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.
Not really, as the Trust have been very clear that they were continuing to seek dialogue throughout. That was stated numerous times (both on articles on the site and at the AGM) so it's hard to have a conflict of interest when you're open about your intentions.
My honest opinion is that people are looking for problems with what the Trust are doing when there really aren't any, we asked for dialogue, we've had a minuscule amount, now let's see what happens next.
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
The only way we will get 20k is if the owners spend a shed load of cash on the first team.
Very likely true, but don't get hung up on the title. There is a big job to do retaining the existing support and a group that brings supporters and club together can help rebuild trust, which is the main thing missing from the relationship at present. It might be that it doesn't work and CAST establishes by engaging that it never can because of the club's attitude, but I don't see how they can or should decline the opportunity to try.
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
Part of the problem is as Bart has said before the Trust is expected to be all thing to all men/women, is this reasonable? I'm not sure.
Overall there are several elements to the discontent, one is the piss poor communication, second possibly greater bone of contention is on the way the club is being run in terms of manager and squad, third perhaps related to both is the malaise.
How they link together is a tricky one.
Certainly results will be key now, the club has had several strikeouts, if it continues to be a shambles protest will get worse, and will override the other factors. Likewise if the commitment to communications is hot air, things will worsen altho perhaps not to the same degree.
The only way we will get 20k is if the owners spend a shed load of cash on the first team.
That would be the easiest way I agree but even then you can't guarantee success on the pitch.
The idea of T20k is the same as the success that happened in the 90s and since then. Make it easy to come to games, make people realise the Valley is a safe and fun place to visit for the football and the atmosphere as well as the "matchday experience"(sic), get people into the habit of coming to games, get kids nagging their parents to bring them.
Valley Express, football for a fiver, kids for a quid all worked when we didn't have a successful team on the pitch.
What happened to the SE7 Club to attract local fans? Seemed to happen once and then haven't heard of it. Why is the Wolves kids a quid game not being publicised? Who knew about it? Wouldn't CL be a great place to spread the news in the build up to Xmas. Whose looking to bring their kids on the 28th December but thinking it might cost a lot?
And there is the other side of good ideas which is stopping bad ideas ie moving fans out of their seats to fill crossbars, sofas, cheerleaders, goal music.
A winning team will always be the best advertising but T20k is about what else can be done, what can be done to capitalise on that success because early this season and last there wasn't a huge upsurge when the team was winning.
It's a long, slow, tedious process that will work over years not weeks but it still has value. And yes, it will work even better if the team are winning.
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting. Nothing secret in that - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
We were asked to seek ongoing dialogue, we've had a meeting with expectation for ongoing dialogue. Why is that controversial??? Give me strength...
Those complaining that the 'Trust doesn't represent them' could always join and make it stronger and more representative of all views.
I have no Trust axe to grind. I pay my fiver (well ten actually as Len's Little Girl is also a member) and make my views known via the surveys and stand on match days.
The Trust already has more than 1K members (as an aside more than 5% of Ms Meire's Target 20K and rather more than the alleged disenchanted 2%) and will have an even stronger case for legitimacy if more ordinary fans participate.
Yes the various Battles of The Egos of the various Charlton Great And Good can be destructive and off putting for sure and they piss me off too. However we have the foundations of a really good organisation for fans' representation here that is steadily making progress and can improve further if still more fans join
It should be encouraged not derided in all our interests.
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
So the reason the club wouldn't talk to the Trust was all the fault of people on CL? Nothing at all with KM or with the way some of the then Trust board members behaved? Nothing to do with the way the Trust board members pissed off a lot of people with their actions and attitudes? Nothing to do with the Trust, they have done nothing wrong, all someone else's fault. Good old Trust Groupthink remains it seems.
I was going to let it lie but since you've brought it up again and accused me of "stirring the pot for God knows what reason" I won't. As ever the Trust can't deal with criticism and it can't be honest either.
You know full well, and Prague Addick has as much as admitted it although he'll now deny it, that YOU and other Trust board members had knowledge at the time of the Trust AGM that KM and RM were willing to meet with the Trust separately from the Q & A. It wasn't a firm meeting and it wasn't "scheduled" but it was on the cards. It was mentioned at the Trust AGM which is how some of the three different people who told me came to know about it.
