have bought?
These elements are the responsibility of the CEO of any "people" business. After 21 months the "settling in" period has past.
For me it matters not if the dialogue is between a select group or is a "town hall" gathering provided there is the opportunity to speak openly. I respect the attendees interests are my interests even though on occasion I may not agree with the tactical approach of some. I am confident those attending will be able to pose the necessary questions on behalf of us all.
Whether the response will encourage me to continue to invest my time and a little money in actively supporting the club or it simply becomes a passing interest as I flick across the internet sports pages or catch the TV Sports news is quite another matter.
I sincerely hope the opportunity is taken by all parties to "seize the day"?
Slightly depressing the way this thread has gone. Even if the system is less than ideal, we need to present a united front for the meeting. We all know we will get nothing out of KM or Murray. If that is because the questions from the floor are unrepresentative of the feeling of a large number of hardcore supporters, then that's the time to start asking questions of those attending. For now, keep united. KM will be laughing out loud if she thinks this is splitting the opposition to her and her puppetmaster.
Exactly, we need to stand together, not try to force other groups away.
Yes excellent post Grapevine but two years too late? The reason they won't communicate the plan is because we will not like it, which many knew from Sheffield United on. Those still after dialogue are just giving Cruella and Murray easy rides.
Another great post, Grapevine. When I spoke to Murray six months ago he was adamant that the aim was to get to the Premier League. I find that hard to believe on the basis of events.
Regardless, if the chief executive cannot rise to the challenge you set out then I think those of us who will not walk away need to encourage the owner to replace her - in effect we will need to create the vacancy.
The evidence of the club struggles under this regime is there for all to see.
We now have a "further planned dialogue" with supporters. There is genuine concern it will do little more than pay lip service to the concept rather than offer a meaningful attempt to interact with those who follow the club.
The reason for the concern is all too simple. The fear is "the emperor has no clothes", that the executive really has very little to say. I apologise if I have repeated much of that I have commented on before but have added below a "few more lines" on my expectations of any executive running any mid-corporate people business.
What does strike me today is the almost "corner shop" mentality in evidence, which can be great if you are running a corner shop. Sadly it offers little for the progressing the club which it appears has essentially been relegated to a player distribution "outlet". I can but determine the real business and the real P & L rests with acquiring, developing & selling players. Staprix do appear to have some past success with their Liege outlet.
From a trading perspective our "shop" is just the price of doing business. We even had the standard shop refit.
It reflects on those hired to "run" the shop to a) maintain the "status quo" b) put the right players in the shop window. Hence Peeters (used young players at Waasland) selected over Riga, Luzon ex Israel U21 coach, De Sart (at Leige) ex Belgian U21 coach, and now Euell ex our U21s'. If you read the Fraeye comments concerning his background you will see he fits the required profile perfectly.
Young & small squads reduce costs with the benefit of keeping the "right" players in the shop window!
The paradox is to consistently sell players for maximum profit they need to be playing well at a competitive level in a successful side. The concept (not being relegated) is easier to deliver in a weaker Belgian Jupiler Pro League. The Championship offers a greater challenge. Playing demands are greater (46 games v 30 initial games plus play offs) and teams are more competitive.
Early signs are not promising. Have we yet "turned over" one player at a profit? All the player sales revenue generated has come from players previously at the club (though in accounting terms they were of course “assets” acquired on the purchase of the club).
Any idea our "shop" might actually move "up market" (to the Premier League) now seems likely to be purely incidental. It is not a priority.
In terms of the next steps I would estimate 90% supporters could legitimately raise their concerns over any number of issues. On such a basis Meire & Duchatelet and even Murray now are easy targets. A scenario heightened, whether by accident or design, by the extraordinary executive inability to communicate.
It does present a major difficulty. For every criticism levied, for every negative comment there seems to be a further retreat into a "bunker" mentality. I recognize supporters’ emotions, which run alongside their concerns, can range from being "pissed off" to incandescent anger which will ultimately lead to increasing disinterest and apathy.
