Not surprising the age gaps stop at 35, they have no interested in the older supporters, that interview KM spoke volumes
it doesn't, it says 'Supporters aged over 35' so anyone aged 35 to 105.
Sorry what I meant was you had age gaps but then over 35 to as you say 105. Charlton ( even KM admitted this) has a very large supporter base of over 60. If you were looking to make this group inclusive ( which I personally think it should not be) then common sense would have said lets have a rep for the over 60's
Not surprising the age gaps stop at 35, they have no interested in the older supporters, that interview KM spoke volumes
it doesn't, it says 'Supporters aged over 35' so anyone aged 35 to 105.
Sorry what I meant was you had age gaps but then over 35 to as you say 105. Charlton ( even KM admitted this) has a very large supporter base of over 60. If you were looking to make this group inclusive ( which I personally think it should not be) then common sense would have said lets have a rep for the over 60's
Not surprising the age gaps stop at 35, they have no interested in the older supporters, that interview KM spoke volumes
it doesn't, it says 'Supporters aged over 35' so anyone aged 35 to 105.
Sorry what I meant was you had age gaps but then over 35 to as you say 105. Charlton ( even KM admitted this) has a very large supporter base of over 60. If you were looking to make this group inclusive ( which I personally think it should not be) then common sense would have said lets have a rep for the over 60's
and so we come full circle - its all about the what happens on the pitch - sort that out and re employ Rick Everitt to maximise ways of attracting the fans and its job done - but the team must be sorted first or there's no point.
I can only speak from personal experience, but my bond and why I support this club is because my dad started taking me from a very young age. I am sure there are numerous others on here in the same boat. It would take a hell of a lot for me to turn my back on the club and not attend matches. Now I'm in the 25-35 range, one would assume that like me, others in that range have the club imprinted on their heart and are in it for life.
If I were to put myself forward as a representative for this group, am I supposed to put forward ideas on how to attract new fans in this age group, bring back fans who have turned their back on the club, think of creative ways through channels of marketing to engage potential fans? I would struggle. I'm not the most creative person and my bond is there through my upbringing.
I understand why she (Charlton) think it would be a good idea to have representation, but are we able to transfer our love and passion for the club into a marketable way to attract new fans. I just can't see the link. Personal stories are always good to work into any promotion, because it brings about authenticity and conviction, I just can't see how you get from (using me as an example) a fan's drive to support a club, to a practical way of getting new fans.
Of course I appreciate this is just my view and I know there are people that are a lot more creative than I am out there and would be able to channel their energies into this.
They've also got to take into account that doing this now, comes at a time when there are quite high numbers of fans that are upset/discontented with the current ownership and what is going on on the pitch.
I think that will cast a massive shadow over any concerted effort that they focus on re: target 20,000. I won't go into all the reasons why people are upset, we all know them, but I think it will be difficult to get this off the ground whilst we have the BlackandWhite campaign etc.
The sad thing about all this is that we have seen over the last few weeks some fantastic effort from @Addickted2TheReds in mobilising the Roland out campaign, but can you imagine the power of something like that if it were a positive atmosphere. He's someone that has got up of his backside (with others) and done something, it is just a shame the situation is what it is, and he was doing it because he is so disillusioned with everything.
The sad thing about all this is that we have seen over the last few weeks some fantastic effort from @Addickted2TheReds in mobilising the Roland out campaign, but can you imagine the power of something like that if it were a positive atmosphere. He's someone that has got up of his backside (with others) and done something, it is just a shame the situation is what it is, and he was doing it because he is so disillusioned with everything.
I'm not sure Addickted2TheReds is a Roland Out er??
The sad thing about all this is that we have seen over the last few weeks some fantastic effort from @Addickted2TheReds in mobilising the Roland out campaign, but can you imagine the power of something like that if it were a positive atmosphere. He's someone that has got up of his backside (with others) and done something, it is just a shame the situation is what it is, and he was doing it because he is so disillusioned with everything.
I'm not sure Addickted2TheReds is a Roland Out er??
