The Trust
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.
Comments
-
Probably good to assume the summary isn't a perfect representation of everything that was said on the night, and perhaps there were things said that could not be published beyond the four walls.
The Supporters' Trust works to various objectives and a mandate provided by its members and the wider support. In February it sought a consensus and supporters and members said, go get dialogue with the club. Last month a survey resulted in 80% of respondents repeating the same message. In the background the Spell It Out campaign has been growing in momentum with the prime objective of achieving meaningful dialogue, driven by others.
The Trust has put the best part of a year's work into turning around a perception that led the club to reject almost every effort to meet with them. It's taken a lower public profile in the meantime. It would be folly to throw an opportunity away, only to find that a nice run of results covers over the mood of protest as it did earlier in the year. It is a long term objective, and until it's clear beyond doubt that it's fruitless to pursue meaningful dialogue I think it's absolutely right for the Trust to be circumspect about other activities it leads or is involved in.
Leadership is demonstrated to a much greater degree by those keeping their hand on the tiller and their eye on their destination during a storm than it is being tossed and turned with every wave. Full credit to Steve for that, in my view.5 -
"Once they stop talking to you - they start talking about you"
We need to forget the dialogue and answers stuff, and start to put pressure on them legally and financially by any means possible. Not give them a penny, throw spanners in every one of their plans, get fans of other clubs on our side (we will have no problem here given our history - Brighton for a start).
If I was at that meeting forthcoming personally I would do nothing but intimidate and rattle KM personally, as horrible as it sounds she's the forefront of the operation because RD is hiding at home in his office. I know the answers she will come out with will be not from her heart but from her cue card; and if the going gets tough aka she can't answer then Mr. Richard Murray will step in protecting his money. The questions are going to be irrelevant; as they were at VIP meeting and as they have been since.
I strongly suggest no one buy a penny's worth of food or drink from the club in any form, as much as it be your ritual to before a match - one little step onto the ladder before we start the climb.7 -
My take on it lancashire is that the Trust helped organise a very large public meeting when we had a previous bad run.
Then things changed and we went on a better run and then users on here constantly ripped the piss out of them for calling a public meeting. They were mocked about the whole thing.
So I assume they are now working quietly in the background but certainly not sitting on the fence. I thought that was pretty clear.
God it's a thankless task being on the Trust.
25 -
The bit of the report that stood out for me was at the end, talking about balancing being critical and being excluded from discussions, ie:
"It was also argued that this is not an either:or situation. Some felt that the Trust should be able to be openly critical at the same time as pursuing dialogue."
Absolutely right in my opinion. And to turn it around, if you're not able to be a critical voice when it really matters, there's no point pursuing dialogue.4 -
I am Paid member of the trust and I totally agree with the stance they have taken.Curb_It said:My take on it lancashire is that the Trust helped organise a very large public meeting when we had a previous bad run.
Then things changed and we went on a better run and then users on here constantly ripped the piss out of them for calling a public meeting. They were mocked about the whole thing.
So I assume they are now working quietly in the background but certainly not sitting on the fence. I thought that was pretty clear.
God it's a thankless task being on the Trust.
The trust needs to continue to grow before they can seriously have a mandate to be taken seriously for more extremed protests.
I am personally boycotting but that is my choice.2 -
I don't disagree with this, but criticism is best received from a place of trusted relationship than it is from one of enmity. To have the best chance of positive influence, pursuing the former will achieve more in my view.lordromford said:The bit of the report that stood out for me was at the end, talking about balancing being critical and being excluded from discussions, ie:
"It was also argued that this is not an either:or situation. Some felt that the Trust should be able to be openly critical at the same time as pursuing dialogue."
Absolutely right in my opinion. And to turn it around, if you're not able to be a critical voice when it really matters, there's no point pursuing dialogue.1 -
Thanks for your explaination Rikofold.
Using your maritime metaphor our boat has travelled further along it's route since February, the storm has become a hurricane and an even hand on the tiller is not enough, we need to change course, increase speed and find a way round the storm.
Or to put it plainly with the recent managerial change and continued silence from the owners we know the contempt that they have for the supporters and they are just playing you along the dialogue route - get real, smell the coffee, use whichever saying you like but do something and coordinate the current unrest, or there might not be anyone to talk to.1 -
Fair enough @rikofoldrikofold said:
I don't disagree with this, but criticism is best received from a place of trusted relationship than it is from one of enmity. To have the best chance of positive influence, pursuing the former will achieve more in my view.lordromford said:The bit of the report that stood out for me was at the end, talking about balancing being critical and being excluded from discussions, ie:
"It was also argued that this is not an either:or situation. Some felt that the Trust should be able to be openly critical at the same time as pursuing dialogue."
Absolutely right in my opinion. And to turn it around, if you're not able to be a critical voice when it really matters, there's no point pursuing dialogue.
I do appreciate that it's a balancing act.0 -
When the Trust was first conceived I was under the impression that it would take the stance as being a critical friend. Remove the critical and they are just a friend. I'm no friend to this current regime at the club. I will not feel comfortable renewing my trust membership if it appears that they could be toning down their operation in the hope the club will accept an olive branch. I'm not expecting them to take a militant approach, but I do expect them to show support and solidarity for the many fans that are currently disgruntled, many of which are Trust members no doubt.