With respect to other views I have absolutely no interest in the corporate personalities involved or any supporter “pecking” order. I acknowledge the work of many in furthering the interests of supporters. I further acknowledge the senior executive and the investor are operating in, at best, their 2nd/3rd language. I sympathize with their minimal industry & market knowledge but it is not about being Belgian, being female or operating as a virtual recluse nor any other agenda. It is about the club and the executive performance in running the club - nothing more, nothing less.
I note the "translated quote" dismissing supporter concerns as arising from people "living in the past". If true it is an immature, inaccurate and frankly lazy comment. No matter such references we want to talk about the present and the future. To be fair many have wanted to talk about the present and the future for 21 months
I accept it is natural to want to vent our frustration. Such an approach may temporarily ease the blood pressure but will likely achieve little more. With respect to others there is primarily just one voice I want to hear. It is that of the CEO. If this is a genuine attempt to communicate I do not need to hear soothing words from an avuncular Chairman. Nor do I wish to hear of sundry personnel running interference. CEOs are not meant to be a protected species.
In this brave "new world" it is time for the club to stop exploiting peoples "living in the past" emotional ties in an empty plea for us "to go forward together". We want to go forward but on an informed basis so please Ms Meire tell us about the future;
- Tell us what exactly what you are trying to achieve - Tell us what are your precise plans for the club. - Tell us how you propose to build a financially viable and sustainable football club and in what timeline - Tell us how you plan to build, drive and inspire new success. - Tell us how and where we play a part in that new success - Tell us why we should "invest" in your business - Tell us why you have followed the current coaching appointment policy - Tell us why you have followed the current player recruitment policy - Tell us why you think the results of these policies have to date been so desperately disappointing
We do indeed have our memories. We have our experiences, for some of us going back decades, which we draw on to judge the evidence of our own eyes. It is what we see that prompts the questions we raise because at the moment we still care about "your" and "our" business. "Living in the past" does not preclude the provision of:
- a clear vision statement - clearly defined goals and deliverables on ANY aspect of the business (playing performance, revenue, attendances, academy development) - marketing strategy - communication strategy - commitment to service excellence
Maybe it is a cultural issue (though I doubt it) but if you cannot define what you are trying to achieve how on earth do you expect to achieve it?
Where is the cohesive business plan to bring all of the above together?
Where is the cohesive plan to bring us and the club together because whether it is understood or not it is the business you have bought?
These elements are the responsibility of the CEO of any "people" business. After 21 months the "settling in" period has past.
For me it matters not if the dialogue is between a select group or is a "town hall" gathering provided there is the opportunity to speak openly. I respect the attendees interests are my interests even though on occasion I may not agree with the tactical approach of some. I am confident those attending will be able to pose the necessary questions on behalf of us all.
Whether the response will encourage me to continue to invest my time and a little money in actively supporting the club or it simply becomes a passing interest as I flick across the internet sports pages or catch the TV Sports news is quite another matter.
I sincerely hope the opportunity is taken by all parties to "seize the day"?
Breathtaking and brilliant post. I don't know who you are (!(¡(! Viewfinder) EDIT GRAPEVINE !!!! but my God I wish you were going to that meeting. You certainly represent me and I would trust you Carte Blanche.
The evidence of the club struggles under this regime is there for all to see.
We now have a "further planned dialogue" with supporters. There is genuine concern it will do little more than pay lip service to the concept rather than offer a meaningful attempt to interact with those who follow the club.
The reason for the concern is all too simple. The fear is "the emperor has no clothes", that the executive really has very little to say. I apologise if I have repeated much of that I have commented on before but have added below a "few more lines" on my expectations of any executive running any mid-corporate people business.