You can use a many weasel words as you like (such as it wasn't "scheduled"), you can feign outrage, you can make personal attacks, and no doubt you or the other trust attack dogs will, you can play the victim but that is the case.
It's a shame that what was such a strong concept and one that I supported very much from before it was launched has come to this. This should be a time of looking forward and preparing for the future but you didn't want to let it go and you didn't want to be honest about the reasons that you acted in the way you did.
You didn't have to make the remarks you did but you did. You reap what you sow.
I congratulate the Trust on their approach to the board and on going dialogue, but that is that but there is a lot of other feeling of discontent with regard to the club which the Trust's meetings can't solve and to denigrate their efforts is misguided.
Let's go back to basics and that is that the current owner does not seem to be selling and no one seems to want to buy the club so we are stuck with him and by implication KM. There is groundswell of opinion that KM is doing a poor job but if the Trust through dialogue can help her improve the club's management surely that is a good thing to attempt. A lot of things at the club have annoyed us including, season ticket mailings, the sofa, the ticket office, the music, and a whole lot more and these are all things that can be laid at KM's door, if she works constructively with the Trust then these problems can be rectified and further improvements made.
What the Trust cannot do through dialogue is recruit an experienced Manager/Coach or bring in new players to bolster the squad, this is down to RD and whatever influence KM has on his planning and the only way we, as fans, can achieve anything in this regard is by peaceful protest.
As fans we should have a two pronged attack on the owners - one through the Trust and another with peaceful protest so let's get on with it and stop bickering among ourselves.
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
So the reason the club wouldn't talk to the Trust was all the fault of people on CL? Nothing at all with KM or with the way some of the then Trust board members behaved? Nothing to do with the way the Trust board members pissed off a lot of people with their actions and attitudes? Nothing to do with the Trust, they have done nothing wrong, all someone else's fault. Good old Trust Groupthink remains it seems.
I was going to let it lie but since you've brought it up again and accused me of "stirring the pot for God knows what reason" I won't. As ever the Trust can't deal with criticism and it can't be honest either.
You know full well, and Prague Addick has as much as admitted it although he'll now deny it, that YOU and other Trust board members had knowledge at the time of the Trust AGM that KM and RM were willing to meet with the Trust separately from the Q & A. It wasn't a firm meeting and it wasn't "scheduled" but it was on the cards. It was mentioned at the Trust AGM which is how some of the three different people who told me came to know about it.
You can use a many weasel words as you like (such as it wasn't "scheduled"), you can feign outrage, you can make personal attacks, and no doubt you or the other trust attack dogs will, you can play the victim but that is the case.
It's a shame that what was such a strong concept and one that I supported very much from before it was launched has come to this. This should be a time of looking forward and preparing for the future but you didn't want to let it go and you didn't want to be honest about the reasons that you acted in the way you did.
You didn't have to make the remarks you did but you did. You reap what you sow.
Genuinely, as someone who was there throughout, no, KM and co were not interested in a regular strategic level dialogue with the Trust or any other group, from the very beginning. I believe RM can confirm that to you if you really want to go that route, but its also borne out in the way FFs were handled, plus they've pretty much conceded this point in 'the video'. That they have changed tack may mean they are starting to understand how Charlton as a football club with a history of fan involvement on so many levels works to its best potential.
Whether that is now the whole picture now in terms of how we go forward, I don't know. That is up to fans, and trust members, and what results come out of the process, and on the pitch of course
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting. Nothing secret in that - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
We were asked to seek ongoing dialogue, we've had a meeting with expectation for ongoing dialogue. Why is that controversial??? Give me strength...
unfortunate comment to make ... it is not the fault of this board that KM previously failed to meet with the Trust
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
So the reason the club wouldn't talk to the Trust was all the fault of people on CL? Nothing at all with KM or with the way some of the then Trust board members behaved? Nothing to do with the way the Trust board members pissed off a lot of people with their actions and attitudes? Nothing to do with the Trust, they have done nothing wrong, all someone else's fault. Good old Trust Groupthink remains it seems.
I was going to let it lie but since you've brought it up again and accused me of "stirring the pot for God knows what reason" I won't. As ever the Trust can't deal with criticism and it can't be honest either.
