Don't think anyone can fault those who found themselves in the front line. It's easier to do the wanker salute than speaking in public in a confrontational atmosphere being filmed for all to later criticise from the comfort of their armchair. If it had been me I would have been proud to have been as articulate as those who had the balls to speak.
I was seething reading the tweets, because out of context, they came across as offensive rather than defensive.. What the tweets highlighted and caused the heat was the complete absence of any sense that the club had got anything wrong. @rikofold picked this up saying we hadn't heard admission that changes were needed.
I was listening to Will Carling talking about the meltdown of the English rugby squad and he said every professional team has underlying frictions and conflicts that are kept under control by results, they paper over all the cracks. It's when results don't happen that the cracks appear.
That is what is happening at Charlton. Without results we implode because the structure is all wrong, there is no cohesion. There is no coherent relationship between the stakeholders. RD has a relationship with the manager. KM has a sort of relationship with the manager that is undermined by the RD relationship. The manager has a relationship with the players but some also have a relationship with RD. RM tries to have a relationship with them all. The fans want a relationship but it should be a naturally evolved relationship, not one determined by monthly powerpoint presentations or lessons on what we should be grateful for.
I hate being negative, I am a supporter of dialogue, but I honestly don't see what dialogue is going to achieve. Contradicting that, it makes no sense not to take advantage of whatever line of communication is made available, otherwise there is no way of having any influence apart from wanker salutes. It also leaves open the ability to prove, if it is the case, that a majority, not a minority of fans, want change.
I also think it's a mistake to give the message that management should listen to us for solutions. We just tell them what the problems are and ask them what they are going to do about IF they want to address them. They are paid to sort out problems, we pay to be entertained.
So I think we will probably have two camps. One camp that is happy as long as results cover up the cracks and another camp who want something more rewarding, that isn't easy to define, but know it's not load music and a DJ in Crossbars. The second camp will probably just drift away over time if nothing changes.
Great post as ever. The bit I've highlighted above speaks volumes to me, but I think where we are is as a result of that relationship being undermined for 4-5 years now. In some ways it's not the current regime's fault that we hoped they'd be an improvement on the last lot in this way.
Even so, it's a symptom of an underlying - I was going to say malaise but I don't think that's correct. It's more that any relationship needs ongoing cultivation, from both parties, and the longer there's an absence on either side the harder it is to trust again.
As I said on Tuesday night, I don't think it's all as bad as was being received. I don't think they're trying to piss us off, but they see the relationship in different terms - one where we're a beneficiary rather than a partner. So it's a little like unrequited love from our part - hope deferred makes the heart sick.
That said, the club might have afforded us a forum on Tuesday where there was greater opportunity to challenge some of the detail of what was said. For example, It's ludicrous to say Guy Luzon was one of 5 successful appointments, because at the time of his arrival we heard how they'd sought the right, long term appointment. That he's sacked within a matter of months doesn't in any way speak of success, unless you are literally running the club to an extremely short term basis and all you wanted from him was a burst of results. But if you want a contribution from 30-40 people in 90 minutes...
The club can rebuild the trust in my view but it will take a greater degree of openness than they've shown to date. As I said, I feel they missed an opportunity overall on Tuesday - although I'm prepared to be generous and view the presentation as a step in the right direction as it was an attempt to communicate something. I'm also happy to accept that KM feels she's tried to get information across but is scratching her head as to why it's not been heard.
For example, notwithstanding the fair point Murray made about the owner/manager relationship, if your recruitment process isn't bringing in people who can succeed in the long term it would make sense for the business to examine that process, and to be open about that. If you've spent £9m on incoming transfer fees, tell us how that's funded - whether Roland is being altruistic, loaning us the money or that the various departures have made the difference. Tell us what the funding gap is, whether that's managed year on year or accounted as part of a longer term plan. And so on.