What does strike me today is the almost "corner shop" mentality in evidence, which can be great if you are running a corner shop. Sadly it offers little for the progressing the club which it appears has essentially been relegated to a player distribution "outlet". I can but determine the real business and the real P & L rests with acquiring, developing & selling players. Staprix do appear to have some past success with their Liege outlet.
From a trading perspective our "shop" is just the price of doing business. We even had the standard shop refit.
It reflects on those hired to "run" the shop to a) maintain the "status quo" b) put the right players in the shop window. Hence Peeters (used young players at Waasland) selected over Riga, Luzon ex Israel U21 coach, De Sart (at Leige) ex Belgian U21 coach, and now Euell ex our U21s'. If you read the Fraeye comments concerning his background you will see he fits the required profile perfectly.
Young & small squads reduce costs with the benefit of keeping the "right" players in the shop window!
The paradox is to consistently sell players for maximum profit they need to be playing well at a competitive level in a successful side. The concept (not being relegated) is easier to deliver in a weaker Belgian Jupiler Pro League. The Championship offers a greater challenge. Playing demands are greater (46 games v 30 initial games plus play offs) and teams are more competitive.
Early signs are not promising. Have we yet "turned over" one player at a profit? All the player sales revenue generated has come from players previously at the club (though in accounting terms they were of course “assets” acquired on the purchase of the club).
Any idea our "shop" might actually move "up market" (to the Premier League) now seems likely to be purely incidental. It is not a priority.
In terms of the next steps I would estimate 90% supporters could legitimately raise their concerns over any number of issues. On such a basis Meire & Duchatelet and even Murray now are easy targets. A scenario heightened, whether by accident or design, by the extraordinary executive inability to communicate.
It does present a major difficulty. For every criticism levied, for every negative comment there seems to be a further retreat into a "bunker" mentality. I recognize supporters’ emotions, which run alongside their concerns, can range from being "pissed off" to incandescent anger which will ultimately lead to increasing disinterest and apathy.
With respect to other views I have absolutely no interest in the corporate personalities involved or any supporter “pecking” order. I acknowledge the work of many in furthering the interests of supporters. I further acknowledge the senior executive and the investor are operating in, at best, their 2nd/3rd language. I sympathize with their minimal industry & market knowledge but it is not about being Belgian, being female or operating as a virtual recluse nor any other agenda. It is about the club and the executive performance in running the club - nothing more, nothing less.
I note the "translated quote" dismissing supporter concerns as arising from people "living in the past". If true it is an immature, inaccurate and frankly lazy comment. No matter such references we want to talk about the present and the future. To be fair many have wanted to talk about the present and the future for 21 months
I accept it is natural to want to vent our frustration. Such an approach may temporarily ease the blood pressure but will likely achieve little more. With respect to others there is primarily just one voice I want to hear. It is that of the CEO. If this is a genuine attempt to communicate I do not need to hear soothing words from an avuncular Chairman. Nor do I wish to hear of sundry personnel running interference. CEOs are not meant to be a protected species.
In this brave "new world" it is time for the club to stop exploiting peoples "living in the past" emotional ties in an empty plea for us "to go forward together". We want to go forward but on an informed basis so please Ms Meire tell us about the future;
- Tell us what exactly what you are trying to achieve - Tell us what are your precise plans for the club. - Tell us how you propose to build a financially viable and sustainable football club and in what timeline - Tell us how you plan to build, drive and inspire new success. - Tell us how and where we play a part in that new success - Tell us why we should "invest" in your business - Tell us why you have followed the current coaching appointment policy - Tell us why you have followed the current player recruitment policy - Tell us why you think the results of these policies have to date been so desperately disappointing
We do indeed have our memories. We have our experiences, for some of us going back decades, which we draw on to judge the evidence of our own eyes. It is what we see that prompts the questions we raise because at the moment we still care about "your" and "our" business. "Living in the past" does not preclude the provision of:
- a clear vision statement - clearly defined goals and deliverables on ANY aspect of the business (playing performance, revenue, attendances, academy development) - marketing strategy - communication strategy - commitment to service excellence
Maybe it is a cultural issue (though I doubt it) but if you cannot define what you are trying to achieve how on earth do you expect to achieve it?