You know full well, and Prague Addick has as much as admitted it although he'll now deny it, that YOU and other Trust board members had knowledge at the time of the Trust AGM that KM and RM were willing to meet with the Trust separately from the Q & A. It wasn't a firm meeting and it wasn't "scheduled" but it was on the cards. It was mentioned at the Trust AGM which is how some of the three different people who told me came to know about it.
You can use a many weasel words as you like (such as it wasn't "scheduled"), you can feign outrage, you can make personal attacks, and no doubt you or the other trust attack dogs will, you can play the victim but that is the case.
It's a shame that what was such a strong concept and one that I supported very much from before it was launched has come to this. This should be a time of looking forward and preparing for the future but you didn't want to let it go and you didn't want to be honest about the reasons that you acted in the way you did.
You didn't have to make the remarks you did but you did. You reap what you sow.
Sorry Henry. Are you trying to say there is some sort of agenda here? Have you got a bomb shell that you are waiting to drop?
Or are you seriously just pissed off because the trust had a meeting and didn't tell anyone the exact time of it?
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting. Nothing secret in that - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
We were asked to seek ongoing dialogue, we've had a meeting with expectation for ongoing dialogue. Why is that controversial??? Give me strength...
unfortunate comment to make ... it is not the fault of this board that KM previously failed to meet with the Trust
as I understand it crazy as it sounds, comments on this board have influenced the clubs view about fans. I once defended that point personally to the person who perceived it as an entity with once voice, I guess that's one of the dangers of social media
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting. Nothing secret in that - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
We were asked to seek ongoing dialogue, we've had a meeting with expectation for ongoing dialogue. Why is that controversial??? Give me strength...
unfortunate comment to make ... it is not the fault of this board that KM previously failed to meet with the Trust
as I understand it crazy as it sounds, comments on this board have influenced the clubs view about fans. I once defended that point personally to the person who perceived it as an entity with once voice, I guess that's one of the dangers of social media
I'm sure you are right, but blaming 'us' for the fact that KM did not previously meet with the Trust does not work for me.
The Trust are irrelavant to most Charlton supporters so if KM thinks bringing them on board will achieve much she is wrong. KM needs to stop lying and treating Charlton fans as if we are fools. Bring in a manager who has the credentials to make us a competitive Championship side. When this happens and we stop being the laughing stock of English football then is the time to look at target 20K Again in a non violent way I have to say that my enermys friend is my enermy and if the Trust suck up to KM and all goes wrong their time will be up. I would ask all Charlton fans to unite and stop RD and KM from destroying our football club and leave the Trust as they are not nor wish to represent the majority of fans
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.
The trust say that they are the voice of the Fans. If they do not ask the fans for there views how can they be the voice..??
All it would have taken was a note to all members stating that a meeting was planned with the club. As this was the initial aim of the trust, you would have thought that they would have had the decency to show respect to there members and make the announcement.
What may be acceptable to you may not be to other members.
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting. Nothing secret in that - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
We were asked to seek ongoing dialogue, we've had a meeting with expectation for ongoing dialogue. Why is that controversial??? Give me strength...
unfortunate comment to make ... it is not the fault of this board that KM previously failed to meet with the Trust
as I understand it crazy as it sounds, comments on this board have influenced the clubs view about fans. I once defended that point personally to the person who perceived it as an entity with once voice, I guess that's one of the dangers of social media
I'm sure you are right, but blaming 'us' for the fact that KM did not previously meet with the Trust does not work for me.
That's not quite what I did, but I accept the ambiguity.
One week after the fans' organisations came together to try to make a sow out of a pig's ear, we have one of the most ludicrous battles going on between Henry "why didn't you tell me something you didn't know" Irving and members of the Trust board who know the truth. Henry can twist words all he likes, but I've said what I've said on this thread and others, it's the truth and I'm going to leave it there.
that is achieved in part by surveys that are published
but also by forming an independent group that has a democratic basis and is subject to the rigours of affiliation to the national body Supporters' Direct.
trouble is people moan about surveys, and can't find the time to participate in the latter
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
So the reason the club wouldn't talk to the Trust was all the fault of people on CL? Nothing at all with KM or with the way some of the then Trust board members behaved? Nothing to do with the way the Trust board members pissed off a lot of people with their actions and attitudes? Nothing to do with the Trust, they have done nothing wrong, all someone else's fault. Good old Trust Groupthink remains it seems.