In my view, it's times like these are when the Trust should be extremely visible and vocal in uniting the fans in a common cause to take issue with the club against what appears to be some of the worst management in our history. In both surveys I voted for the Trust to attempt to get a dialogue going with the club, but I wouldn't want that at a detriment to everything else they could get involved in.
They have my money they have my support, for now at least. I was however a bit perplexed with the latest statement as it didn't really say very much at all and didn't seem to be clear on their position. Hopefully there is more going on in the background that will come out later on.4 -
I'm not in the know, but suggest we wait until after the fan meeting and see what the Trust does next.9
-
Sponsored links:
-
First my enermies friend is my enermy.
Having said that I am going to protest this Saturday at 14.30 off my own back. The protest is not being led by any group or one person. It is going to happen due too the worst owner in the clubs history showing all Charlton supporters a total lack of respect. And the important thing for me is that there will be a large, peaceful but vocal demonstration targetting RD and KM.
In my opinion neither the Trust or RD will be able to do anything about the poor ST sales next season when the penny will drop and RD will finally get the message0 -
I see no point in dialogue.
We know that the Belgian's plan is asset and not football based and that he won't change it.
So at a meeting he will either refuse to tell his plan or if he spills the beans the Trust won't like it. So why bother meeting!? Just go straight to the war mode!5 -
but will there?BPhasnohair said:First my enermies friend is my enermy.
Having said that I am going to protest this Saturday at 14.30 off my own back. The protest is not being led by any group or one person. It is going to happen due too the worst owner in the clubs history showing all Charlton supporters a total lack of respect. And the important thing for me is that there will be a large, peaceful but vocal demonstration targetting RD and KM.
In my opinion neither the Trust or RD will be able to do anything about the poor ST sales next season when the penny will drop and RD will finally get the message0 -
A lot of talk of this on social media so we will see, if it doesn't happen then everyone should shut up and put upMrOneLung said:
but will there?BPhasnohair said:First my enermies friend is my enermy.
Having said that I am going to protest this Saturday at 14.30 off my own back. The protest is not being led by any group or one person. It is going to happen due too the worst owner in the clubs history showing all Charlton supporters a total lack of respect. And the important thing for me is that there will be a large, peaceful but vocal demonstration targetting RD and KM.
In my opinion neither the Trust or RD will be able to do anything about the poor ST sales next season when the penny will drop and RD will finally get the message0 -
We are in a dire situation, which will not improve without a concerted effort to influence the cuerent regime from a large portion of our fanbase. However, it's possible that within that effort, different groups will have different roles to play.
The Trust cannot realistically both lead protests and other direct action against the club and engage in a productive dialogue with the current regime. Both courses of action have the potential to influence the ownership, and thereby to help improve our situation. If the Trust cannot do both, it therefore becomes a question of which role it is best suited to fill.
Protests, Spell It Out, the petition and food boycotts have all been organised, or are in the process of being organised, without leadership from the Trust. This suggests that there are individuals or groups within the fanbase that are capable of organising such actions independently of the Trust. However, there isn't any group within the fanbase that is as well placed to engage in meaningful dialogue with the club as the Trust. Therefore, arguably the best contribution that the Trust can make to the cause at the moment is to continue with the course that it is currently pursuing, and hopefully build Trust with the regime.
The two different approaches may even compliment each other: if the direct action worries the ownership sufficiently for it to seek greater engagement with the fanbase, then the Trust will be there, having already opened dialogue and built trust, to put across the fanbase's concerns in a way that the regime may be more receptive towards.6 -
I think its a brave and principalled stance, there is nothing stopping protests being organised in the meantime.
If the Trust did otherwise it would be playing into the hands of a dvide and rule agenda or attempts to discredit it.
Whether or not the Trust should be the be all and end all is another matter, but I don't see why it shouldn't be leading factor if dialogue is exhausted. The bottom line at the end is it must represent its paying members, sonif you want to have a say join up.
Probably the most important thing is that we fans communicate, coordinate, and work for Unity in our approach. It is my belief that this is when we are strongest.
I think we should celebrate our history regardless of events, and do it every year around late November early December, back to the Valley and all that.3 -
razil and fences....lancashire lad said:I am a member of CAST and congratulate them on the work they have done with regard to the Olympic Stadium. I did not attend the recent AGM as the distance involved made it impractical. However I have read the the piece on the web site entitled " Charlton in disarray - how should we respond?
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.2 -
No longer on ze board mien kapitan0
-
I concer with the OP, but I also can understand what the trust are trying to do here. It does seem to be a "Trevor Brooking" way of dealing with the situation but if that's the way they feel best then fine. It won't get me to part with my fiver, but I respect their decision.lancashire lad said:I am a member of CAST and congratulate them on the work they have done with regard to the Olympic Stadium. I did not attend the recent AGM as the distance involved made it impractical. However I have read the the piece on the web site entitled " Charlton in disarray - how should we respond?
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.
