My concern is not so much "pushing RD to sell", more, how do you do that in a way which persuades him to sell to somebody better - given that the somebody has to be ready to fund losses of 5-8m annually just to keep us afloat in this league? If it was so bloody easy, why has no other fanbase managed it? If you take Leeds, I am not sure whether their Trust took credit for "forcing Bates out" (i might try to find out). But if they did, well, he took his revenge by selling to Cellino, and they cant seem to get him out despite being much better resourced than we are.
If anyone thinks this is "not good enough" from a Trust board member, and think they know how to achieve the above, lets meet up for a beer before the Wolves game and you can put me bang to rights. And if that doesnt do the trick, you can take my place on the Board ( although there is anyway a vacant chair).
Actually the beer offer is open to any Trust member reading this, regardless of where you stand, none of us talk face to face enough. Mail me if you are interested and we can agree the venue.
"how do you do that in a way which persuades him to sell to somebody better" - we don't, how could we possibly ? But surely if someone is causing considerable harm to this football club then we stop them. If the person that comes along in their wake is just as bad/worse then we stop them too, why should we accept this ?
Well I personally believe that if you at least have some dialogue going with an owner, so that he sees we are reasonable people who want reasonable things, you could persuade him to bow out gracefully.
And I dont know how, otherwise, you simply "stop" owners from behaving in a certain way. Maybe Its just me, and like I said, if anyone else has a better plan, here's the space.
I think though that a lot of people think about club owners like they think about Greenwich council or some other public institution. IMO that is a fatal tactical mistake. But maybe I am old and past it...
Fair enough, I highly doubt anyone born post 1978 "think(s) about club owners like they think about Greenwich council" nor do they think that's the war we're fighting but I'm probably wrong.
My concern is not so much "pushing RD to sell", more, how do you do that in a way which persuades him to sell to somebody better - given that the somebody has to be ready to fund losses of 5-8m annually just to keep us afloat in this league? If it was so bloody easy, why has no other fanbase managed it? If you take Leeds, I am not sure whether their Trust took credit for "forcing Bates out" (i might try to find out). But if they did, well, he took his revenge by selling to Cellino, and they cant seem to get him out despite being much better resourced than we are.
If anyone thinks this is "not good enough" from a Trust board member, and think they know how to achieve the above, lets meet up for a beer before the Wolves game and you can put me bang to rights. And if that doesnt do the trick, you can take my place on the Board ( although there is anyway a vacant chair).
Actually the beer offer is open to any Trust member reading this, regardless of where you stand, none of us talk face to face enough. Mail me if you are interested and we can agree the venue.
"how do you do that in a way which persuades him to sell to somebody better" - we don't, how could we possibly ? But surely if someone is causing considerable harm to this football club then we stop them. If the person that comes along in their wake is just as bad/worse then we stop them too, why should we accept this ?
Well I personally believe that if you at least have some dialogue going with an owner, so that he sees we are reasonable people who want reasonable things, you could persuade him to bow out gracefully.
And I dont know how, otherwise, you simply "stop" owners from behaving in a certain way. Maybe Its just me, and like I said, if anyone else has a better plan, here's the space.
I think though that a lot of people think about club owners like they think about Greenwich council or some other public institution. IMO that is a fatal tactical mistake. But maybe I am old and past it...
Fair enough, I highly doubt anyone born post 1978 "think(s) about club owners like they think about Greenwich council" nor do they think that's the war we're fighting but I'm probably wrong.
It's not an age thing. I'm not talking about the Valley Party per se. I think many people are used to protest and complaining only against public bodies. Such bodies are accountable to us. It means that we can, one way or another kick them out, either by voting, or by demonstrating gross incompetence or wrong-doing ( e.g. the Olympic Stadium). When the target is a private owner it is more complicated. We can't vote him out. We cannot hold him to account. He is not accountable to us. The only successful action I can think of against private companies, is where people as customers withheld their custom. That implies a boycott, but that is a divisive proposal, for reasons we have discussed.