From the fans' point of view, the question is simple: what do we want, and how do we achieve that. The CASTrust survey that I hope Weegie will be able to go into more detail on at some point showed an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the way the club was run, but the priority actions were appoint a manager with an English football track record and for the club to share more on their vision and plans. The first is out of our control, the second needs the club to talk to us - and a lot of the 'other comments' provided pointed to a similar theme of developing bidirectional conversation, understanding and trust.
I have a loud voice and have a tendency to raise it when frustrated. My other half withdraws as soon as my voice is raised. I see similar in our relationship with the club. KM betrayed some vulnerability I think on Tuesday, she's clearly found the less savoury aspects of the protests personally hurtful - certainly she started that meeting much more nervously than one might expect. I doubt she or her allies will rush to hug the people shouting that stuff at her. Like me and my other half, it helps to understand why the frustration exists but no relationship is strengthened by shouting, and certainly not by insult.
Anyway, a long way to say I agree and disagree. I don't think we should cast dialogue aside - sometimes it's helpful to vent if it gets a message across, but it will be most powerful sparingly and when it's going to have the most impact. Abandoning dialogue might be helpful in the short term, but certainly if we want the club to love us we can't do that permanently.
Don't think anyone can fault those who found themselves in the front line. It's easier to do the wanker salute than speaking in public in a confrontational atmosphere being filmed for all to later criticise from the comfort of their armchair. If it had been me I would have been proud to have been as articulate as those who had the balls to speak.
I was seething reading the tweets, because out of context, they came across as offensive rather than defensive.. What the tweets highlighted and caused the heat was the complete absence of any sense that the club had got anything wrong. @rikofold picked this up saying we hadn't heard admission that changes were needed.
I was listening to Will Carling talking about the meltdown of the English rugby squad and he said every professional team has underlying frictions and conflicts that are kept under control by results, they paper over all the cracks. It's when results don't happen that the cracks appear.
That is what is happening at Charlton. Without results we implode because the structure is all wrong, there is no cohesion. There is no coherent relationship between the stakeholders. RD has a relationship with the manager. KM has a sort of relationship with the manager that is undermined by the RD relationship. The manager has a relationship with the players but some also have a relationship with RD. RM tries to have a relationship with them all. The fans want a relationship but it should be a naturally evolved relationship, not one determined by monthly powerpoint presentations or lessons on what we should be grateful for.
I hate being negative, I am a supporter of dialogue, but I honestly don't see what dialogue is going to achieve. Contradicting that, it makes no sense not to take advantage of whatever line of communication is made available, otherwise there is no way of having any influence apart from wanker salutes. It also leaves open the ability to prove, if it is the case, that a majority, not a minority of fans, want change.
I also think it's a mistake to give the message that management should listen to us for solutions. We just tell them what the problems are and ask them what they are going to do about IF they want to address them. They are paid to sort out problems, we pay to be entertained.
So I think we will probably have two camps. One camp that is happy as long as results cover up the cracks and another camp who want something more rewarding, that isn't easy to define, but know it's not load music and a DJ in Crossbars. The second camp will probably just drift away over time if nothing changes.
Great post as ever. The bit I've highlighted above speaks volumes to me, but I think where we are is as a result of that relationship being undermined for 4-5 years now. In some ways it's not the current regime's fault that we hoped they'd be an improvement on the last lot in this way.
Even so, it's a symptom of an underlying - I was going to say malaise but I don't think that's correct. It's more that any relationship needs ongoing cultivation, from both parties, and the longer there's an absence on either side the harder it is to trust again.
As I said on Tuesday night, I don't think it's all as bad as was being received. I don't think they're trying to piss us off, but they see the relationship in different terms - one where we're a beneficiary rather than a partner. So it's a little like unrequited love from our part - hope deferred makes the heart sick.
That said, the club might have afforded us a forum on Tuesday where there was greater opportunity to challenge some of the detail of what was said. For example, It's ludicrous to say Guy Luzon was one of 5 successful appointments, because at the time of his arrival we heard how they'd sought the right, long term appointment. That he's sacked within a matter of months doesn't in any way speak of success, unless you are literally running the club to an extremely short term basis and all you wanted from him was a burst of results. But if you want a contribution from 30-40 people in 90 minutes...