In my opinion she is too stubborn to speak to the trust and will attempt to keep them at arms length away for as long as possible. Allowing a couple of trust members on the fans forum is about as far is it will go. A token gesture.
The only way the trust will get more communication with the club, is if and when she resigns as CEO. Then we may have a more understanding Chief Executive who will take on board the fans concerns and speak to the trust on a regular basis.
2 -
lancashire lad said:
I am a member of CAST and congratulate them on the work they have done with regard to the Olympic Stadium. I did not attend the recent AGM as the distance involved made it impractical. However I have read the the piece on the web site entitled " Charlton in disarray - how should we respond?
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.
I get a sense of urgency in LL's post - and I share that. I feel the club I love is slipping away - and I want to stop that in the best way possible. I have one question -
At what point do you decide that the owner/CEO are NOT going to communicate? How long do you give them before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and realise they have been stringing you along?
(OK that was two questions)
2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Extract from the Trust statement:
"The Trust would therefore attend any meeting in hope of a breakthrough but also recognising the need for demonstrably greater engagement than to date. Steve Clarke asked the meeting for views on how the Trust should respond if, in a few weeks time, it found itself no further forward."
We are talking days/weeks, not months.
6 -
Thanks WeegieWeegie Addick said:Extract from the Trust statement:
"The Trust would therefore attend any meeting in hope of a breakthrough but also recognising the need for demonstrably greater engagement than to date. Steve Clarke asked the meeting for views on how the Trust should respond if, in a few weeks time, it found itself no further forward."
We are talking days/weeks, not months.1 -
Isn't there a rather large elephant in the room regarding meetings with KM and the Trust.0
-
Bit strong that!Henry Irving said:Isn't their a rather large elephant in the room regarding meetings with KM and the Trust.
I do know she doesn't get much time to get down the gym these days,what with all these interviews and sackings.4 -
Exactly! We need to explore all angles and not discredit any, especially one that has been working away for a year. As a member of the Trust, I feel they must explore the opportunity of dialogue first. This is not the time for arguing amongst ourselves: our club is disappearing before our eyes. As said, let's see what happens or not at the meeting!Weegie Addick said:Extract from the Trust statement:
"The Trust would therefore attend any meeting in hope of a breakthrough but also recognising the need for demonstrably greater engagement than to date. Steve Clarke asked the meeting for views on how the Trust should respond if, in a few weeks time, it found itself no further forward."
We are talking days/weeks, not months.
0 -
I have also stepped down from the board trust , but fully support the mandate they have been given by the membership, that was voted on down in Woolwich, and discussed at the AGM. Yes I am frustrated by the lack of communication and meaningful dialogue with the CAFC board to date, but probably not half as much as the current Trust board members. Of course that does not stop myself or anyone else in supporting a programme of 'persuasion and protest'. A couple of dozen people in the car park on Saturday protesting may be a way forward, but I doubt it.
I am of the opinion that KM will simply dig her heels in, and justify her position, try and put a 'spin' on it.
The lady has to put aside her 'Sepp Blatter book of pr' and 'gimmicks' and engage with fans, which the trust is the main body to me, but then I am biased. After the 'meeting' is the time for the trust to act for me.8 -
Which is?Henry Irving said:Isn't there a rather large elephant in the room regarding meetings with KM and the Trust.
0 -
Indeed there is.Henry Irving said:Isn't there a rather large elephant in the room regarding meetings with KM and the Trust.
0 -
I support what the trust are trying to do, and do feel a bit bad to criticize, but to me it feels like the trust really have an opportunity to make a difference at the moment, and have bottled it by sitting on the fence.
For the first time since RD took over, the vast majority of Charlton fans are on the same page and the vast majority of us want some form of action/protest. Last week's meeting was the ideal time for the trust to take advantage of this and get some form of campaign going.
Instead they are just going to continue to seek communication with Katrien which clearly isn't really working for them.
Shame really as the trust is the body that would give us the best chance of organising an effective protest, whatever it may be.2 -
Do you think she ignores the trust because she wants to, or because that's what she is told to do?shirty5 said:lancashire lad said:I am a member of CAST and congratulate them on the work they have done with regard to the Olympic Stadium. I did not attend the recent AGM as the distance involved made it impractical. However I have read the the piece on the web site entitled " Charlton in disarray - how should we respond?
What a load of fence sitting, it seems that the tone of the article is that the Trust has worked to get dialogue with someone at the club and does not want to jeopardise that work by leading/backing/supporting any direct action against the club. Surely the Trust and it's external advisors, whoever they are, must realise that RD will not talk to any of us and KM is his conduit and she does not acknowledge the history or legacy of longstanding supporters of our club.
From reading CL there is a genuine groundswell of antagonism towards the owners and the Trust should be involved in this rather than sitting on the sidelines ringing their hands and hoping for some dialogue at sometime with someone. So Mr Clarke and your external advisors please get off the fence and do what is necessary and that is to publicise our plight in any legal way possible. After all if the club continues on its downward spiral there will be no club when West Ham move into their new home.
The only way the trust will get more communication with the club, is if and when she resigns as CEO. Then we may have a more understanding Chief Executive who will take on board the fans concerns and speak to the trust on a regular basis.0