Waste of time in my opinion, the fans are leaving faster than they are arriving and that's due to the poor running of the club. Until there is a credible product on the pitch, people are not going to come in numbers. Even if some do come, they'll watch a few matches and be off again.
The sad thing about all this is that we have seen over the last few weeks some fantastic effort from @Addickted2TheReds in mobilising the Roland out campaign, but can you imagine the power of something like that if it were a positive atmosphere. He's someone that has got up of his backside (with others) and done something, it is just a shame the situation is what it is, and he was doing it because he is so disillusioned with everything.
I'm not sure Addickted2TheReds is a Roland Out er??
Not surprising the age gaps stop at 35, they have no interested in the older supporters, that interview KM spoke volumes
To be fair it doesn't stop at 35 as it is 35 plus so the famous 80 year old would qualify.
I do think they have mixed up the fans forum and T20k.
Rather than just age other skills that people could bring such as marketing and promotion, running a business, etc would be useful.
But it is a baby step forward.
T20k isn't the answer to every problem and it can never be that.
People are correct that a winning team is the best marketing but this is what can be done around that not instead of that.
More importantly it marks a public change in the CEOs attitude to the fans. She still has to deliver on doing it for real and there are still three more aims to achieve from Spell it Out.
In football terms we've started well, won a couple of early corners but we've not scored.
Keep up the pressure, keep asking the questions, keeping asking for it to be spelt out in black and white.
I have no problem with this - it is the required start.
Just because they are limiting representation to certain categories at this stage, does not mean that they cannot call in any required expertise as and when required as matters move on.
This is positive - it would not have happened three months ago.
I have no problem with this - it is the required start.
Just because they are limiting representation to certain categories at this stage, does not mean that they cannot call in any required expertise as and when required as matters move on.
This is positive - it would not have happened three months ago.
That's how I see it. It's a start, it can grow and improve and you are so right that there was no chance of this happening a few months ago before the car park demo or the 2%
This is mainly because of Goodhart's Law. Look it up if you're interested as it is acknowledged that the law has profound implications for the selection of high-level targets in organisations. (It certainly can be seen in all its gory truth within the NHS.)
The easiest way to explain the Law in action is to think about soviet era factories. So a nail factory given a target to produce a certain number of nails, made many tiny, useless nails. But then, given another target based on weight produced a few giant but also useless nails. Numbers and weight both correlated well in a plan. But after they are made targets (in different times and periods), they lose that value.
So back to bums on seats. If that becomes the be all and end all of Charlton's path to the future, it is doomed to failure.
In extremis, it would be easy to get 20,000 supporters in the ground: give away free seats, free travel to get to the ground and free pies and beer once you are there. Sorted.
The problem, of course, is that the club would make a huge loss, couldn't afford any players at all and would fail completely on the football field. (Although there might still be a good crowd even if there was no football to watch if the free travel, pies, beer and a house DJ were on offer.)
Similarly if we had Target Premier League, all resources might well be focussed on that target and if it wasn't met, the club might collapse - perhaps literally if no money had been spent on the infrastructure.
So, in my view, there needs to be a balance and no talk of targets. We need attractive winning football, reasonable prices that people can afford, no late-in-the-day fixture changes for the whims of SKY, no talk about changing some Saturday matches to a Friday evening. Above all we need (at least some) stability of quality, hard-working players (if only so that your replica shirt and 2016 calendar aren't out of date before they are unwrapped on Xmas day) and stability of coaching staff and back-room staff and administrative competence. So, if instead we had Project Improve Everything ("PIE") and/or the Select Outstanding Footballers Assignment ("SOFA") perhaps the notional 20,000 might start to look like a possibility rather than a pipe dream.
I have no problem with this - it is the required start.
Just because they are limiting representation to certain categories at this stage, does not mean that they cannot call in any required expertise as and when required as matters move on.
This is positive - it would not have happened three months ago.
That's how I see it. It's a start, it can grow and improve and you are so right that there was no chance of this happening a few months ago before the car park demo or the 2%
Yet it was announced by the same person in September 2014.