The club can rebuild the trust in my view but it will take a greater degree of openness than they've shown to date. As I said, I feel they missed an opportunity overall on Tuesday - although I'm prepared to be generous and view the presentation as a step in the right direction as it was an attempt to communicate something. I'm also happy to accept that KM feels she's tried to get information across but is scratching her head as to why it's not been heard.
For example, notwithstanding the fair point Murray made about the owner/manager relationship, if your recruitment process isn't bringing in people who can succeed in the long term it would make sense for the business to examine that process, and to be open about that. If you've spent £9m on incoming transfer fees, tell us how that's funded - whether Roland is being altruistic, loaning us the money or that the various departures have made the difference. Tell us what the funding gap is, whether that's managed year on year or accounted as part of a longer term plan. And so on.
From the fans' point of view, the question is simple: what do we want, and how do we achieve that. The CASTrust survey that I hope Weegie will be able to go into more detail on at some point showed an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the way the club was run, but the priority actions were appoint a manager with an English football track record and for the club to share more on their vision and plans. The first is out of our control, the second needs the club to talk to us - and a lot of the 'other comments' provided pointed to a similar theme of developing bidirectional conversation, understanding and trust.
I have a loud voice and have a tendency to raise it when frustrated. My other half withdraws as soon as my voice is raised. I see similar in our relationship with the club. KM betrayed some vulnerability I think on Tuesday, she's clearly found the less savoury aspects of the protests personally hurtful - certainly she started that meeting much more nervously than one might expect. I doubt she or her allies will rush to hug the people shouting that stuff at her. Like me and my other half, it helps to understand why the frustration exists but no relationship is strengthened by shouting, and certainly not by insult.
Anyway, a long way to say I agree and disagree. I don't think we should cast dialogue aside - sometimes it's helpful to vent if it gets a message across, but it will be most powerful sparingly and when it's going to have the most impact. Abandoning dialogue might be helpful in the short term, but certainly if we want the club to love us we can't do that permanently.
The majority do not want a relationship. They want a management team that brings successful football, players to admire and dreams. This lot have told us their objective: to break even. Even as an accountant that doesn't turn me on. So no more to discuss except for those that want to meet their objective of involvement.
Don't think anyone can fault those who found themselves in the front line. It's easier to do the wanker salute than speaking in public in a confrontational atmosphere being filmed for all to later criticise from the comfort of their armchair. If it had been me I would have been proud to have been as articulate as those who had the balls to speak.
I was seething reading the tweets, because out of context, they came across as offensive rather than defensive.. What the tweets highlighted and caused the heat was the complete absence of any sense that the club had got anything wrong. @rikofold picked this up saying we hadn't heard admission that changes were needed.
I was listening to Will Carling talking about the meltdown of the English rugby squad and he said every professional team has underlying frictions and conflicts that are kept under control by results, they paper over all the cracks. It's when results don't happen that the cracks appear.
That is what is happening at Charlton. Without results we implode because the structure is all wrong, there is no cohesion. There is no coherent relationship between the stakeholders. RD has a relationship with the manager. KM has a sort of relationship with the manager that is undermined by the RD relationship. The manager has a relationship with the players but some also have a relationship with RD. RM tries to have a relationship with them all. The fans want a relationship but it should be a naturally evolved relationship, not one determined by monthly powerpoint presentations or lessons on what we should be grateful for.
I hate being negative, I am a supporter of dialogue, but I honestly don't see what dialogue is going to achieve. Contradicting that, it makes no sense not to take advantage of whatever line of communication is made available, otherwise there is no way of having any influence apart from wanker salutes. It also leaves open the ability to prove, if it is the case, that a majority, not a minority of fans, want change.
I also think it's a mistake to give the message that management should listen to us for solutions. We just tell them what the problems are and ask them what they are going to do about IF they want to address them. They are paid to sort out problems, we pay to be entertained.
