Questions to the trust or anyone willing to tackle the question: What do you expect to gain by attracting more fans to the Valley on a regular basis? Bar the obvious answer of more people... under this ownership, this is.
What do you expect to gain from communication with our CEO of which so many of you seem to also want out? You are, IMO, essentially cementing her place as CEO by continuing a dialogue rather than pressing her in other matters.
I appreciate the efforts of the trust, not tongue in cheek, but you are taking a road that consists of your self involvement, making it a lot harder for other approaches of fans (essentially this is an anti-protest movement, as it's trying to progress with them). She will have more statistics on her side, more go-to routes when she is approached about the important matters.
If you want the the king out you don't help him build his castle, and if you want him to change his game plan, I don't like to dismiss others dreams but this is a no-go.
Again, I like action but the trust has acted past the time of action (not through fault of their own, may I add; but due to lack of response form the club). The owners dismissed communication UNTIL we as fans took action, they are doing so again now because of the threat of a larger protest. How can you be blind to this?
So has Katrien got her view that the protestors are just 2% and don't represent the decent fans directly from the Trust? Have the Trust reduced the possible effect of protest by their desire for involvement? Has a fan's director role been the Trust's aim all along? Do the Trust really believe they can change the break even / player farm strategy by sitting and chatting? Do they really believe the owner has any football intentions? Is dialogue the aim for the Trust no matter what the answers? All genuine questions after the last few weeks.
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.
Thank you Richard.
That clarifies things perfectly
As you say "At the time of the AGM the meeting between Steve Clarke and Katrien was still not confirmed. " I fully accept that the meeting while not confirmed was a possibility. The meeting I was referring to not was the pre-chat with Rikofold re:Valley Gold but the one with Steve Clarke that took place in the last week. That it seems was a red herring.
My point stands that such a meeting was know about, was a possibility or was "on the cards" at the time of the AGM and it was discussed at the AGM, either formally or informally. That is what I have been saying what has either been denied (although never refuted) by Trust board members.
If Rikofold and SE9Addick weren't aware of what you have just said, as I infer from you statement that you will contact them privately, that explains a lot. If they didn't know then I apologise to them for suggesting that they did and were lying.
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.
Well I get it, but the truth doesn't seem to satisfy some people.
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.
No need to contact me separately, Richard - thanks for the clarification, all of which I readily understand and accept.
good to see it on the OS ... now we have to ensure they remain accountable for seeing these issues through
Well, we'll see, I guess. But that seems like progress to me. Perhaps I'm being optimistic but reading between the lines the "Roland does what he wants you have no choice, tough shit" stance may have been ditched. That would be a start. We do, still, though, need a competent CEO and the jury is surely still out on whether or not KM can up her game and become that person. With adequate help/guidance maybe but I have my doubts. Additionally, two of the bullet points seem mutually exclusive to me. I doubt that having decent players and running a financially tight ship are actually compatible aims. Personally, I view all the crap whinging about whether the meeting was either, proposed, offered, pencilled in or cast (see what I did there) in stone but not promulgated is about as relevant as a discussion about whether Henry wears matching Cardigan and underpants. It's a sideshow and needs to be forgotten about.
@Henry IrvingI fully accept that the meeting while not confirmed was a possibility and that was the meeting I was referring to not was the pre-chat with Rikofold re:Valley Gold but the one with Steve Clarke that took place in the last week.
I appreciate you have said "over and out" but I have to record (for the rest of the audience) that I do not believe the above remark to be true. Since I did not myself know on the night of the AGM that any meeting between Steve and KM had been agreed, I do not see how "three people" could have told you about it. You previously maintained that your "informants" were present at the Trust AGM, but as I have said it is impossible that they could have referred to this meeting because it was not at that time agreed.. Those three people could not have known more than I or the other Trust Board members that you mention.
"On the cards" can mean anything you want. As I have just explained, an optimist might have said it was on the cards back in August. We try to be neither optimists nor pessimists, but realists.
@Henry IrvingI fully accept that the meeting while not confirmed was a possibility and that was the meeting I was referring to not was the pre-chat with Rikofold re:Valley Gold but the one with Steve Clarke that took place in the last week.
I appreciate you have said "over and out" but I have to record (for the rest of the audience) that I do not believe the above remark to be true. Since I did not myself know on the night of the AGM that any meeting between Steve and KM had been agreed, I do not see how "three people" could have told you about it. You previously maintained that your "informants" were present at the Trust AGM, but as I have said it is impossible that they could have referred to this meeting because it was not at that time agreed.. Those three people could not have known more than I or the other Trust Board members that you mention.