Where is the cohesive business plan to bring all of the above together?
Where is the cohesive plan to bring us and the club together because whether it is understood or not it is the business you have bought?
These elements are the responsibility of the CEO of any "people" business. After 21 months the "settling in" period has past.
For me it matters not if the dialogue is between a select group or is a "town hall" gathering provided there is the opportunity to speak openly. I respect the attendees interests are my interests even though on occasion I may not agree with the tactical approach of some. I am confident those attending will be able to pose the necessary questions on behalf of us all.
Whether the response will encourage me to continue to invest my time and a little money in actively supporting the club or it simply becomes a passing interest as I flick across the internet sports pages or catch the TV Sports news is quite another matter.
I sincerely hope the opportunity is taken by all parties to "seize the day"?
Breathtaking and brilliant post. I don't know who you are Viewfinder but my God I wish you were going to that meeting. You certainly represent me and I would trust you Carte Blanche.
There is nothing to stop people going to the ground on the evening and airing there opinion outside the ground whilst the meeting is on... this could and would make things very uncomfortable for Dumb and Dumber sitting there feeding the selected more yarns. Let them know how you feel whilst she is in the building and unable to hide.
The evidence of the club struggles under this regime is there for all to see.
We now have a "further planned dialogue" with supporters. There is genuine concern it will do little more than pay lip service to the concept rather than offer a meaningful attempt to interact with those who follow the club.
The reason for the concern is all too simple. The fear is "the emperor has no clothes", that the executive really has very little to say. I apologise if I have repeated much of that I have commented on before but have added below a "few more lines" on my expectations of any executive running any mid-corporate people business.
What does strike me today is the almost "corner shop" mentality in evidence, which can be great if you are running a corner shop. Sadly it offers little for the progressing the club which it appears has essentially been relegated to a player distribution "outlet". I can but determine the real business and the real P & L rests with acquiring, developing & selling players. Staprix do appear to have some past success with their Liege outlet.
From a trading perspective our "shop" is just the price of doing business. We even had the standard shop refit.
It reflects on those hired to "run" the shop to a) maintain the "status quo" b) put the right players in the shop window. Hence Peeters (used young players at Waasland) selected over Riga, Luzon ex Israel U21 coach, De Sart (at Leige) ex Belgian U21 coach, and now Euell ex our U21s'. If you read the Fraeye comments concerning his background you will see he fits the required profile perfectly.
Young & small squads reduce costs with the benefit of keeping the "right" players in the shop window!
The paradox is to consistently sell players for maximum profit they need to be playing well at a competitive level in a successful side. The concept (not being relegated) is easier to deliver in a weaker Belgian Jupiler Pro League. The Championship offers a greater challenge. Playing demands are greater (46 games v 30 initial games plus play offs) and teams are more competitive.
Early signs are not promising. Have we yet "turned over" one player at a profit? All the player sales revenue generated has come from players previously at the club (though in accounting terms they were of course “assets” acquired on the purchase of the club).
Any idea our "shop" might actually move "up market" (to the Premier League) now seems likely to be purely incidental. It is not a priority.
In terms of the next steps I would estimate 90% supporters could legitimately raise their concerns over any number of issues. On such a basis Meire & Duchatelet and even Murray now are easy targets. A scenario heightened, whether by accident or design, by the extraordinary executive inability to communicate.
It does present a major difficulty. For every criticism levied, for every negative comment there seems to be a further retreat into a "bunker" mentality. I recognize supporters’ emotions, which run alongside their concerns, can range from being "pissed off" to incandescent anger which will ultimately lead to increasing disinterest and apathy.