So I think we will probably have two camps. One camp that is happy as long as results cover up the cracks and another camp who want something more rewarding, that isn't easy to define, but know it's not load music and a DJ in Crossbars. The second camp will probably just drift away over time if nothing changes.
Great post as ever. The bit I've highlighted above speaks volumes to me, but I think where we are is as a result of that relationship being undermined for 4-5 years now. In some ways it's not the current regime's fault that we hoped they'd be an improvement on the last lot in this way.
Even so, it's a symptom of an underlying - I was going to say malaise but I don't think that's correct. It's more that any relationship needs ongoing cultivation, from both parties, and the longer there's an absence on either side the harder it is to trust again.
As I said on Tuesday night, I don't think it's all as bad as was being received. I don't think they're trying to piss us off, but they see the relationship in different terms - one where we're a beneficiary rather than a partner. So it's a little like unrequited love from our part - hope deferred makes the heart sick.
That said, the club might have afforded us a forum on Tuesday where there was greater opportunity to challenge some of the detail of what was said. For example, It's ludicrous to say Guy Luzon was one of 5 successful appointments, because at the time of his arrival we heard how they'd sought the right, long term appointment. That he's sacked within a matter of months doesn't in any way speak of success, unless you are literally running the club to an extremely short term basis and all you wanted from him was a burst of results. But if you want a contribution from 30-40 people in 90 minutes...
The club can rebuild the trust in my view but it will take a greater degree of openness than they've shown to date. As I said, I feel they missed an opportunity overall on Tuesday - although I'm prepared to be generous and view the presentation as a step in the right direction as it was an attempt to communicate something. I'm also happy to accept that KM feels she's tried to get information across but is scratching her head as to why it's not been heard.
For example, notwithstanding the fair point Murray made about the owner/manager relationship, if your recruitment process isn't bringing in people who can succeed in the long term it would make sense for the business to examine that process, and to be open about that. If you've spent £9m on incoming transfer fees, tell us how that's funded - whether Roland is being altruistic, loaning us the money or that the various departures have made the difference. Tell us what the funding gap is, whether that's managed year on year or accounted as part of a longer term plan. And so on.
From the fans' point of view, the question is simple: what do we want, and how do we achieve that. The CASTrust survey that I hope Weegie will be able to go into more detail on at some point showed an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the way the club was run, but the priority actions were appoint a manager with an English football track record and for the club to share more on their vision and plans. The first is out of our control, the second needs the club to talk to us - and a lot of the 'other comments' provided pointed to a similar theme of developing bidirectional conversation, understanding and trust.
I have a loud voice and have a tendency to raise it when frustrated. My other half withdraws as soon as my voice is raised. I see similar in our relationship with the club. KM betrayed some vulnerability I think on Tuesday, she's clearly found the less savoury aspects of the protests personally hurtful - certainly she started that meeting much more nervously than one might expect. I doubt she or her allies will rush to hug the people shouting that stuff at her. Like me and my other half, it helps to understand why the frustration exists but no relationship is strengthened by shouting, and certainly not by insult.
Anyway, a long way to say I agree and disagree. I don't think we should cast dialogue aside - sometimes it's helpful to vent if it gets a message across, but it will be most powerful sparingly and when it's going to have the most impact. Abandoning dialogue might be helpful in the short term, but certainly if we want the club to love us we can't do that permanently.
The majority do not want a relationship. They want a management team that brings successful football, players to admire and dreams. This lot have told us their objective: to break even. Even as an accountant that doesn't turn me on. So no more to discuss except for those that want to meet their objective of involvement.
You keep claiming 'the majority' but every survey that comes back disagrees with you I'm afraid.
There is no option within that survey to say "there's nothing they can do, I want them out" or words to that effect. You could put that as your answer to question 8 in the free text box I suppose, but it certainly seems that stating a desire to get them out wasn't an opinion that the Trust wanted to encourage. If there had been an option in the main list in question 7 to say "There's nothing they can do, get them out" then I would have selected that, so in the absence of that option the survey doesn't accurately represent my viewpoint. Having not asked the question in the first place, I'm not sure how you can justify saying that @kentred2 is definitely wrong.