I was going to let it lie but since you've brought it up again and accused me of "stirring the pot for God knows what reason" I won't. As ever the Trust can't deal with criticism and it can't be honest either.
You know full well, and Prague Addick has as much as admitted it although he'll now deny it, that YOU and other Trust board members had knowledge at the time of the Trust AGM that KM and RM were willing to meet with the Trust separately from the Q & A. It wasn't a firm meeting and it wasn't "scheduled" but it was on the cards. It was mentioned at the Trust AGM which is how some of the three different people who told me came to know about it.
You can use a many weasel words as you like (such as it wasn't "scheduled"), you can feign outrage, you can make personal attacks, and no doubt you or the other trust attack dogs will, you can play the victim but that is the case.
It's a shame that what was such a strong concept and one that I supported very much from before it was launched has come to this. This should be a time of looking forward and preparing for the future but you didn't want to let it go and you didn't want to be honest about the reasons that you acted in the way you did.
You didn't have to make the remarks you did but you did. You reap what you sow.
Sorry Henry. Are you trying to say there is some sort of agenda here? Have you got a bomb shell that you are waiting to drop?
Or are you seriously just pissed off because the trust had a meeting and didn't tell anyone the exact time of it?
What's the beef here?
There is no bombshell and no agenda.
I certainly didn't want to know the time, date or location of the meeting. I didn't want to be there or get involved. If I did I would have taken the Trust up on one of the dozens of offers they made to me to join their board. I didn't because I'm not interested in that level of involvement and said so at the time.
I would have liked the Trust to be more honest with it's own members and other fans, especially those fans who made the effort to attend the Q & A last week.
That they kept their meeting secret is their decision, although they didn't do that very well otherwise I wouldn't have heard about it.
Now that it is in the public domain they don't need to keep denying it but they are.
It could quite easily have been said that "Yes, we had a possible meeting with KM and RM planned but it wasn't firmed up. After the Q & A they contacted us/we contacted them to move things forward as had been previously discussed. It might seem that we were being less than straightforward but we had been criticised before by KM for not keeping confidences and we also felt that while we'd prefer to be 100% open with members and other fans there was more benefit to keeping quiet about the meeting and seeing what we could achieve. We think the means justified the ends but we apologise to any fans who feel we were less than open and especially to those on the FF and others that we couldn't reveal this to them. We don't think it altered the way we approached the Q & A or that we were soft on KM for the reason that we had another possible meeting in the pipeline. We want to continue and grow the dialogue with the club but will continue to act as a critical friend as and when we feel that is in the best interest of the fans". Or something like that : - )
Irrespective of the many gallons of water that may has flowed under the bridge, I have always thought the best way to achieve something is to look at where what you want to achieve has been achieved before. When incredible crowd increases were achieved within your own club in the recent past, you surely have to talk to the people who know how it happened. I know success on the pitch played its part too, but there were some incredible achievements in this area. I actually genuinely thought target 10,000 was fantasy when it was initially launched. The club is only cutting off its nose to spite its face by not contacting Airman in some form of consultancy capacity at least.
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.
I have a job believing many things that are written on the internet so I tend to focus on facts. There's a lot of he said she said here so I generally ignore a lot of that. I'm not particularly bothered if there was a meeting planned and the Trust wanted to keep it quiet for whatever reason. I'd be far more concerned if an official meeting took place and it wasn't reported to Trust members afterwards. If you're upset by it and you are a member, I suggest contacting them directly. It seems to me that they don't have to explain anything to the members on CL, but I'm sure as a Trust member, they would be happy to speak to you.
I believe the meeting planned between the Trust and KM/RM is a positive step in the right direction.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
I'm beginning to lose the will to live with all this. It is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start. Some people could start a fight in an empty room.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting. Nothing secret in that - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
We were asked to seek ongoing dialogue, we've had a meeting with expectation for ongoing dialogue. Why is that controversial??? Give me strength...
unfortunate comment to make ... it is not the fault of this board that KM previously failed to meet with the Trust
as I understand it crazy as it sounds, comments on this board have influenced the clubs view about fans. I once defended that point personally to the person who perceived it as an entity with once voice, I guess that's one of the dangers of social media
I'm sure you are right, but blaming 'us' for the fact that KM did not previously meet with the Trust does not work for me.