This is all well & good (& certainly not knocking it) but wouldn't a good place to start be for the club asking the 3000+ season ticket holders who don't attend why not. I'm sure there is a minority that changes match by match but there must be a core that have totally given up. Why not get their views or are they part of "the 2%" so we won't include them ?
I have no problem with this - it is the required start.
Just because they are limiting representation to certain categories at this stage, does not mean that they cannot call in any required expertise as and when required as matters move on.
This is positive - it would not have happened three months ago.
That's how I see it. It's a start, it can grow and improve and you are so right that there was no chance of this happening a few months ago before the car park demo or the 2%
Yet it was announced by the same person in September 2014.
'announced' but no details and no follow-up or accountability - this is what has changed
This is mainly because of Goodhart's Law. Look it up if you're interested as it is acknowledged that the law has profound implications for the selection of high-level targets in organisations. (It certainly can be seen in all its gory truth within the NHS.)
The easiest way to explain the Law in action is to think about soviet era factories. So a nail factory given a target to produce a certain number of nails, made many tiny, useless nails. But then, given another target based on weight produced a few giant but also useless nails. Numbers and weight both correlated well in a plan. But after they are made targets (in different times and periods), they lose that value.
So back to bums on seats. If that becomes the be all and end all of Charlton's path to the future, it is doomed to failure.
In extremis, it would be easy to get 20,000 supporters in the ground: give away free seats, free travel to get to the ground and free pies and beer once you are there. Sorted.
The problem, of course, is that the club would make a huge loss, couldn't afford any players at all and would fail completely on the football field. (Although there might still be a good crowd even if there was no football to watch if the free travel, pies, beer and a house DJ were on offer.)
Similarly if we had Target Premier League, all resources might well be focussed on that target and if it wasn't met, the club might collapse - perhaps literally if no money had been spent on the infrastructure.
So, in my view, there needs to be a balance and no talk of targets. We need attractive winning football, reasonable prices that people can afford, no late-in-the-day fixture changes for the whims of SKY, no talk about changing some Saturday matches to a Friday evening. Above all we need (at least some) stability of quality, hard-working players (if only so that your replica shirt and 2016 calendar aren't out of date before they are unwrapped on Xmas day) and stability of coaching staff and back-room staff and administrative competence. So, if instead we had Project Improve Everything ("PIE") and/or the Select Outstanding Footballers Assignment ("SOFA") perhaps the notional 20,000 might start to look like a possibility rather than a pipe dream.
You make a good point, but that's why the previous committees were so effective. They constructed a business case to underpin their ideas based on evidence, going right back to 1994. It was never just about filling empty seats, it was always about the revenue and the cost, short, medium and long term, which is why the proposals were almost invariably adopted by the board.
Clearly to do that you need to have or develop an understanding of the business - it's not good enough to argue that x, y and z would be popular with other fans.
In fact it was by no means clear in 1994 that you could fill the ground by giving everything away and I don't think it is clear that you could get 20,000 on a regular basis by giving seats away now. Apart from anything else, it would be difficult to distribute the tickets into the right hands without a price mechanism, which is one of the problems with comps generally.
Lets hope with get Man U or City in the cup. Sell the tickets at a reasonable price, think you may get 20000 in the home stands, job done all we need is to be playing EPL teams every week.
I have no problem with this - it is the required start.
Just because they are limiting representation to certain categories at this stage, does not mean that they cannot call in any required expertise as and when required as matters move on.
This is positive - it would not have happened three months ago.
That's how I see it. It's a start, it can grow and improve and you are so right that there was no chance of this happening a few months ago before the car park demo or the 2%
Yet it was announced by the same person in September 2014.
No, it was mentioned as a possibility and then never happened.
Maybe it is co-incidence and Spell it Out and KM came up with the same idea at the same time and the protests had not impact on this decision and this very public announcement being made.
This is mainly because of Goodhart's Law. Look it up if you're interested as it is acknowledged that the law has profound implications for the selection of high-level targets in organisations. (It certainly can be seen in all its gory truth within the NHS.)
The easiest way to explain the Law in action is to think about soviet era factories. So a nail factory given a target to produce a certain number of nails, made many tiny, useless nails. But then, given another target based on weight produced a few giant but also useless nails. Numbers and weight both correlated well in a plan. But after they are made targets (in different times and periods), they lose that value.