With respect to other views I have absolutely no interest in the corporate personalities involved or any supporter “pecking” order. I acknowledge the work of many in furthering the interests of supporters. I further acknowledge the senior executive and the investor are operating in, at best, their 2nd/3rd language. I sympathize with their minimal industry & market knowledge but it is not about being Belgian, being female or operating as a virtual recluse nor any other agenda. It is about the club and the executive performance in running the club - nothing more, nothing less.
I note the "translated quote" dismissing supporter concerns as arising from people "living in the past". If true it is an immature, inaccurate and frankly lazy comment. No matter such references we want to talk about the present and the future. To be fair many have wanted to talk about the present and the future for 21 months
I accept it is natural to want to vent our frustration. Such an approach may temporarily ease the blood pressure but will likely achieve little more. With respect to others there is primarily just one voice I want to hear. It is that of the CEO. If this is a genuine attempt to communicate I do not need to hear soothing words from an avuncular Chairman. Nor do I wish to hear of sundry personnel running interference. CEOs are not meant to be a protected species.
In this brave "new world" it is time for the club to stop exploiting peoples "living in the past" emotional ties in an empty plea for us "to go forward together". We want to go forward but on an informed basis so please Ms Meire tell us about the future;
- Tell us what exactly what you are trying to achieve - Tell us what are your precise plans for the club. - Tell us how you propose to build a financially viable and sustainable football club and in what timeline - Tell us how you plan to build, drive and inspire new success. - Tell us how and where we play a part in that new success - Tell us why we should "invest" in your business - Tell us why you have followed the current coaching appointment policy - Tell us why you have followed the current player recruitment policy - Tell us why you think the results of these policies have to date been so desperately disappointing
We do indeed have our memories. We have our experiences, for some of us going back decades, which we draw on to judge the evidence of our own eyes. It is what we see that prompts the questions we raise because at the moment we still care about "your" and "our" business. "Living in the past" does not preclude the provision of:
- a clear vision statement - clearly defined goals and deliverables on ANY aspect of the business (playing performance, revenue, attendances, academy development) - marketing strategy - communication strategy - commitment to service excellence
Maybe it is a cultural issue (though I doubt it) but if you cannot define what you are trying to achieve how on earth do you expect to achieve it?
Where is the cohesive business plan to bring all of the above together?
Where is the cohesive plan to bring us and the club together because whether it is understood or not it is the business you have bought?
These elements are the responsibility of the CEO of any "people" business. After 21 months the "settling in" period has past.
For me it matters not if the dialogue is between a select group or is a "town hall" gathering provided there is the opportunity to speak openly. I respect the attendees interests are my interests even though on occasion I may not agree with the tactical approach of some. I am confident those attending will be able to pose the necessary questions on behalf of us all.
Whether the response will encourage me to continue to invest my time and a little money in actively supporting the club or it simply becomes a passing interest as I flick across the internet sports pages or catch the TV Sports news is quite another matter.
I sincerely hope the opportunity is taken by all parties to "seize the day"?
Breathtaking and brilliant post. I don't know who you are Viewfinder but my God I wish you were going to that meeting. You certainly represent me and I would trust you Carte Blanche.
Classic ; - )
On shit.
GRAPEVINE.
I absolutely don't know what came over me.
Bollocks, my pathetic excuse is that Mrs Plum was sitting beside me wittering on about swimming goggles (!), and I was distracted.
I'm cut and pasting the key questions from Grapevines post and sending them to all the announced attendees
And I'm cut & pasting some of Colin's previous posts to send to KM so she can deliver the appropriate response and blow away all this shit grapevine keeps coming up with
Whilst Grapevines q's are magnificent, the main protagonists will be aware that they will be forthcoming and no doubt have scripted responses. Maybe it might be worthwhile someone having some 'alternative' questions, essentially giving the same cutting examination, however from a different angle?