That's not quite what I did, but I accept the ambiguity.
One week after the fans' organisations came together to try to make a sow out of a pig's ear, we have one of the most ludicrous battles going on between Henry "why didn't you tell me something you didn't know" Irving and members of the Trust board who know the truth. Henry can twist words all he likes, but I've said what I've said on this thread and others, it's the truth and I'm going to leave it there.
And you can have as many little digs as you like and avoid as many awkward questions as you like.
I'll try and clarify a few things for the general audience on this thread. If it doesn't satisfy Trust members on here, then please PM me, @rikofold, @Pico@Weegie Addick or @se9addick (the most frequent CL contributors who are on the Trust Board). I will respond to @bobmunro as he has already requested.
I think we have already clarified that the "meeting" @Henry Irving refers to was that chat which @rikofold had with KM thanks to his Valley Gold involvement. There were those who suggested this was a pre- Fans Forum meet stitch-up but the video of the meet hopefully disproves that.
At the time of the AGM the meeting between Steve Clarke and Katrien was still not confirmed. That is why it was not discussed at the AGM. However even if it had been confirmed by then, it is likely that the club would have asked us not to mention it in advance. Had they done so we would have respected that. When you have been trying to get such a meeting for nine months or more, you respect such requests. Not least because we have to start the slow process of building Katrien Meire's trust in us. Unless she has that trust, there will be no meaningful dialogue.
The only other thing I should add is that Richard Murray assisted in setting up this meeting, and personally I doubt that without him it would have happened. Richard knows and trusts Steve from the time when he was the first(?) Supporters Director, as a result of the VIP scheme. (But can I also remind people who are perhaps younger that Steve was also a Valley Party candidate). It was also a slow process. We started to become hopeful that such a meeting might happen as early as August, but as I said in an earlier post, there would have been no point in mentioning it then, or even a day before it happened. We basically had a "believe it when we see it" approach, while remaining dogged in our determination to try and get it, because that was our mandate. It follows therefore that this meeting would have happened round about now, even if we were still 8th in the table (and presumably with Luzon still in charge). I do not believe that it is simply a device to try and pacify the fans, although of course I see why some may think that.
I hope that clarifies things for most people on this thread.
I have no problem with the CAST meeting but the club will never hit 20k when its under investing in the quality needed to compete in the Championship (minimum) and appointing crap managers that will never work and having to sack them every 6 months.
Comments
My honest opinion is that people are looking for problems with what the Trust are doing when there really aren't any, we asked for dialogue, we've had a minuscule amount, now let's see what happens next.
However I do have reservations as to how they handled the communication, especially the denial. If as it appears the possibility of a meeting was discussed at the AGM and was certainly known about prior to the Q&A then I for one am still to be convinced as to why the need for secrecy - would confirmation to the wider fanbase have threatened the planned meeting? Would it have made the Q&A appear to be an irrelevance?
I agree with you that the Trust do not have to explain anything to CL - however as a member of the Trust I would welcome a PM from a board member with the rationale behind their communication strategy on this.
Overall there are several elements to the discontent, one is the piss poor communication, second possibly greater bone of contention is on the way the club is being run in terms of manager and squad, third perhaps related to both is the malaise.
How they link together is a tricky one.
Certainly results will be key now, the club has had several strikeouts, if it continues to be a shambles protest will get worse, and will override the other factors. Likewise if the commitment to communications is hot air, things will worsen altho perhaps not to the same degree.
The idea of T20k is the same as the success that happened in the 90s and since then. Make it easy to come to games, make people realise the Valley is a safe and fun place to visit for the football and the atmosphere as well as the "matchday experience"(sic), get people into the habit of coming to games, get kids nagging their parents to bring them.
Valley Express, football for a fiver, kids for a quid all worked when we didn't have a successful team on the pitch.
What happened to the SE7 Club to attract local fans? Seemed to happen once and then haven't heard of it. Why is the Wolves kids a quid game not being publicised? Who knew about it? Wouldn't CL be a great place to spread the news in the build up to Xmas. Whose looking to bring their kids on the 28th December but thinking it might cost a lot?
And there is the other side of good ideas which is stopping bad ideas ie moving fans out of their seats to fill crossbars, sofas, cheerleaders, goal music.