As it happens, I selected "Demonstrate a clear change in direction from the way the Club is currently being run" as one of the three most urgent actions, as that seemed the next best thing to RD selling up. I'd be interested to know if that option was selected by the majority, particularly as nothing that has come out of Tuesday's meeting has suggested that a change of direction will be forthcoming.
For what it's worth, I've been a Trust Member since the start and have frequently defended the Trust on here when it's come in for what I classed as unwarranted criticism. However, on this occasion I do not agree with the position you appear to be taking. KentRed2 might be jumping the gun a bit in claiming it's a majority that aren't interested in attempting to engage with RD/KM, but none of the surveys you have run can disprove him.
Don't think anyone can fault those who found themselves in the front line. It's easier to do the wanker salute than speaking in public in a confrontational atmosphere being filmed for all to later criticise from the comfort of their armchair. If it had been me I would have been proud to have been as articulate as those who had the balls to speak.
I was seething reading the tweets, because out of context, they came across as offensive rather than defensive.. What the tweets highlighted and caused the heat was the complete absence of any sense that the club had got anything wrong. @rikofold picked this up saying we hadn't heard admission that changes were needed.
I was listening to Will Carling talking about the meltdown of the English rugby squad and he said every professional team has underlying frictions and conflicts that are kept under control by results, they paper over all the cracks. It's when results don't happen that the cracks appear.
That is what is happening at Charlton. Without results we implode because the structure is all wrong, there is no cohesion. There is no coherent relationship between the stakeholders. RD has a relationship with the manager. KM has a sort of relationship with the manager that is undermined by the RD relationship. The manager has a relationship with the players but some also have a relationship with RD. RM tries to have a relationship with them all. The fans want a relationship but it should be a naturally evolved relationship, not one determined by monthly powerpoint presentations or lessons on what we should be grateful for.
I hate being negative, I am a supporter of dialogue, but I honestly don't see what dialogue is going to achieve. Contradicting that, it makes no sense not to take advantage of whatever line of communication is made available, otherwise there is no way of having any influence apart from wanker salutes. It also leaves open the ability to prove, if it is the case, that a majority, not a minority of fans, want change.
I also think it's a mistake to give the message that management should listen to us for solutions. We just tell them what the problems are and ask them what they are going to do about IF they want to address them. They are paid to sort out problems, we pay to be entertained.
So I think we will probably have two camps. One camp that is happy as long as results cover up the cracks and another camp who want something more rewarding, that isn't easy to define, but know it's not load music and a DJ in Crossbars. The second camp will probably just drift away over time if nothing changes.
Great post as ever. The bit I've highlighted above speaks volumes to me, but I think where we are is as a result of that relationship being undermined for 4-5 years now. In some ways it's not the current regime's fault that we hoped they'd be an improvement on the last lot in this way.
Even so, it's a symptom of an underlying - I was going to say malaise but I don't think that's correct. It's more that any relationship needs ongoing cultivation, from both parties, and the longer there's an absence on either side the harder it is to trust again.
As I said on Tuesday night, I don't think it's all as bad as was being received. I don't think they're trying to piss us off, but they see the relationship in different terms - one where we're a beneficiary rather than a partner. So it's a little like unrequited love from our part - hope deferred makes the heart sick.
That said, the club might have afforded us a forum on Tuesday where there was greater opportunity to challenge some of the detail of what was said. For example, It's ludicrous to say Guy Luzon was one of 5 successful appointments, because at the time of his arrival we heard how they'd sought the right, long term appointment. That he's sacked within a matter of months doesn't in any way speak of success, unless you are literally running the club to an extremely short term basis and all you wanted from him was a burst of results. But if you want a contribution from 30-40 people in 90 minutes...