Comments
So far there have not been enough people who have come forward to have a contested election, however each Trust board member has to be publically affirmed, out in the open as it were, and in that respect the Trust Board is a perfectly sound body, properly constituted.
It's not unreasonable to take a position that the club should fully fund its own Academy - but Valley Gold provides a means of a long term investment from supporters in the club, with long term success. There is some leverage there on that basis, but we have to recognise that due to the owner's wealth that leverage is probably at its lowest since its inception.
But then what is that leverage supposed to achieve? Every time there's a bit of emotion among the fans we threaten the club to withhold the funds? Unless we direct the funds elsewhere - and I'm not certain we're free to do that - all they'll do is defer the income on their balance sheet and ask the owner to cover the impact of any cash shortfall until we pay it. Or alternatively the kids will lose out, which is why I think it's self-defeating - we're not impacting the owner at all.
I think the message that members are asking us to consider withholding funds is as strong as us actually doing so, to be frank. But I'll say again, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to consider Valley Gold as a target for protest.
The point is that every single member of the board has stood for election. There's an innuendo that it's all jobs for the boys, but we don't know when we stand whether we will be in a contest or not. In many ways it would be good if more stood and gave members a choice of more, different talents. If it helps, at the AGM I did appeal for others to get involved and consider standing for that very reason.
There is perhaps though also a sense that the members are content with how the board have managed this year, and that too has to be respected in a democratic organisation.
All that said, I think the key thing about the names on this particular list is reach as well as representation. If we are able to glean a consensus from the supporters we can reach, then the club cannot run away from the fact that there is broad representation of a small number of important messages - because the reach was broad.
As for John the coach steward, he will have another opportunity to gauge opinion tonight but is actively participating in feeding back to the fans' group. Let's not belittle him too, eh.
We now have a "further planned dialogue" with supporters. There is genuine concern it will do little more than pay lip service to the concept rather than offer a meaningful attempt to interact with those who follow the club.
The reason for the concern is all too simple. The fear is "the emperor has no clothes", that the executive really has very little to say. I apologise if I have repeated much of that I have commented on before but have added below a "few more lines" on my expectations of any executive running any mid-corporate people business.
What does strike me today is the almost "corner shop" mentality in evidence, which can be great if you are running a corner shop. Sadly it offers little for the progressing the club which it appears has essentially been relegated to a player distribution "outlet". I can but determine the real business and the real P & L rests with acquiring, developing & selling players. Staprix do appear to have some past success with their Liege outlet.
From a trading perspective our "shop" is just the price of doing business. We even had the standard shop refit.
It reflects on those hired to "run" the shop to a) maintain the "status quo" b) put the right players in the shop window. Hence Peeters (used young players at Waasland) selected over Riga, Luzon ex Israel U21 coach, De Sart (at Leige) ex Belgian U21 coach, and now Euell ex our U21s'. If you read the Fraeye comments concerning his background you will see he fits the required profile perfectly.
Young & small squads reduce costs with the benefit of keeping the "right" players in the shop window!
The paradox is to consistently sell players for maximum profit they need to be playing well at a competitive level in a successful side. The concept (not being relegated) is easier to deliver in a weaker Belgian Jupiler Pro League. The Championship offers a greater challenge. Playing demands are greater (46 games v 30 initial games plus play offs) and teams are more competitive.
Early signs are not promising. Have we yet "turned over" one player at a profit? All the player sales revenue generated has come from players previously at the club (though in accounting terms they were of course “assets” acquired on the purchase of the club).
Any idea our "shop" might actually move "up market" (to the Premier League) now seems likely to be purely incidental. It is not a priority.
In terms of the next steps I would estimate 90% supporters could legitimately raise their concerns over any number of issues. On such a basis Meire & Duchatelet and even Murray now are easy targets. A scenario heightened, whether by accident or design, by the extraordinary executive inability to communicate.