My concern is not so much "pushing RD to sell", more, how do you do that in a way which persuades him to sell to somebody better - given that the somebody has to be ready to fund losses of 5-8m annually just to keep us afloat in this league? If it was so bloody easy, why has no other fanbase managed it? If you take Leeds, I am not sure whether their Trust took credit for "forcing Bates out" (i might try to find out). But if they did, well, he took his revenge by selling to Cellino, and they cant seem to get him out despite being much better resourced than we are.
If anyone thinks this is "not good enough" from a Trust board member, and think they know how to achieve the above, lets meet up for a beer before the Wolves game and you can put me bang to rights. And if that doesnt do the trick, you can take my place on the Board ( although there is anyway a vacant chair).
Actually the beer offer is open to any Trust member reading this, regardless of where you stand, none of us talk face to face enough. Mail me if you are interested and we can agree the venue.
"how do you do that in a way which persuades him to sell to somebody better" - we don't, how could we possibly ? But surely if someone is causing considerable harm to this football club then we stop them. If the person that comes along in their wake is just as bad/worse then we stop them too, why should we accept this ?
Well I personally believe that if you at least have some dialogue going with an owner, so that he sees we are reasonable people who want reasonable things, you could persuade him to bow out gracefully.
And I dont know how, otherwise, you simply "stop" owners from behaving in a certain way. Maybe Its just me, and like I said, if anyone else has a better plan, here's the space.
I think though that a lot of people think about club owners like they think about Greenwich council or some other public institution. IMO that is a fatal tactical mistake. But maybe I am old and past it...
Fair enough, I highly doubt anyone born post 1978 "think(s) about club owners like they think about Greenwich council" nor do they think that's the war we're fighting but I'm probably wrong.
It's not an age thing. I'm not talking about the Valley Party per se. I think many people are used to protest and complaining only against public bodies. Such bodies are accountable to us. It means that we can, one way or another kick them out, either by voting, or by demonstrating gross incompetence or wrong-doing ( e.g. the Olympic Stadium). When the target is a private owner it is more complicated. We can't vote him out. We cannot hold him to account. He is not accountable to us. The only successful action I can think of against private companies, is where people as customers withheld their custom. That implies a boycott, but that is a divisive proposal, for reasons we have discussed.
Quite, but I think you do "a lot of people" a lot of disservice by assuming they can't grasp that this isn't a Charlton supporters vs Local Council 2015/16 edition. I think the can. I think they do. I think they want leadership.
Quite, but I think you do "a lot of people" a lot of disservice by assuming they can't grasp that this isn't a Charlton supporters vs Local Council 2015/16 edition. I think the can. I think they do. I think they want leadership.
I can actually give an example. I've seen at least one comment on here demand Freedom of Information laws are used to get information from CAFC. You can use FOI on a council, but not on a private company.
Anyway.
People might want leadership, but it seems to me that - because the old supporters' club fell to bits years back - that they are simply wanting someone who isn't them to organise some kind of demo/boycott/other form of protest.
Serious question: Is the trust - a very different organisation from a supporters' club because it is set up, essentially, with a long-term aim of having a role in running the club - the appropriate body to be doing that?
While I think the trust should take a harder line, it cannot and should not be alone in acting on this. You, me, anybody reading this - we all have a part to play. To sit back and demand the trust does everything helps nobody.
It would be a good idea for everyone hoping for the trust to take direct action to join the trust and try to persuade them from within. The more fans who join that want this kind of action will mean it's more likely to happen. I'm sure members views and opinions will have more weight than non-members.
If you want your views represented, just cough up the fiver.
Quite, but I think you do "a lot of people" a lot of disservice by assuming they can't grasp that this isn't a Charlton supporters vs Local Council 2015/16 edition. I think the can. I think they do. I think they want leadership.
I can actually give an example. I've seen at least one comment on here demand Freedom of Information laws are used to get information from CAFC. You can use FOI on a council, but not on a private company.
Anyway.
People might want leadership, but it seems to me that - because the old supporters' club fell to bits years back - that they are simply wanting someone who isn't them to organise some kind of demo/boycott/other form of protest.
Serious question: Is the trust - a very different organisation from a supporters' club because it is set up, essentially, with a long-term aim of having a role in running the club - the appropriate body to be doing that?