"On the cards" can mean anything you want. As I have just explained, an optimist might have said it was on the cards back in August. We try to be neither optimists nor pessimists, but realists.
You said "At the time of the AGM the meeting between Steve Clarke and Katrien was still not confirmed"
Why did you use the word confirmed? Had the meeting been provisionally mentioned, pencilled in, discuss as a possibility or had there been absolutely no contact or discussion about such a meeting?
Well I was at the trust AGM and there were no secrets.
And events have proved there were no secrets or deception, no duplicity, no self-aggrandisement, no V-sign to democracy, no citing that CAST represent the majority of Charlton fans, no brown nosing, no cosy chat over a brandy in the secluded corners of the board room, no all expenses paid freebee to Ghent, nothing wrong either procedurally, nothing hidden, and nothing done morally badly or to the detriment of other Charlton fans, or in opposition to other groups whether formally constituted or ad hoc.
Only the Illuminati will ever know the complete truth obviously, but to find out you have to get past pico the attack dog.
I don't trust the owner or the ceo. I can't see me back at the Valley until they're gone unless they change 180 degrees. I think talking and negotiating with them is just pissing in the wind unless Duchatelet himself turns up and makes categoric commitments to improving the squad size with players relevant to our situation. As to Target 20000 that's delusional. I'm a soft target for that and can't see anyway it can bring me back at this time. And new fans? To watch a relegation struggle? Has that ever been done before?
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.
They represent a section of the fans, i.e, their members. Whilst they do canvass views of non-members too, ultimately it's their members they are accountable to.
And of course, you are correct, other members may not feel the same as me and if they don't agree with their actions, in my opinion, they should contact the Trust directly, and not call them out here, on a public forum.
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.
Nutshell.
Lets ask the bloke who's already done the best part of £50M (YES 50 MILLION POUNDS)! to see if he can dig a bit deeper and stick another 50 mill in just so that other people and fans who don't give a shit about us can't laugh at us! Get a life you moaning minnies and stick your own money in. As fir you lot moaning about whether the meeting was arranged befire or after such and such a time, you do my nut in, here's 10p to call someone who gives a shit! FFS SORT YOURSELVES OUT!
@Henry Irving let's not fall out over this. No-one's lied to you, but as I said in the other thread what you were told wasn't accurate.
To be clear, the meeting with KM mentioned at the AGM was mine - I know, because I mentioned it myself. It was in the context of illustrating that progress was being made in KM's attitude to CASTrust people, nothing more nothing less. I made no claim that it was an official Club/CASTrust meeting, and I thought I'd been clear on that. I also asked that members made sure it didn't make it to the forums to avoid KM getting the wrong impression. Ah well...
Steve's wasn't arranged but as we said in the statement on our website, there have been signs for a while the club were warming to us, and we've been working bloody hard behind the scenes to make sure we gave no excuse for them to cool again. We could be hopeful but we were hopeful in February too. It really is a matter, as Prague said, of being certain only as it was actually happening. And it happened this week.
I'm glad you think it's good news, so perhaps we can focus on that instead of us all going through the minutiae of something that really is a misunderstanding.
I don't trust the owner or the ceo. I can't see me back at the Valley until they're gone unless they change 180 degrees. I think talking and negotiating with them is just pissing in the wind unless Duchatelet himself turns up and makes categoric commitments to improving the squad size with players relevant to our situation. As to Target 20000 that's delusional. I'm a soft target for that and can't see anyway it can bring me back at this time. And new fans? To watch a relegation struggle? Has that ever been done before?
I feel the same. Whilst I'm happy the Trust have managed to make contact, I fear that this has been done for many reasons that suit the club and possibly not because they are trying to make amends with the fans (would love to be proved wrong).
In respect to the Target 20k campaign, I stated in Henry's thread that a decent squad and a some success will bring the crowds back, you don't need a specific campaign. That said, I've nothing against the campaign in general but the club have a role to play themselves. If they are serious about bringing in the crowds, they will need to start giving them something to sing about. Changing managers every five minutes and bringing in staff (players, managers, backroom staff etc.) that are not up to the job isn't going to encourage fans to return.
Once I start to see some evidence of their attitude changing, I'll consider returning to The Valley and possibly investing in a season ticket again. Until then, I'll continue to enjoy as many away games as I can get to.
I see a dilemma, all be it that I'm not interested in making any recommendations.
If the club have agreed to meet with the Trust, which was, in a nut shell, what we (the Trust and, apparently, most fans) were protesting to achieve, does that not question the fans integrity should they not call off the protests?
