It's a start and Rome wasn't built in a day. Keep talking, keep engaging. The Trust aren't the only group out there. There needs to be involvement of the supporter club branches if schemes like Target 20,000 are going to be succesful. Small steps will soon turn big strides ...
For people that think it's a step in the right direction, that's an opinion that others will differ from.
Would be really interested in your thoughts on what the alternative should be mate.
Seems like protests are going to continue in the short term, alongside the increase in dialogue and putting structures and plans in place which will make things more connected. So if that is not right, what should be the approach? No dialogue at all? Rejecting the suggestions for any of these mixed fans / clubs groups?
But isn't that exactly what a lot of people wanted to see as improvements?
If we win the next two games, Vas Te bangs in a couple of goals, 80% of the vocal discontent will go away, I can promise you that and there will be no more protests. If it goes the other way, the protests will intensify. In the meantime, dialogue is occurring and structures seem to becoming agreed that should tie a few things up better. That can only be a good thing, can't it?
Why just short term protests? As far as I'm concerned I'm not protesting about a small squad and lack of results, I'm protesting about the bigger picture, as you will. I think they could go on for longer than that, albeit not necessarily as vocal as the last (or next) but still there in some form.
The increase in dialogue means nothing now, she speaks when it helps her, she is not a stupid lady. Coincidence she starts doing good things before protests and acts upset over these protests (despite laughing while they are on)? NO. It's all an act, we are not playing into this act and helping her out, helping increase attendances is securing her job and dividing the support, as she'll gain fans.
My alternative would be to stick a halt to all attempts to get talk (what do words mean here, anyway?), forget US trying to build attendances for them and force THEM to build their attendances themselves, albeit via funding for the squad, etc. I'd keep piling the pressure on with protests, as they are silently hurting her and putting her job at risk, I'd also try to get everyone to accept that RD will not be changing his game plan, so rather than wasting our efforts in trying to change this we expose the failures within this plan and try to shoot him down.
Why should the fans be doing the owners dirty work REGAINING fans that THEY, as owners, have lost? No. We should punish them for what they have done, not hold their hands while they carry on doing it.
KM really must be laughing, she is using the Trust.
Well done to the trust for finally getting a meeting with the club and we shall see what occurs in the coming months. A small step in the right direction.
However that does not mean people should stop what they are doing. Personally it won't stop myself protesting, not purchasing products from the club (Merchandise, food, drink, match day programme etc) and getting behind the team for the ninety minutes, regardless of results on the pitch.
Until we see action, not words, then I'm as we were and onto the next home game with the spell it out in black and white events.
Why does it matter Henry? Seriously, I don't get it.
It's actually a pretty important question.
If the meeting was in the pipeline but not yet scheduled before the fans meeting, I would have an issue with that.
I learnt a lesson pretty early on in an advertising agency that you do not count on anything, be it a meeting, an approval, delivery of campaign proposal, whatever, until you have rock solid, incontrovertible evidence that it is actually happening. Failure to be prudent in that way results in, at minimum, you ending up looking bloody stupid, and possibly worse, making bad decisions because you counted on something happening that did not happen.
OK, last comment on this (maybe) but what you seem to be saying, rather cryptically, is that "the meeting" was provisionally arranged at the time of the trust AGM but not 100% confirmed.
Hence Rikofold and SE9Addick being happy to say that the meeting wasn't, as I said, "scheduled" ie a firm date hadn't been confirmed
But it seems the meeting was in the pipeline enough for it to be mentioned as at least a distinct possibility at the AGM. Hence the reluctance to say anything other than that the meeting wasn't "scheduled".
It would have been better had the trust headline been "Board agree to set up Target 20k group and reform fans forum" rather than focusing on the fact that they had had a meeting.
Regardless of how the Trust has managed this the move towards setting up the T20k group and reforming the fans forum are both steps forwards.
Fans are right to be cynical about how much input and commitment there will be from KM but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
The fans need to prove to KM that they have something valuable and constructive to offer and KM needs to prove that she is willing to listen and accept that ideas and experience from outside Belgium and her small coterie of trusted managers have value and will help her and the club.
Why didn't the trust tell any of there members about this meeting before attending it?
Why do you feel they have to? I'm a member and I'm happy to receive information after a meeting, it makes no difference to me that I didn't know there was a meeting scheduled.
protests should now increase. Miere and the Trust are welcome to each other but new owners is still the only solution.