The club can rebuild the trust in my view but it will take a greater degree of openness than they've shown to date. As I said, I feel they missed an opportunity overall on Tuesday - although I'm prepared to be generous and view the presentation as a step in the right direction as it was an attempt to communicate something. I'm also happy to accept that KM feels she's tried to get information across but is scratching her head as to why it's not been heard.
For example, notwithstanding the fair point Murray made about the owner/manager relationship, if your recruitment process isn't bringing in people who can succeed in the long term it would make sense for the business to examine that process, and to be open about that. If you've spent £9m on incoming transfer fees, tell us how that's funded - whether Roland is being altruistic, loaning us the money or that the various departures have made the difference. Tell us what the funding gap is, whether that's managed year on year or accounted as part of a longer term plan. And so on.
From the fans' point of view, the question is simple: what do we want, and how do we achieve that. The CASTrust survey that I hope Weegie will be able to go into more detail on at some point showed an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the way the club was run, but the priority actions were appoint a manager with an English football track record and for the club to share more on their vision and plans. The first is out of our control, the second needs the club to talk to us - and a lot of the 'other comments' provided pointed to a similar theme of developing bidirectional conversation, understanding and trust.
I have a loud voice and have a tendency to raise it when frustrated. My other half withdraws as soon as my voice is raised. I see similar in our relationship with the club. KM betrayed some vulnerability I think on Tuesday, she's clearly found the less savoury aspects of the protests personally hurtful - certainly she started that meeting much more nervously than one might expect. I doubt she or her allies will rush to hug the people shouting that stuff at her. Like me and my other half, it helps to understand why the frustration exists but no relationship is strengthened by shouting, and certainly not by insult.
Anyway, a long way to say I agree and disagree. I don't think we should cast dialogue aside - sometimes it's helpful to vent if it gets a message across, but it will be most powerful sparingly and when it's going to have the most impact. Abandoning dialogue might be helpful in the short term, but certainly if we want the club to love us we can't do that permanently.
The majority do not want a relationship. They want a management team that brings successful football, players to admire and dreams. This lot have told us their objective: to break even. Even as an accountant that doesn't turn me on. So no more to discuss except for those that want to meet their objective of involvement.
You keep claiming 'the majority' but every survey that comes back disagrees with you I'm afraid.
Fair point but, to put this in perspective, those who are members of the Trust and who respond to surveys are more likely to be those seeking action.
Nobody wants a select few to cosy up, and there is no evidence for it in what has been published.
You certainly didn't cozy up I think from what I heard from the video you said that you wanted big change & you didn't think she was getting the message, she didn't appear to have an answer & rushed the next question. So you certainly conveyed my viewpoint. Thank you
Nobody wants a select few to cosy up, and there is no evidence for it in what has been published.
You certainly didn't cozy up I think from what I heard from the video you said that you wanted big change & you didn't think she was getting the message, she didn't appear to have an answer & rushed the next question. So you certainly conveyed my viewpoint. Thank you
This is an important thing for people to remember - we had hundreds of emails between the fans' groups from supporters who wanted views to be expressed, questions to be asked. The group had to balance representation with pursuing answers to difficult questions, but in many ways this was a product of the format. I too think Seth did well on the night, and he was remarkably well behaved too - that diazepam I slipped him worked a treat ;-)
The place to share the survey results properly is on the Trust website - and we will do so. However, I'm away abroad from crack of dawn tomorrow for the weekend, so this is likely to have to wait till early next week - we have the numbers, but it needs a proper write-up.
I will say that the option Mr Largo cites above re "Demonstrate a clear change in direction from the way the Club is currently being run" was in the top three priorities selected overall.
We have been criticised strongly before - around the Woolwich meeting - for including options that are "too negative" and that suggest we have an anti-club agenda. This survey was issued on the eve of the long-awaited meeting with fans which we hoped would be the first step towards positive/ constructive dialogue. For those reasons, we did not include a blatant RD/KM out option, but we did allow the open comments field. Only a tiny handful of comments specifically took an RD out line.