Should the fans not, as an act of faith, stop all protests until a period of discussion between the Trust and the club has been allowed to mature?
As the club has a 'reputation' of not being totally honest to us - let's face it many fans believe the club has lied - should we not carry on protesting until we see more than a little evidence of a change in attitude?
I do wonder how long this dialogue needs to carry on and with what success it should be judged before the fans 'stand down'.
Also (and I'm going to avoid being controversial) if the club were giving the impression that they were going to meet with the Trust (and for the sake of this post I'm going to assume that it was all above board an none of this was kept as a secret) should the Trust not have behaved in the way it looks like they did - i.e. not giving KM or RM that much of a hard time at the Q&A?
I'm, cautiously, optimistic that this is a step in the right direction but, despite not doubting the intelligence of some of the Trust Board, I have this nagging feeling that nothing will change in the way that we want it to, except that the club might take some of the steam out of our anger while the new coach, or the next one, or the next one lucks into a good enough run of results that many of us lose interest in fighting.
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.
They represent a section of the fans, i.e, their members. Whilst they do canvass views of non-members too, ultimately it's their members they are accountable to.
And of course, you are correct, other members may not feel the same as me and if they don't agree with their actions, in my opinion, they should contact the Trust directly, and not call them out here, on a public forum.
I hope that last comment is not aimed at me as my point is a fair question on an open public forum created for debate.
What I found more interesting is this comment in the official statement
In the past few days, members of the senior staff and I have met, spoken to, or exchanged emails with a wide spectrum of our fan base.
That suggests that the meeting with Steve Clarke of CAST wasn't the only discussion that has taken place since the meeting last week
Okay you've got me, it's a fair cop. I too had a secret meeting with her and even though it breaks confidence I can exclusively reveal the following;
1. She is making the seats in the East stand wider to accommodate fans bringing their own chips to games. 2. Her favourite colour is green. 3. She drew the pictures for the two new mascots herself and, most disturbingly..... 4. Her favourite monster munch flavour is "Flamin' Hot"
We have agreed not to meet again and not to tell anyone that we're not meeting again. Um, oops
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.
They represent a section of the fans, i.e, their members. Whilst they do canvass views of non-members too, ultimately it's their members they are accountable to.
And of course, you are correct, other members may not feel the same as me and if they don't agree with their actions, in my opinion, they should contact the Trust directly, and not call them out here, on a public forum.
I hope that last comment is not aimed at me as my point is a fair question on an open public forum created for debate.
The point I was making is that this is not the place for members to take up any issues they may have with the Trust, it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.
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.
They represent a section of the fans, i.e, their members. Whilst they do canvass views of non-members too, ultimately it's their members they are accountable to.
And of course, you are correct, other members may not feel the same as me and if they don't agree with their actions, in my opinion, they should contact the Trust directly, and not call them out here, on a public forum.
I hope that last comment is not aimed at me as my point is a fair question on an open public forum created for debate.
The point I was making is that this is not the place for members to take up any issues they may have with the Trust, it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.
Wrote a really long post on the ridiculousness of this side-issuing, but ultimately what is the point other than extending the pathetic debate.
All I'll say for the benefit of @bobmunro@cafc999 and others is I am a trust member and I'm happy for them to represent me as a member, as do currently about a thousand other fans. If I didn't I'd cancel forthwith. It's a shame that another 5,000 fans don't see the benefit in parting with a paltry fiver as the stronger the 'union', the more potential weight it carries for it's members, which ultimately is the supporters of Charlton Athletic. I don't want to be involved in any way but I do want them to be accountable, taking a stance that is imo the right one they should be taking for CAFC fans, or if not, I want to understand why. Which is why I went along to their AGM and put my hand up on numerous occasions to ask the Board questions or give my view as a member. As did many others there.
There was zero skull duggery in play, and I'm personally very pleased with the approach taken in recent weeks by the Trust, which is to survey members and non-members for views to see the strength of feeling in terms of protest, help co-ordinate approach with all other supporter groups for the famous meeting which, although didn't go as planned, appeared to have a great deal of supporter collaboration going into it that hasn't been there for years, and now further dialogue for with the club which hasn't been possible before.
The outcome of all this has been a signing has been made to the squad, talk of another is imminent, the extent of fans feelings have been clearly shown, and promises of better engagement between club and supporters have been made.
May only be small wins, and may not address most of our issues or make us feel better about all things Charlton,(certainly not mine), but for what that group can realistically achieve I believe they are going in the right direction with it and don't deserve in any way some of the criticism, and attempts to discredit that have been emerging in the last few weeks. Particularly from those they don't even represent.