While I think the trust should take a harder line, it cannot and should not be alone in acting on this. You, me, anybody reading this - we all have a part to play. To sit back and demand the trust does everything helps nobody.
To be fair @se9addick has more than played his part, being a founding member of the Supporters' Trust board - but the point is a good one in general.
The point is not whether both are advanced in their effect, but more that they are available to us. We may or may not agree on the opportunity talking offers us, but why abandon it to leave ourselves just one option of something that may or may not be effective? It's only a few weeks ago people are saying the club would never talk to the Supporters' Trust, now they are we're being told to abandon it?
I really don't get the clamour for the Trust to do everything, unless it's simply that others can't be arsed.
Anyway, my main point about the naysayers wasn't a dump of emotions but to point out we've taken a long term view even for those who not only disbelieve but would have us abandon our approach at the beginning of the year. Now those same people are saying we should abandon our approach again because they now see what we were saying and want a fight. I'd ask you all to trust us. If the club abandons its commitments to us all, then they will have closed down one option, but at of today I don't get see how we gain from reducing our options.
Rik
Don't you think the protests (despite the laudable best efforts of those involved) lack leadership, co-ordination, effectiveness and momentum? If not, I'd be interested to know why you think otherwise.
It's not so much that the Trust have to do everything but surely there is an important role for the over-arching fans representative body? If you want to restrict yourself to pursuing a dialogue one has to ask "what dialogue?", because it appears to us outsiders that KM is very plainly dicking you around.
@Davo55 Personally I think protests are significantly more susceptible to the latest set of results than long-running action with the objective of diplomatic influence would be. I think the 2% protest was brilliant organised, personally, but protest momentum is difficult with such a fickle business as football.
I think there are a lot of supporters who would recoil from your description of the Supporters' Trust as "the over-arching fans representative body". We may be the largest group, and we may have objectives unique among supporters groups, but we can't assume to be 'over-arching'.
The simple answer to 'what dialogue' is the establishment of the group to advise the club at a strategic level. This is a commitment KM made at the fans meeting the week after the web summit video appears to have been recorded (who knows, perhaps the NASL guy had some positive influence there). We've challenged the club to put something in the diary as soon as possible, let's see what happens. They might be messing us around, but it was a public commitment and it will be judged as such.
I do want to stress a point someone else made earlier. We have a constitutional commitment to a long-term influence, so we can't play fast and loose with that responsibility. We feel what everyone else is feeling, but we need to be wise as well: leadership isn't about reacting to every gust of wind. We committed earlier this year to seek meaningful dialogue, specifically that the club's strategy, plans, and decisions were explained to us and that dialogue would be ongoing. The appetite for alternative action dissipated with the upturn of results. We asked our members again around the AGM just a few weeks ago and they want us to continue.
Right now we fans have two clear options being actively worked on. Whether each is successful or not today is not really the point. The question is this: at a time when we need the most leverage we can exert, should we be abandoning any option open to us? And to imagine the Supporters' Trust can lead protests and pursue constructive conversation at the same time is a pipe dream. The latter is our part in action, not inactivity.
Joe is hardly short of energy when it comes to the protests, and Rick is hardly short of experience. It's a good blend, and they will both help keep momentum, and I know other fans are involved with them too.
In the meantime, if fans are serious about the Trust being the organisation through which such things should happen, then perhaps they might like to put their money where their mouth is, join up and join in. We're stronger with every supporter that joins.
I hope the dialogue route is fruitful but I believe that the time will come when hope has to be abandoned and the Trust will have to get behind the protests. Duchatelet and Meire are cancers eating away at our club and we will have to remove them to allow healthy tissue to return.
The point is not whether both are advanced in their effect, but more that they are available to us. We may or may not agree on the opportunity talking offers us, but why abandon it to leave ourselves just one option of something that may or may not be effective? It's only a few weeks ago people are saying the club would never talk to the Supporters' Trust, now they are we're being told to abandon it?
I really don't get the clamour for the Trust to do everything, unless it's simply that others can't be arsed.