A winning team will always be the best advertising but T20k is about what else can be done, what can be done to capitalise on that success because early this season and last there wasn't a huge upsurge when the team was winning.
It's a long, slow, tedious process that will work over years not weeks but it still has value. And yes, it will work even better if the team are winning.
The simple truth is that we have pursued meetings with this board since they arrived, and have been actively continuing that since February's meeting. Nothing secret in that - but it is not accurate to say a meeting was scheduled before the Trust AGM or indeed before last week's meeting. It just isn't true.
But come on - even if what Henry is saying was true, if we determined that broadcasting a potential meeting before it was in the diary would jeopardise it then given the importance of the outcome we would be foolish to do so. Perhaps the fact that this board is full of people comparing swinging dicks every week is part of the reason the board wouldn't touch us with a bargepole.
No-one's lied to anyone here, there are no conspiracy theories, just one person stirring the pot for God knows what reason.
We were asked to seek ongoing dialogue, we've had a meeting with expectation for ongoing dialogue. Why is that controversial??? Give me strength...
Those complaining that the 'Trust doesn't represent them' could always join and make it stronger and more representative of all views.
I have no Trust axe to grind. I pay my fiver (well ten actually as Len's Little Girl is also a member) and make my views known via the surveys and stand on match days.
The Trust already has more than 1K members (as an aside more than 5% of Ms Meire's Target 20K and rather more than the alleged disenchanted 2%) and will have an even stronger case for legitimacy if more ordinary fans participate.
Yes the various Battles of The Egos of the various Charlton Great And Good can be destructive and off putting for sure and they piss me off too. However we have the foundations of a really good organisation for fans' representation here that is steadily making progress and can improve further if still more fans join
It should be encouraged not derided in all our interests.
I was going to let it lie but since you've brought it up again and accused me of "stirring the pot for God knows what reason" I won't. As ever the Trust can't deal with criticism and it can't be honest either.
You know full well, and Prague Addick has as much as admitted it although he'll now deny it, that YOU and other Trust board members had knowledge at the time of the Trust AGM that KM and RM were willing to meet with the Trust separately from the Q & A. It wasn't a firm meeting and it wasn't "scheduled" but it was on the cards. It was mentioned at the Trust AGM which is how some of the three different people who told me came to know about it.
You can use a many weasel words as you like (such as it wasn't "scheduled"), you can feign outrage, you can make personal attacks, and no doubt you or the other trust attack dogs will, you can play the victim but that is the case.
It's a shame that what was such a strong concept and one that I supported very much from before it was launched has come to this. This should be a time of looking forward and preparing for the future but you didn't want to let it go and you didn't want to be honest about the reasons that you acted in the way you did.
You didn't have to make the remarks you did but you did. You reap what you sow.
Let's go back to basics and that is that the current owner does not seem to be selling and no one seems to want to buy the club so we are stuck with him and by implication KM. There is groundswell of opinion that KM is doing a poor job but if the Trust through dialogue can help her improve the club's management surely that is a good thing to attempt. A lot of things at the club have annoyed us including, season ticket mailings, the sofa, the ticket office, the music, and a whole lot more and these are all things that can be laid at KM's door, if she works constructively with the Trust then these problems can be rectified and further improvements made.
What the Trust cannot do through dialogue is recruit an experienced Manager/Coach or bring in new players to bolster the squad, this is down to RD and whatever influence KM has on his planning and the only way we, as fans, can achieve anything in this regard is by peaceful protest.
As fans we should have a two pronged attack on the owners - one through the Trust and another with peaceful protest so let's get on with it and stop bickering among ourselves.
Genuinely, as someone who was there throughout, no, KM and co were not interested in a regular strategic level dialogue with the Trust or any other group, from the very beginning. I believe RM can confirm that to you if you really want to go that route, but its also borne out in the way FFs were handled, plus they've pretty much conceded this point in 'the video'. That they have changed tack may mean they are starting to understand how Charlton as a football club with a history of fan involvement on so many levels works to its best potential.
Whether that is now the whole picture now in terms of how we go forward, I don't know. That is up to fans, and trust members, and what results come out of the process, and on the pitch of course
unfortunate comment to make ... it is not the fault of this board that KM previously failed to meet with the Trust
Have you got a bomb shell that you are waiting to drop?