So back to bums on seats. If that becomes the be all and end all of Charlton's path to the future, it is doomed to failure.
In extremis, it would be easy to get 20,000 supporters in the ground: give away free seats, free travel to get to the ground and free pies and beer once you are there. Sorted.
The problem, of course, is that the club would make a huge loss, couldn't afford any players at all and would fail completely on the football field. (Although there might still be a good crowd even if there was no football to watch if the free travel, pies, beer and a house DJ were on offer.)
Similarly if we had Target Premier League, all resources might well be focussed on that target and if it wasn't met, the club might collapse - perhaps literally if no money had been spent on the infrastructure.
So, in my view, there needs to be a balance and no talk of targets. We need attractive winning football, reasonable prices that people can afford, no late-in-the-day fixture changes for the whims of SKY, no talk about changing some Saturday matches to a Friday evening. Above all we need (at least some) stability of quality, hard-working players (if only so that your replica shirt and 2016 calendar aren't out of date before they are unwrapped on Xmas day) and stability of coaching staff and back-room staff and administrative competence. So, if instead we had Project Improve Everything ("PIE") and/or the Select Outstanding Footballers Assignment ("SOFA") perhaps the notional 20,000 might start to look like a possibility rather than a pipe dream.
You make a good point, but that's why the previous committees were so effective. They constructed a business case to underpin their ideas based on evidence, going right back to 1994. It was never just about filling empty seats, it was always about the revenue and the cost, short, medium and long term, which is why the proposals were almost invariably adopted by the board.
Clearly to do that you need to have or develop an understanding of the business - it's not good enough to argue that x, y and z would be popular with other fans.
In fact it was by no means clear in 1994 that you could fill the ground by giving everything away and I don't think it is clear that you could get 20,000 on a regular basis by giving seats away now. Apart from anything else, it would be difficult to distribute the tickets into the right hands without a price mechanism, which is one of the problems with comps generally.
You're right but who will be coming to the party that will have this attribute? And will the Club be prepared to share relevant but otherwise commercially sensitive information to enable anyone to come to a meaningful conclusion?
This is mainly because of Goodhart's Law. Look it up if you're interested as it is acknowledged that the law has profound implications for the selection of high-level targets in organisations. (It certainly can be seen in all its gory truth within the NHS.)
The easiest way to explain the Law in action is to think about soviet era factories. So a nail factory given a target to produce a certain number of nails, made many tiny, useless nails. But then, given another target based on weight produced a few giant but also useless nails. Numbers and weight both correlated well in a plan. But after they are made targets (in different times and periods), they lose that value.
So back to bums on seats. If that becomes the be all and end all of Charlton's path to the future, it is doomed to failure.
In extremis, it would be easy to get 20,000 supporters in the ground: give away free seats, free travel to get to the ground and free pies and beer once you are there. Sorted.
The problem, of course, is that the club would make a huge loss, couldn't afford any players at all and would fail completely on the football field. (Although there might still be a good crowd even if there was no football to watch if the free travel, pies, beer and a house DJ were on offer.)
Similarly if we had Target Premier League, all resources might well be focussed on that target and if it wasn't met, the club might collapse - perhaps literally if no money had been spent on the infrastructure.
So, in my view, there needs to be a balance and no talk of targets. We need attractive winning football, reasonable prices that people can afford, no late-in-the-day fixture changes for the whims of SKY, no talk about changing some Saturday matches to a Friday evening. Above all we need (at least some) stability of quality, hard-working players (if only so that your replica shirt and 2016 calendar aren't out of date before they are unwrapped on Xmas day) and stability of coaching staff and back-room staff and administrative competence. So, if instead we had Project Improve Everything ("PIE") and/or the Select Outstanding Footballers Assignment ("SOFA") perhaps the notional 20,000 might start to look like a possibility rather than a pipe dream.