Are you protesting against "Meire & the trust" now? Phewth this is getting complicated, can I suggest you wear yellow and green diagonal stripes and arrange scarves for your supporters to match? We may need away kits and 3rd strips for protesters to avoid clashes in the future.....
Good news for the Trust for achieving this as improved dialogue was a stated aim. However for me the business model/ strategy, whilst appealing at first glance, is inherently flawed and that is the real issue. The aim has been clearly stated as to break even (with lip service given about Premiership ambition).
The means to achieve this has been patently outlined as
1) reinvigorating and developing the academy (admirable and achievable)
2) the academy will churn out 1 or 2 gems each season (possible but erring on the side of extreme optimism)
3) the sale of these gems will keep the club ticking over and fans will be happy to see starlets sold on within a season or 2 of breaking into the team (vastly optimisitc)
4) The rest of the squad can be filled in the "Moneyball" method of getting efficient undervalued and relatively unknown signings in likely from the continent, with no knowledge of the Championship and whom will be expected to settle asap and hit the floor running immediately in one of the most competitive leagues there is
5) This along with other novelty usps will somehow attract 20,000 through the door for each home game despite West Ham, Arsenal, Millwall, Chelsea, Spurs, Gillingham and Palace all realistically vying for support in our traditional areas of support (idealism and excessive optimism bordering on insanity)
People are stating that a few good results and the disharmony will be subdued. I agree with that but it will just paper over the cracks. They have stuck by the above strategy since day 1.... KM even appeared irritated opening last week's meeting and went to great lengths to paraphrase "We have already made clear the strategy a number of times".
If the Trust manage to pull off the unlikely and get the strategy amended/ changed to improve the long term position of the club on and off the pitch then fair play. I can't see it happening though as if it was that simple I am sure Standard Liege, with more vocal protest, would have seen a better outcome particularly when they were a much bigger fish in a relatively smaller pond under RM's stewardship.
Good luck though but I expect it will be a talking shop about improvements to catering etc whilst the board fails to address or acknowledge any fallacy in their strategy, despite the Trust's best intentions.
I am hoping to be proved massively wrong in that the club either listen to the real issues and amend their strategy or they are actual geniuses and their model will work proving me and the rest of the naysaying boo boys entirely wrong.
it's a real mess isn't it. I can see why the Trust want dialogue and I understand why some want to protest. I just don't see the dialogue leading anywhere, I just see it as lip service by the Club so it appears they are listening/willing to change but ultimately nothing will change
So in that case you are only really protesting for them to leave if you see no improvement value whatsoever in dialogue. Is that right?
The two aspects, protest / dialogue do not have to be mutually joined, and nor do the individuals group leading / supporting imo
I'm not protesting for them to leave as I don't think there is a viable alternative out there with the funds available to buy RD out, even if he wanted out.
I'm protesting for them to recognise that their vision isn't working. If you want to increase attendances then having a decent Manager and a squad fit for purpose is a good start. You won't increase crowds if those you bring in witness the dross we have over the last two seasons, they will come once but not again.
I'm all for dialogue if I thought they were serious but I don't.
protests should now increase. Miere and the Trust are welcome to each other but new owners is still the only solution.
Ok so is anyone looking to get some new owners? Maybe the Trust can add to Ackworths work and do that as well. It will also enable us to set criteria for new owners, because once we replace this lot, we'll have another lot and as Portsmouth have shown new owners replacing old owners does not mean better owners.
Why does it matter Henry? Seriously, I don't get it.
It's actually a pretty important question.
If the meeting was in the pipeline but not yet scheduled before the fans meeting, I would have an issue with that.
I learnt a lesson pretty early on in an advertising agency that you do not count on anything, be it a meeting, an approval, delivery of campaign proposal, whatever, until you have rock solid, incontrovertible evidence that it is actually happening. Failure to be prudent in that way results in, at minimum, you ending up looking bloody stupid, and possibly worse, making bad decisions because you counted on something happening that did not happen.
Judging by that response you've had more than one meeting with Katrien
Why didn't the trust tell any of there members about this meeting before attending it?
Why do you feel they have to? I'm a member and I'm happy to receive information after a meeting, it makes no difference to me that I didn't know there was a meeting scheduled.
Me too.
What I'm not happy about is that the Trust went out of their way to emphatically deny any such meeting was to take place or indeed, even in the pipeline.
Why would they do that? What did they hope to achieve by denying it? Who told them to keep it hush hush? And most importantly, if it was agreed to be confidential, why did three separate people let Henry know?