It does present a major difficulty. For every criticism levied, for every negative comment there seems to be a further retreat into a "bunker" mentality. I recognize supporters’ emotions, which run alongside their concerns, can range from being "pissed off" to incandescent anger which will ultimately lead to increasing disinterest and apathy.
With respect to other views I have absolutely no interest in the corporate personalities involved or any supporter “pecking” order. I acknowledge the work of many in furthering the interests of supporters. I further acknowledge the senior executive and the investor are operating in, at best, their 2nd/3rd language. I sympathize with their minimal industry & market knowledge but it is not about being Belgian, being female or operating as a virtual recluse nor any other agenda. It is about the club and the executive performance in running the club - nothing more, nothing less.
I note the "translated quote" dismissing supporter concerns as arising from people "living in the past". If true it is an immature, inaccurate and frankly lazy comment. No matter such references we want to talk about the present and the future. To be fair many have wanted to talk about the present and the future for 21 months
I accept it is natural to want to vent our frustration. Such an approach may temporarily ease the blood pressure but will likely achieve little more. With respect to others there is primarily just one voice I want to hear. It is that of the CEO. If this is a genuine attempt to communicate I do not need to hear soothing words from an avuncular Chairman. Nor do I wish to hear of sundry personnel running interference. CEOs are not meant to be a protected species.
In this brave "new world" it is time for the club to stop exploiting peoples "living in the past" emotional ties in an empty plea for us "to go forward together". We want to go forward but on an informed basis so please Ms Meire tell us about the future;
- Tell us what exactly what you are trying to achieve
- Tell us what are your precise plans for the club.
- Tell us how you propose to build a financially viable and sustainable football club and in what timeline
- Tell us how you plan to build, drive and inspire new success.
- Tell us how and where we play a part in that new success
- Tell us why we should "invest" in your business
- Tell us why you have followed the current coaching appointment policy
- Tell us why you have followed the current player recruitment policy
- Tell us why you think the results of these policies have to date been so desperately disappointing
We do indeed have our memories. We have our experiences, for some of us going back decades, which we draw on to judge the evidence of our own eyes. It is what we see that prompts the questions we raise because at the moment we still care about "your" and "our" business. "Living in the past" does not preclude the provision of:
- a clear vision statement
- clearly defined goals and deliverables on ANY aspect of the business (playing performance, revenue, attendances, academy development)
- marketing strategy
- communication strategy
- commitment to service excellence
Maybe it is a cultural issue (though I doubt it) but if you cannot define what you are trying to achieve how on earth do you expect to achieve it?
Where is the cohesive business plan to bring all of the above together?
Where is the cohesive plan to bring us and the club together because whether it is understood or not it is the business you have bought?
These elements are the responsibility of the CEO of any "people" business. After 21 months the "settling in" period has past.
For me it matters not if the dialogue is between a select group or is a "town hall" gathering provided there is the opportunity to speak openly. I respect the attendees interests are my interests even though on occasion I may not agree with the tactical approach of some. I am confident those attending will be able to pose the necessary questions on behalf of us all.
Whether the response will encourage me to continue to invest my time and a little money in actively supporting the club or it simply becomes a passing interest as I flick across the internet sports pages or catch the TV Sports news is quite another matter.
I sincerely hope the opportunity is taken by all parties to "seize the day"?
Regardless, if the chief executive cannot rise to the challenge you set out then I think those of us who will not walk away need to encourage the owner to replace her - in effect we will need to create the vacancy.
Let them know how you feel whilst she is in the building and unable to hide.
GRAPEVINE.
I absolutely don't know what came over me.
Bollocks, my pathetic excuse is that Mrs Plum was sitting beside me wittering on about swimming goggles (!), and I was distracted.
Not going to live this one down.
Whilst Grapevines q's are magnificent, the main protagonists will be aware that they will be forthcoming and no doubt have scripted responses. Maybe it might be worthwhile someone having some 'alternative' questions, essentially giving the same cutting examination, however from a different angle?