You make a good point, but that's why the previous committees were so effective. They constructed a business case to underpin their ideas based on evidence, going right back to 1994. It was never just about filling empty seats, it was always about the revenue and the cost, short, medium and long term, which is why the proposals were almost invariably adopted by the board.
Clearly to do that you need to have or develop an understanding of the business - it's not good enough to argue that x, y and z would be popular with other fans.
In fact it was by no means clear in 1994 that you could fill the ground by giving everything away and I don't think it is clear that you could get 20,000 on a regular basis by giving seats away now. Apart from anything else, it would be difficult to distribute the tickets into the right hands without a price mechanism, which is one of the problems with comps generally.
As you know the balance was always between income and attendances
hence the many hours spent with calculators and spreadsheets debating which price level for season tickets would bring in bith income and numbers. Proposals from certain people to double season ticket prices were argued down on the basis that they wouldn't double, or even increase income.
We has a similar debate over the more reasonable idea to adopt the Bradford/Hartlepool model of £150 STs for all. Again the numbers didn't add up in terms of income and durability
Think this has been announced three times now in recent years, twice on the fans forum, first last Autumn, (with the Trust as the only volunteer) on the Fans Forum, and then informally some discussions with club development officer; most recently on the rather delayed FF minutes volunteers were to contact Mick -
Not sure where that sits against the spell it out campaign dates wise.
This final occasion is the first formal launch of this type to an audience outside the FF.
Charlton CEO Katrien Meire provides an update to our supporters: “In recent weeks we have made clear our desire to create a more integrated approach to how our supporters can help shape the future direction of the club, together with redefining the methods in which we communicate to those who care most about Charlton Athletic."
So to be clear it's the last few weeks ie AFTER Spell it Out was launched 6 weeks ago
as for more integrated and redefining don't let that flak catcher/interim head of comms/Spin doctor write your statements like this. It doesn't read well.
On the 'giving away' thing my daughter's season ticket is often available for free as she can no longer make every match.
Yet I often cannot find a taker for it.
I accept that there is a considerable downside for any prospective user in having to sit next to me for 90 minutes or more but suggest that a worthwhile product on the pitch would enable people to overcome that obstacle!
Definitely a step forward but the tone of the message is totally wrong " we have made clear" - wouldn't this have been an ideal opportunity to offer a bit of reconciliation. Dare I suggest, like Brentford, admit they were getting it wrong and trying to change. Secondly - do they not realise that the bulk of the supporters are down to earth and predominantly working class? Be honest, simple and humble! It really isn't rocket science
Comments
If I were to put myself forward as a representative for this group, am I supposed to put forward ideas on how to attract new fans in this age group, bring back fans who have turned their back on the club, think of creative ways through channels of marketing to engage potential fans? I would struggle. I'm not the most creative person and my bond is there through my upbringing.
I understand why she (Charlton) think it would be a good idea to have representation, but are we able to transfer our love and passion for the club into a marketable way to attract new fans. I just can't see the link. Personal stories are always good to work into any promotion, because it brings about authenticity and conviction, I just can't see how you get from (using me as an example) a fan's drive to support a club, to a practical way of getting new fans.
Of course I appreciate this is just my view and I know there are people that are a lot more creative than I am out there and would be able to channel their energies into this.
They've also got to take into account that doing this now, comes at a time when there are quite high numbers of fans that are upset/discontented with the current ownership and what is going on on the pitch.
I think that will cast a massive shadow over any concerted effort that they focus on re: target 20,000. I won't go into all the reasons why people are upset, we all know them, but I think it will be difficult to get this off the ground whilst we have the BlackandWhite campaign etc.
The sad thing about all this is that we have seen over the last few weeks some fantastic effort from @Addickted2TheReds in mobilising the Roland out campaign, but can you imagine the power of something like that if it were a positive atmosphere. He's someone that has got up of his backside (with others) and done something, it is just a shame the situation is what it is, and he was doing it because he is so disillusioned with everything.
I do think they have mixed up the fans forum and T20k.
Rather than just age other skills that people could bring such as marketing and promotion, running a business, etc would be useful.
But it is a baby step forward.
T20k isn't the answer to every problem and it can never be that.