Can't edit my above post on my phone but would add that the network which purports to bring the economic efficiencies has been significantly diminished with the disposal of Standard Liege moving us further away from watfords relatively similar successful model. Changing manager every 6 months in the hope one clicks and enjoying a temporary lift from change in tactics etc is ambitious but fails to concede it is perhaps the overall system that's flawed In the long run regardless of which patsy is stood on the touchline.
Why didn't the trust tell any of there members about this meeting before attending it?
Why do you feel they have to? I'm a member and I'm happy to receive information after a meeting, it makes no difference to me that I didn't know there was a meeting scheduled.
Me too.
What I'm not happy about is that the Trust went out of their way to emphatically deny any such meeting was to take place or indeed, even in the pipeline.
Why would they do that? What did they hope to achieve by denying it? Who told them to keep it hush hush? And most importantly, if it was agreed to be confidential, why did three separate people let Henry know?
I'm sure KM has noted that last point.
Perhaps more alarmingly... did the Trust fear that an over-zealous approach to the Fans Meeting would jeopardise this meeting ever being arranged?
I can't see how it would have been anything other than impossible to not have this in the back of their mind when questioning and challenging answers.
Given the role the Trust played in developing the themes of questions with other Fans Representatives... the neutrality of the Fans Meeting should be questioned.
As supporters, trust members or both there should be clear answers on this.
deary me... this is one of those moments when I'd like to walk away from cafc (because of comments like this) far worse than our club being victim to the experiments of a mega rich eccentric
but wrong, the themes were commonly developed in particular by Grapevine - not on the Trust, as well as others, also deeply insulting to the intelligence of the Fans Forum people you @LargeAddick are so often claiming to defend, the level of cynicism, bickering and shit slinging on here just beggars belief.
If you can't see that this is a tricky situation, with no easy answer, and extremely to hard to retain a positive agenda, then you need to open your eyes a bit.
deary me... this is one of those moments when I'd like to walk away from cafc (because of comments like this) far worse than our club being victim to the experiments of a mega rich eccentric
Really? That's a surprisingly childish reaction to a genuine question.
Do you not think that the approach taken by the Trust to *potentially* have a meeting with the club and not disclose it whilst playing a role in the Fans Meeting could be perceived a conflict of interest?
As it happens I believe positive dialogue is a good step forward and I have no issue with that - just the way it has all transpired doesn't look good.
but wrong, the themes were commonly developed in particular by Grapevine - not on the Trust, as well as others, also deeply insulting to the intelligence of the Fans Forum people you @LargeAddick are so often claiming to defend, the level of cynicism, bickering and shit slinging on here just beggars belief.
If you can't see that this is a tricky situation, with no easy answer, and extremely to hard to retain a positive agenda, then you need to open your eyes a bit.
Has anyone actually told them if they brought enough decent players and a decent manager and worked on making the club successful on the pitch then all their target 20000, their hospitality, and other crap they are trying to get us to buy into will actually be a success then and not before.
Your 4th point was a pretty strong and outrageous accusation, as well deeply insulting to other members of the FF, and not an accurate portrayal of what happened on this message board involving a wide range of groups and individuals.
If the sort of relationship and access we want a Trust to have is on a par with the Supporters' Director, we have to put some faith in that group, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps participate in the process, maybe go to some meetings like the AGM, and respect the confidences of such meetings, maybe even talk to people direct, most of them are known.
I don't necessarily agree with everything they do, but I've taken the time to talk to the TB and believe them to have a great deal of integrity.
Comments
*sits back to relax*
The increase in dialogue means nothing now, she speaks when it helps her, she is not a stupid lady. Coincidence she starts doing good things before protests and acts upset over these protests (despite laughing while they are on)? NO. It's all an act, we are not playing into this act and helping her out, helping increase attendances is securing her job and dividing the support, as she'll gain fans.
My alternative would be to stick a halt to all attempts to get talk (what do words mean here, anyway?), forget US trying to build attendances for them and force THEM to build their attendances themselves, albeit via funding for the squad, etc. I'd keep piling the pressure on with protests, as they are silently hurting her and putting her job at risk, I'd also try to get everyone to accept that RD will not be changing his game plan, so rather than wasting our efforts in trying to change this we expose the failures within this plan and try to shoot him down.
Why should the fans be doing the owners dirty work REGAINING fans that THEY, as owners, have lost? No. We should punish them for what they have done, not hold their hands while they carry on doing it.
KM really must be laughing, she is using the Trust.
However that does not mean people should stop what they are doing. Personally it won't stop myself protesting, not purchasing products from the club (Merchandise, food, drink, match day programme etc) and getting behind the team for the ninety minutes, regardless of results on the pitch.