Anyway, my main point about the naysayers wasn't a dump of emotions but to point out we've taken a long term view even for those who not only disbelieve but would have us abandon our approach at the beginning of the year. Now those same people are saying we should abandon our approach again because they now see what we were saying and want a fight. I'd ask you all to trust us. If the club abandons its commitments to us all, then they will have closed down one option, but at of today I don't get see how we gain from reducing our options.
Rik
Don't you think the protests (despite the laudable best efforts of those involved) lack leadership, co-ordination, effectiveness and momentum? If not, I'd be interested to know why you think otherwise.
It's not so much that the Trust have to do everything but surely there is an important role for the over-arching fans representative body? If you want to restrict yourself to pursuing a dialogue one has to ask "what dialogue?", because it appears to us outsiders that KM is very plainly dicking you around.
@Davo55 Personally I think protests are significantly more susceptible to the latest set of results than long-running action with the objective of diplomatic influence would be. I think the 2% protest was brilliant organised, personally, but protest momentum is difficult with such a fickle business as football.
I think there are a lot of supporters who would recoil from your description of the Supporters' Trust as "the over-arching fans representative body". We may be the largest group, and we may have objectives unique among supporters groups, but we can't assume to be 'over-arching'.
The simple answer to 'what dialogue' is the establishment of the group to advise the club at a strategic level. This is a commitment KM made at the fans meeting the week after the web summit video appears to have been recorded (who knows, perhaps the NASL guy had some positive influence there). We've challenged the club to put something in the diary as soon as possible, let's see what happens. They might be messing us around, but it was a public commitment and it will be judged as such.
I do want to stress a point someone else made earlier. We have a constitutional commitment to a long-term influence, so we can't play fast and loose with that responsibility. We feel what everyone else is feeling, but we need to be wise as well: leadership isn't about reacting to every gust of wind. We committed earlier this year to seek meaningful dialogue, specifically that the club's strategy, plans, and decisions were explained to us and that dialogue would be ongoing. The appetite for alternative action dissipated with the upturn of results. We asked our members again around the AGM just a few weeks ago and they want us to continue.
Right now we fans have two clear options being actively worked on. Whether each is successful or not today is not really the point. The question is this: at a time when we need the most leverage we can exert, should we be abandoning any option open to us? And to imagine the Supporters' Trust can lead protests and pursue constructive conversation at the same time is a pipe dream. The latter is our part in action, not inactivity.
Joe is hardly short of energy when it comes to the protests, and Rick is hardly short of experience. It's a good blend, and they will both help keep momentum, and I know other fans are involved with them too.
In the meantime, if fans are serious about the Trust being the organisation through which such things should happen, then perhaps they might like to put their money where their mouth is, join up and join in. We're stronger with every supporter that joins.
I think your post will lose you more members than it gains. We now know from them their strategy, which is what many of us said it was from day 1. I think you are naive believing you can change it just by sitting at their table. You would merely give them credence and further the demise of Charlton.
Getting dogs abuse on my Twitter feed and fair enough. Appear to be a rudderless ship with no clue about how to tackle the situation other than putting out flakey statements like they did the other day. Don't see the point of them unless they have something up their sleeve and probably the death knell absent any action.
The point is not whether both are advanced in their effect, but more that they are available to us. We may or may not agree on the opportunity talking offers us, but why abandon it to leave ourselves just one option of something that may or may not be effective? It's only a few weeks ago people are saying the club would never talk to the Supporters' Trust, now they are we're being told to abandon it?
I really don't get the clamour for the Trust to do everything, unless it's simply that others can't be arsed.
Anyway, my main point about the naysayers wasn't a dump of emotions but to point out we've taken a long term view even for those who not only disbelieve but would have us abandon our approach at the beginning of the year. Now those same people are saying we should abandon our approach again because they now see what we were saying and want a fight. I'd ask you all to trust us. If the club abandons its commitments to us all, then they will have closed down one option, but at of today I don't get see how we gain from reducing our options.
Rik
Don't you think the protests (despite the laudable best efforts of those involved) lack leadership, co-ordination, effectiveness and momentum? If not, I'd be interested to know why you think otherwise.
It's not so much that the Trust have to do everything but surely there is an important role for the over-arching fans representative body? If you want to restrict yourself to pursuing a dialogue one has to ask "what dialogue?", because it appears to us outsiders that KM is very plainly dicking you around.