People are correct that a winning team is the best marketing but this is what can be done around that not instead of that.
More importantly it marks a public change in the CEOs attitude to the fans. She still has to deliver on doing it for real and there are still three more aims to achieve from Spell it Out.
In football terms we've started well, won a couple of early corners but we've not scored.
Keep up the pressure, keep asking the questions, keeping asking for it to be spelt out in black and white.
Just because they are limiting representation to certain categories at this stage, does not mean that they cannot call in any required expertise as and when required as matters move on.
This is positive - it would not have happened three months ago.
This is mainly because of Goodhart's Law. Look it up if you're interested as it is acknowledged that the law has profound implications for the selection of high-level targets in organisations. (It certainly can be seen in all its gory truth within the NHS.)
The easiest way to explain the Law in action is to think about soviet era factories. So a nail factory given a target to produce a certain number of nails, made many tiny, useless nails. But then, given another target based on weight produced a few giant but also useless nails. Numbers and weight both correlated well in a plan. But after they are made targets (in different times and periods), they lose that value.
So back to bums on seats. If that becomes the be all and end all of Charlton's path to the future, it is doomed to failure.
In extremis, it would be easy to get 20,000 supporters in the ground: give away free seats, free travel to get to the ground and free pies and beer once you are there. Sorted.
The problem, of course, is that the club would make a huge loss, couldn't afford any players at all and would fail completely on the football field. (Although there might still be a good crowd even if there was no football to watch if the free travel, pies, beer and a house DJ were on offer.)
Similarly if we had Target Premier League, all resources might well be focussed on that target and if it wasn't met, the club might collapse - perhaps literally if no money had been spent on the infrastructure.
So, in my view, there needs to be a balance and no talk of targets. We need attractive winning football, reasonable prices that people can afford, no late-in-the-day fixture changes for the whims of SKY, no talk about changing some Saturday matches to a Friday evening. Above all we need (at least some) stability of quality, hard-working players (if only so that your replica shirt and 2016 calendar aren't out of date before they are unwrapped on Xmas day) and stability of coaching staff and back-room staff and administrative competence.
So, if instead we had Project Improve Everything ("PIE") and/or the Select Outstanding Footballers Assignment ("SOFA") perhaps the notional 20,000 might start to look like a possibility rather than a pipe dream.
Clearly to do that you need to have or develop an understanding of the business - it's not good enough to argue that x, y and z would be popular with other fans.
In fact it was by no means clear in 1994 that you could fill the ground by giving everything away and I don't think it is clear that you could get 20,000 on a regular basis by giving seats away now. Apart from anything else, it would be difficult to distribute the tickets into the right hands without a price mechanism, which is one of the problems with comps generally.
Maybe it is co-incidence and Spell it Out and KM came up with the same idea at the same time and the protests had not impact on this decision and this very public announcement being made.
Or maybe not.
hence the many hours spent with calculators and spreadsheets debating which price level for season tickets would bring in bith income and numbers. Proposals from certain people to double season ticket prices were argued down on the basis that they wouldn't double, or even increase income.
We has a similar debate over the more reasonable idea to adopt the Bradford/Hartlepool model of £150 STs for all. Again the numbers didn't add up in terms of income and durability
If this seems like a good idea Katrien. Please feel free to use it.
Not sure where that sits against the spell it out campaign dates wise.
This final occasion is the first formal launch of this type to an audience outside the FF.
So to be clear it's the last few weeks ie AFTER Spell it Out was launched 6 weeks ago
as for more integrated and redefining don't let that flak catcher/interim head of comms/Spin doctor write your statements like this. It doesn't read well.
Yet I often cannot find a taker for it.
I accept that there is a considerable downside for any prospective user in having to sit next to me for 90 minutes or more but suggest that a worthwhile product on the pitch would enable people to overcome that obstacle!
" we have made clear" - wouldn't this have been an ideal opportunity to offer a bit of reconciliation. Dare I suggest, like Brentford, admit they were getting it wrong and trying to change.
Secondly - do they not realise that the bulk of the supporters are down to earth and predominantly working class?
Be honest, simple and humble!
It really isn't rocket science