Until we see action, not words, then I'm as we were and onto the next home game with the spell it out in black and white events.
Hence Rikofold and SE9Addick being happy to say that the meeting wasn't, as I said, "scheduled" ie a firm date hadn't been confirmed
But it seems the meeting was in the pipeline enough for it to be mentioned as at least a distinct possibility at the AGM. Hence the reluctance to say anything other than that the meeting wasn't "scheduled".
It would have been better had the trust headline been "Board agree to set up Target 20k group and reform fans forum" rather than focusing on the fact that they had had a meeting.
Regardless of how the Trust has managed this the move towards setting up the T20k group and reforming the fans forum are both steps forwards.
Fans are right to be cynical about how much input and commitment there will be from KM but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
The fans need to prove to KM that they have something valuable and constructive to offer and KM needs to prove that she is willing to listen and accept that ideas and experience from outside Belgium and her small coterie of trusted managers have value and will help her and the club.
We shall see.
We may need away kits and 3rd strips for protesters to avoid clashes in the future.....
The means to achieve this has been patently outlined as
1) reinvigorating and developing the academy (admirable and achievable)
2) the academy will churn out 1 or 2 gems each season (possible but erring on the side of extreme optimism)
3) the sale of these gems will keep the club ticking over and fans will be happy to see starlets sold on within a season or 2 of breaking into the team (vastly optimisitc)
4) The rest of the squad can be filled in the "Moneyball" method of getting efficient undervalued and relatively unknown signings in likely from the continent, with no knowledge of the Championship and whom will be expected to settle asap and hit the floor running immediately in one of the most competitive leagues there is
5) This along with other novelty usps will somehow attract 20,000 through the door for each home game despite West Ham, Arsenal, Millwall, Chelsea, Spurs, Gillingham and Palace all realistically vying for support in our traditional areas of support (idealism and excessive optimism bordering on insanity)
People are stating that a few good results and the disharmony will be subdued. I agree with that but it will just paper over the cracks. They have stuck by the above strategy since day 1.... KM even appeared irritated opening last week's meeting and went to great lengths to paraphrase "We have already made clear the strategy a number of times".
If the Trust manage to pull off the unlikely and get the strategy amended/ changed to improve the long term position of the club on and off the pitch then fair play. I can't see it happening though as if it was that simple I am sure Standard Liege, with more vocal protest, would have seen a better outcome particularly when they were a much bigger fish in a relatively smaller pond under RM's stewardship.
Good luck though but I expect it will be a talking shop about improvements to catering etc whilst the board fails to address or acknowledge any fallacy in their strategy, despite the Trust's best intentions.
I am hoping to be proved massively wrong in that the club either listen to the real issues and amend their strategy or they are actual geniuses and their model will work proving me and the rest of the naysaying boo boys entirely wrong.
I'm protesting for them to recognise that their vision isn't working. If you want to increase attendances then having a decent Manager and a squad fit for purpose is a good start. You won't increase crowds if those you bring in witness the dross we have over the last two seasons, they will come once but not again.
I'm all for dialogue if I thought they were serious but I don't.
What I'm not happy about is that the Trust went out of their way to emphatically deny any such meeting was to take place or indeed, even in the pipeline.
Why would they do that?
What did they hope to achieve by denying it?
Who told them to keep it hush hush?
And most importantly, if it was agreed to be confidential, why did three separate people let Henry know?
I'm sure KM has noted that last point.
I can't see how it would have been anything other than impossible to not have this in the back of their mind when questioning and challenging answers.
Given the role the Trust played in developing the themes of questions with other Fans Representatives... the neutrality of the Fans Meeting should be questioned.
As supporters, trust members or both there should be clear answers on this.
If you can't see that this is a tricky situation, with no easy answer, and extremely to hard to retain a positive agenda, then you need to open your eyes a bit.
Do you not think that the approach taken by the Trust to *potentially* have a meeting with the club and not disclose it whilst playing a role in the Fans Meeting could be perceived a conflict of interest?
As it happens I believe positive dialogue is a good step forward and I have no issue with that - just the way it has all transpired doesn't look good.
If the sort of relationship and access we want a Trust to have is on a par with the Supporters' Director, we have to put some faith in that group, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps participate in the process, maybe go to some meetings like the AGM, and respect the confidences of such meetings, maybe even talk to people direct, most of them are known.
I don't necessarily agree with everything they do, but I've taken the time to talk to the TB and believe them to have a great deal of integrity.