From various comments above, many of us see the value and use in the surveys, and I also agree that we need to ensure that we do not solely run them online, but also, where appropriate, collect hard copy responses in and around the ground to ensure we are reaching the broadest possible sample of the total audience. We have done it in the past - in the early days of the Trust and for the Valley Express survey. It does require much more planning/ time and (wo)manpower...
Perhaps it is even an area where we can collaborate with the Club? Then again, maybe I am dreaming....
Rikofold. Fwiw, I thought you and everyone did pretty well. I would far rather have you as our CEO.
I have attended many of these meetings and know all to well, how they are conducted, to ensure that important questions go unanswered, to the questioner's satisfaction.
That said. Whilst I thought the questions were good. I do feel having watched the video, that they were a bit long winded and not always closed questions.
This gave KM in particular the opportunity to not answer fully and waffle away.
Additionally, when she didn't answer fully, she was rarely challenged. We really do need to get the Paxman's asking the questions, if we want a true answer (surely we do).
The only time she really gave a good answer, was when she could, without lies or spin.
So, she said we have no plans to move from The Valley & that seemed sincere, unlike most of what else she said.
To let her get away unchallenged with, "all of our coaches have been a success", for instance was a real shame.
Also, when questioned about not complying with the charter, she joked about changing the charter then. Surely, there should have been cries of "shame on you".
Anyway, well done one and all. Your unpaid dedication and hard work is greatly appreciated.
I found KM response to the whereabouts of the minutes from the last fans forum meeting not surprising. Seemed to think that it was ok she had agreed them but did not appear to grasp that it was no good if you do not publish them!
We have to throw things on the pitch against Ipswich. Paper planes - things that show up on the tv but are not dangerous. Roland out planes would embaress the owners!
Comments
It is quite evident that our esteemed owner does not want dialogue and will only do things his way.
Even so, it's a symptom of an underlying - I was going to say malaise but I don't think that's correct. It's more that any relationship needs ongoing cultivation, from both parties, and the longer there's an absence on either side the harder it is to trust again.
As I said on Tuesday night, I don't think it's all as bad as was being received. I don't think they're trying to piss us off, but they see the relationship in different terms - one where we're a beneficiary rather than a partner. So it's a little like unrequited love from our part - hope deferred makes the heart sick.
That said, the club might have afforded us a forum on Tuesday where there was greater opportunity to challenge some of the detail of what was said. For example, It's ludicrous to say Guy Luzon was one of 5 successful appointments, because at the time of his arrival we heard how they'd sought the right, long term appointment. That he's sacked within a matter of months doesn't in any way speak of success, unless you are literally running the club to an extremely short term basis and all you wanted from him was a burst of results. But if you want a contribution from 30-40 people in 90 minutes...
The club can rebuild the trust in my view but it will take a greater degree of openness than they've shown to date. As I said, I feel they missed an opportunity overall on Tuesday - although I'm prepared to be generous and view the presentation as a step in the right direction as it was an attempt to communicate something. I'm also happy to accept that KM feels she's tried to get information across but is scratching her head as to why it's not been heard.
For example, notwithstanding the fair point Murray made about the owner/manager relationship, if your recruitment process isn't bringing in people who can succeed in the long term it would make sense for the business to examine that process, and to be open about that. If you've spent £9m on incoming transfer fees, tell us how that's funded - whether Roland is being altruistic, loaning us the money or that the various departures have made the difference. Tell us what the funding gap is, whether that's managed year on year or accounted as part of a longer term plan. And so on.
From the fans' point of view, the question is simple: what do we want, and how do we achieve that. The CASTrust survey that I hope Weegie will be able to go into more detail on at some point showed an overwhelming dissatisfaction with the way the club was run, but the priority actions were appoint a manager with an English football track record and for the club to share more on their vision and plans. The first is out of our control, the second needs the club to talk to us - and a lot of the 'other comments' provided pointed to a similar theme of developing bidirectional conversation, understanding and trust.