Let's hope a line can be drawn, people can see the ridiculousness of it all, for everyone's sake.
So I deleted my long post only to end up typing out another long post, great!
Comments
What do you expect to gain from communication with our CEO of which so many of you seem to also want out? You are, IMO, essentially cementing her place as CEO by continuing a dialogue rather than pressing her in other matters.
I appreciate the efforts of the trust, not tongue in cheek, but you are taking a road that consists of your self involvement, making it a lot harder for other approaches of fans (essentially this is an anti-protest movement, as it's trying to progress with them). She will have more statistics on her side, more go-to routes when she is approached about the important matters.
If you want the the king out you don't help him build his castle, and if you want him to change his game plan, I don't like to dismiss others dreams but this is a no-go.
Again, I like action but the trust has acted past the time of action (not through fault of their own, may I add; but due to lack of response form the club). The owners dismissed communication UNTIL we as fans took action, they are doing so again now because of the threat of a larger protest. How can you be blind to this?
That clarifies things perfectly
As you say "At the time of the AGM the meeting between Steve Clarke and Katrien was still not confirmed. " I fully accept that the meeting while not confirmed was a possibility. The meeting I was referring to not was the pre-chat with Rikofold re:Valley Gold but the one with Steve Clarke that took place in the last week. That it seems was a red herring.
My point stands that such a meeting was know about, was a possibility or was "on the cards" at the time of the AGM and it was discussed at the AGM, either formally or informally. That is what I have been saying what has either been denied (although never refuted) by Trust board members.
If Rikofold and SE9Addick weren't aware of what you have just said, as I infer from you statement that you will contact them privately, that explains a lot. If they didn't know then I apologise to them for suggesting that they did and were lying.
Over and out.
And those that wish to protest should carry on doing so... its obviously worked and got the club rattled.
Stand up the 2%.
The protests and Spell it Out seem to be (very early stages) starting to make a difference.
Let's keep our foot on the gas.
We do, still, though, need a competent CEO and the jury is surely still out on whether or not KM can up her game and become that person. With adequate help/guidance maybe but I have my doubts.
Additionally, two of the bullet points seem mutually exclusive to me. I doubt that having decent players and running a financially tight ship are actually compatible aims.
Personally, I view all the crap whinging about whether the meeting was either, proposed, offered, pencilled in or cast (see what I did there) in stone but not promulgated is about as relevant as a discussion about whether Henry wears matching Cardigan and underpants.
It's a sideshow and needs to be forgotten about.
I appreciate you have said "over and out" but I have to record (for the rest of the audience) that I do not believe the above remark to be true. Since I did not myself know on the night of the AGM that any meeting between Steve and KM had been agreed, I do not see how "three people" could have told you about it. You previously maintained that your "informants" were present at the Trust AGM, but as I have said it is impossible that they could have referred to this meeting because it was not at that time agreed.. Those three people could not have known more than I or the other Trust Board members that you mention.
"On the cards" can mean anything you want. As I have just explained, an optimist might have said it was on the cards back in August. We try to be neither optimists nor pessimists, but realists.
Why did you use the word confirmed? Had the meeting been provisionally mentioned, pencilled in, discuss as a possibility or had there been absolutely no contact or discussion about such a meeting?
And events have proved there were no secrets or deception, no duplicity, no self-aggrandisement, no V-sign to democracy, no citing that CAST represent the majority of Charlton fans, no brown nosing, no cosy chat over a brandy in the secluded corners of the board room, no all expenses paid freebee to Ghent, nothing wrong either procedurally, nothing hidden, and nothing done morally badly or to the detriment of other Charlton fans, or in opposition to other groups whether formally constituted or ad hoc.
Only the Illuminati will ever know the complete truth obviously, but to find out you have to get past pico the attack dog.
Pico....PICO!!!!!.....here boy.
As to Target 20000 that's delusional. I'm a soft target for that and can't see anyway it can bring me back at this time. And new fans? To watch a relegation struggle? Has that ever been done before?
Good point, and all the more welcome if true.
And of course, you are correct, other members may not feel the same as me and if they don't agree with their actions, in my opinion, they should contact the Trust directly, and not call them out here, on a public forum.
FFS SORT YOURSELVES OUT!
@Henry Irving let's not fall out over this. No-one's lied to you, but as I said in the other thread what you were told wasn't accurate.
To be clear, the meeting with KM mentioned at the AGM was mine - I know, because I mentioned it myself. It was in the context of illustrating that progress was being made in KM's attitude to CASTrust people, nothing more nothing less. I made no claim that it was an official Club/CASTrust meeting, and I thought I'd been clear on that. I also asked that members made sure it didn't make it to the forums to avoid KM getting the wrong impression. Ah well...