Or are you seriously just pissed off because the trust had a meeting and didn't tell anyone the exact time of it?
What's the beef here?
KM needs to stop lying and treating Charlton fans as if we are fools. Bring in a manager who has the credentials to make us a competitive Championship side. When this happens and we stop being the laughing stock of English football then is the time to look at target 20K
Again in a non violent way I have to say that my enermys friend is my enermy and if the Trust suck up to KM and all goes wrong their time will be up.
I would ask all Charlton fans to unite and stop RD and KM from destroying our football club and leave the Trust as they are not nor wish to represent the majority of fans
All it would have taken was a note to all members stating that a meeting was planned with the club. As this was the initial aim of the trust, you would have thought that they would have had the decency to show respect to there members and make the announcement.
What may be acceptable to you may not be to other members.
One week after the fans' organisations came together to try to make a sow out of a pig's ear, we have one of the most ludicrous battles going on between Henry "why didn't you tell me something you didn't know" Irving and members of the Trust board who know the truth. Henry can twist words all he likes, but I've said what I've said on this thread and others, it's the truth and I'm going to leave it there.
that is achieved in part by surveys that are published
but also by forming an independent group that has a democratic basis and is subject to the rigours of affiliation to the national body Supporters' Direct.
trouble is people moan about surveys, and can't find the time to participate in the latter
I certainly didn't want to know the time, date or location of the meeting. I didn't want to be there or get involved. If I did I would have taken the Trust up on one of the dozens of offers they made to me to join their board. I didn't because I'm not interested in that level of involvement and said so at the time.
I would have liked the Trust to be more honest with it's own members and other fans, especially those fans who made the effort to attend the Q & A last week.
That they kept their meeting secret is their decision, although they didn't do that very well otherwise I wouldn't have heard about it.
Now that it is in the public domain they don't need to keep denying it but they are.
It could quite easily have been said that "Yes, we had a possible meeting with KM and RM planned but it wasn't firmed up. After the Q & A they contacted us/we contacted them to move things forward as had been previously discussed. It might seem that we were being less than straightforward but we had been criticised before by KM for not keeping confidences and we also felt that while we'd prefer to be 100% open with members and other fans there was more benefit to keeping quiet about the meeting and seeing what we could achieve. We think the means justified the ends but we apologise to any fans who feel we were less than open and especially to those on the FF and others that we couldn't reveal this to them. We don't think it altered the way we approached the Q & A or that we were soft on KM for the reason that we had another possible meeting in the pipeline. We want to continue and grow the dialogue with the club but will continue to act as a critical friend as and when we feel that is in the best interest of the fans". Or something like that : - )
http://www.cafc.co.uk/news/article/charlton-athletic-katrien-meire-2806891.aspx
But you still know I'm right.
I think we have already clarified that the "meeting" @Henry Irving refers to was that chat which @rikofold had with KM thanks to his Valley Gold involvement. There were those who suggested this was a pre- Fans Forum meet stitch-up but the video of the meet hopefully disproves that.
At the time of the AGM the meeting between Steve Clarke and Katrien was still not confirmed. That is why it was not discussed at the AGM. However even if it had been confirmed by then, it is likely that the club would have asked us not to mention it in advance. Had they done so we would have respected that. When you have been trying to get such a meeting for nine months or more, you respect such requests. Not least because we have to start the slow process of building Katrien Meire's trust in us. Unless she has that trust, there will be no meaningful dialogue.
The only other thing I should add is that Richard Murray assisted in setting up this meeting, and personally I doubt that without him it would have happened. Richard knows and trusts Steve from the time when he was the first(?) Supporters Director, as a result of the VIP scheme. (But can I also remind people who are perhaps younger that Steve was also a Valley Party candidate). It was also a slow process. We started to become hopeful that such a meeting might happen as early as August, but as I said in an earlier post, there would have been no point in mentioning it then, or even a day before it happened. We basically had a "believe it when we see it" approach, while remaining dogged in our determination to try and get it, because that was our mandate. It follows therefore that this meeting would have happened round about now, even if we were still 8th in the table (and presumably with Luzon still in charge). I do not believe that it is simply a device to try and pacify the fans, although of course I see why some may think that.
I hope that clarifies things for most people on this thread.