I have a loud voice and have a tendency to raise it when frustrated. My other half withdraws as soon as my voice is raised. I see similar in our relationship with the club. KM betrayed some vulnerability I think on Tuesday, she's clearly found the less savoury aspects of the protests personally hurtful - certainly she started that meeting much more nervously than one might expect. I doubt she or her allies will rush to hug the people shouting that stuff at her. Like me and my other half, it helps to understand why the frustration exists but no relationship is strengthened by shouting, and certainly not by insult.
Anyway, a long way to say I agree and disagree. I don't think we should cast dialogue aside - sometimes it's helpful to vent if it gets a message across, but it will be most powerful sparingly and when it's going to have the most impact. Abandoning dialogue might be helpful in the short term, but certainly if we want the club to love us we can't do that permanently.
So no more to discuss except for those that want to meet their objective of involvement.
There is no option within that survey to say "there's nothing they can do, I want them out" or words to that effect. You could put that as your answer to question 8 in the free text box I suppose, but it certainly seems that stating a desire to get them out wasn't an opinion that the Trust wanted to encourage. If there had been an option in the main list in question 7 to say "There's nothing they can do, get them out" then I would have selected that, so in the absence of that option the survey doesn't accurately represent my viewpoint. Having not asked the question in the first place, I'm not sure how you can justify saying that @kentred2 is definitely wrong.
As it happens, I selected "Demonstrate a clear change in direction from the way the Club is currently being run" as one of the three most urgent actions, as that seemed the next best thing to RD selling up. I'd be interested to know if that option was selected by the majority, particularly as nothing that has come out of Tuesday's meeting has suggested that a change of direction will be forthcoming.
For what it's worth, I've been a Trust Member since the start and have frequently defended the Trust on here when it's come in for what I classed as unwarranted criticism. However, on this occasion I do not agree with the position you appear to be taking. KentRed2 might be jumping the gun a bit in claiming it's a majority that aren't interested in attempting to engage with RD/KM, but none of the surveys you have run can disprove him.
The 'silent majority' are not of the same mind.
Personally, I prefer dialogue and action.
I will say that the option Mr Largo cites above re "Demonstrate a clear change in direction from the way the Club is currently being run" was in the top three priorities selected overall.
We have been criticised strongly before - around the Woolwich meeting - for including options that are "too negative" and that suggest we have an anti-club agenda. This survey was issued on the eve of the long-awaited meeting with fans which we hoped would be the first step towards positive/ constructive dialogue. For those reasons, we did not include a blatant RD/KM out option, but we did allow the open comments field. Only a tiny handful of comments specifically took an RD out line.
From various comments above, many of us see the value and use in the surveys, and I also agree that we need to ensure that we do not solely run them online, but also, where appropriate, collect hard copy responses in and around the ground to ensure we are reaching the broadest possible sample of the total audience. We have done it in the past - in the early days of the Trust and for the Valley Express survey. It does require much more planning/ time and (wo)manpower...
Perhaps it is even an area where we can collaborate with the Club? Then again, maybe I am dreaming....
Got any more!?
I have attended many of these meetings and know all to well, how they are conducted, to ensure that important questions go unanswered, to the questioner's satisfaction.
That said. Whilst I thought the questions were good. I do feel having watched the video, that they were a bit long winded and not always closed questions.
This gave KM in particular the opportunity to not answer fully and waffle away.
Additionally, when she didn't answer fully, she was rarely challenged. We really do need to get the Paxman's asking the questions, if we want a true answer (surely we do).
The only time she really gave a good answer, was when she could, without lies or spin.
So, she said we have no plans to move from The Valley & that seemed sincere, unlike most of what else she said.
To let her get away unchallenged with, "all of our coaches have been a success", for instance was a real shame.
Also, when questioned about not complying with the charter, she joked about changing the charter then. Surely, there should have been cries of "shame on you".
Anyway, well done one and all. Your unpaid dedication and hard work is greatly appreciated.