Steve's wasn't arranged but as we said in the statement on our website, there have been signs for a while the club were warming to us, and we've been working bloody hard behind the scenes to make sure we gave no excuse for them to cool again. We could be hopeful but we were hopeful in February too. It really is a matter, as Prague said, of being certain only as it was actually happening. And it happened this week.
I'm glad you think it's good news, so perhaps we can focus on that instead of us all going through the minutiae of something that really is a misunderstanding.
In respect to the Target 20k campaign, I stated in Henry's thread that a decent squad and a some success will bring the crowds back, you don't need a specific campaign. That said, I've nothing against the campaign in general but the club have a role to play themselves. If they are serious about bringing in the crowds, they will need to start giving them something to sing about. Changing managers every five minutes and bringing in staff (players, managers, backroom staff etc.) that are not up to the job isn't going to encourage fans to return.
Once I start to see some evidence of their attitude changing, I'll consider returning to The Valley and possibly investing in a season ticket again. Until then, I'll continue to enjoy as many away games as I can get to.
If the club have agreed to meet with the Trust, which was, in a nut shell, what we (the Trust and, apparently, most fans) were protesting to achieve, does that not question the fans integrity should they not call off the protests?
Should the fans not, as an act of faith, stop all protests until a period of discussion between the Trust and the club has been allowed to mature?
As the club has a 'reputation' of not being totally honest to us - let's face it many fans believe the club has lied - should we not carry on protesting until we see more than a little evidence of a change in attitude?
I do wonder how long this dialogue needs to carry on and with what success it should be judged before the fans 'stand down'.
Also (and I'm going to avoid being controversial) if the club were giving the impression that they were going to meet with the Trust (and for the sake of this post I'm going to assume that it was all above board an none of this was kept as a secret) should the Trust not have behaved in the way it looks like they did - i.e. not giving KM or RM that much of a hard time at the Q&A?
I'm, cautiously, optimistic that this is a step in the right direction but, despite not doubting the intelligence of some of the Trust Board, I have this nagging feeling that nothing will change in the way that we want it to, except that the club might take some of the steam out of our anger while the new coach, or the next one, or the next one lucks into a good enough run of results that many of us lose interest in fighting.
Okay you've got me, it's a fair cop.
I too had a secret meeting with her and even though it breaks confidence I can exclusively reveal the following;
1. She is making the seats in the East stand wider to accommodate fans bringing their own chips to games. 2. Her favourite colour is green.
3. She drew the pictures for the two new mascots herself and, most disturbingly.....
4. Her favourite monster munch flavour is "Flamin' Hot"
We have agreed not to meet again and not to tell anyone that we're not meeting again. Um, oops
When I'm 50 odd I really hope Charlton's supporter base has evolved beyond this petty infighting.
Over and out.
(But I'll be back on a bit later in case anyone disagrees with me.)
All I'll say for the benefit of @bobmunro @cafc999 and others is I am a trust member and I'm happy for them to represent me as a member, as do currently about a thousand other fans. If I didn't I'd cancel forthwith. It's a shame that another 5,000 fans don't see the benefit in parting with a paltry fiver as the stronger the 'union', the more potential weight it carries for it's members, which ultimately is the supporters of Charlton Athletic. I don't want to be involved in any way but I do want them to be accountable, taking a stance that is imo the right one they should be taking for CAFC fans, or if not, I want to understand why. Which is why I went along to their AGM and put my hand up on numerous occasions to ask the Board questions or give my view as a member. As did many others there.
There was zero skull duggery in play, and I'm personally very pleased with the approach taken in recent weeks by the Trust, which is to survey members and non-members for views to see the strength of feeling in terms of protest, help co-ordinate approach with all other supporter groups for the famous meeting which, although didn't go as planned, appeared to have a great deal of supporter collaboration going into it that hasn't been there for years, and now further dialogue for with the club which hasn't been possible before.
The outcome of all this has been a signing has been made to the squad, talk of another is imminent, the extent of fans feelings have been clearly shown, and promises of better engagement between club and supporters have been made.
May only be small wins, and may not address most of our issues or make us feel better about all things Charlton,(certainly not mine), but for what that group can realistically achieve I believe they are going in the right direction with it and don't deserve in any way some of the criticism, and attempts to discredit that have been emerging in the last few weeks. Particularly from those they don't even represent.
Let's hope a line can be drawn, people can see the ridiculousness of it all, for everyone's sake.
So I deleted my long post only to end up typing out another long post, great!