@Davo55 Personally I think protests are significantly more susceptible to the latest set of results than long-running action with the objective of diplomatic influence would be. I think the 2% protest was brilliant organised, personally, but protest momentum is difficult with such a fickle business as football.
I think there are a lot of supporters who would recoil from your description of the Supporters' Trust as "the over-arching fans representative body". We may be the largest group, and we may have objectives unique among supporters groups, but we can't assume to be 'over-arching'.
The simple answer to 'what dialogue' is the establishment of the group to advise the club at a strategic level. This is a commitment KM made at the fans meeting the week after the web summit video appears to have been recorded (who knows, perhaps the NASL guy had some positive influence there). We've challenged the club to put something in the diary as soon as possible, let's see what happens. They might be messing us around, but it was a public commitment and it will be judged as such.
I do want to stress a point someone else made earlier. We have a constitutional commitment to a long-term influence, so we can't play fast and loose with that responsibility. We feel what everyone else is feeling, but we need to be wise as well: leadership isn't about reacting to every gust of wind. We committed earlier this year to seek meaningful dialogue, specifically that the club's strategy, plans, and decisions were explained to us and that dialogue would be ongoing. The appetite for alternative action dissipated with the upturn of results. We asked our members again around the AGM just a few weeks ago and they want us to continue.
Right now we fans have two clear options being actively worked on. Whether each is successful or not today is not really the point. The question is this: at a time when we need the most leverage we can exert, should we be abandoning any option open to us? And to imagine the Supporters' Trust can lead protests and pursue constructive conversation at the same time is a pipe dream. The latter is our part in action, not inactivity.
Joe is hardly short of energy when it comes to the protests, and Rick is hardly short of experience. It's a good blend, and they will both help keep momentum, and I know other fans are involved with them too.
In the meantime, if fans are serious about the Trust being the organisation through which such things should happen, then perhaps they might like to put their money where their mouth is, join up and join in. We're stronger with every supporter that joins.
For me the web summit video showed two main points:
1. What the real strategy is
2. KM/RD's feeling towards the fans ('customers') - how dare we think we can have a say in how the club is run as we don't own it.
So what on earth is the point in establishing a group to advise the club at a strategic level? IF it happened it would be yet another appeasement and a chance to say 'we hear what you're saying'. That's not 'meaningful dialogue'. They've never had any intention for dialogue with fans (customers). Meaningful dialogue will never happen. We have given them WAY more than enough time.
Protest is the only way to try and stop the death of OUR club as we know and love it. Ignore this at your peril and become the type of customer they want.
Quite, but I think you do "a lot of people" a lot of disservice by assuming they can't grasp that this isn't a Charlton supporters vs Local Council 2015/16 edition. I think the can. I think they do. I think they want leadership.
I can actually give an example. I've seen at least one comment on here demand Freedom of Information laws are used to get information from CAFC. You can use FOI on a council, but not on a private company.
Anyway.
People might want leadership, but it seems to me that - because the old supporters' club fell to bits years back - that they are simply wanting someone who isn't them to organise some kind of demo/boycott/other form of protest.
Serious question: Is the trust - a very different organisation from a supporters' club because it is set up, essentially, with a long-term aim of having a role in running the club - the appropriate body to be doing that?
While I think the trust should take a harder line, it cannot and should not be alone in acting on this. You, me, anybody reading this - we all have a part to play. To sit back and demand the trust does everything helps nobody.
The Trust doesn't need to do everything. It just needs to do something.
It doesn't need to revert to its old ways of trying to take over, take credit for or control ever fan activity. Thankfully that is something is has grown out or or at least those individuals who thought that was the way forward have gone. But it now seems to have swung too far the other way.
The Trust just needs to stop standing on the touch line watching the game. Get your boots on, get on the pitch and join in the game with the other players. Sure your kit will get dirty and they won't be so welcome in the posh seats as a result. So what, the fans will see their trust doing something, joining in with, not leading, the actions of others.
The trust doesn't have to lead. It can offer organisation, numbers, contacts and a 5000 person network (sorry, couldn't resist that joke).
The Trust doesn't have to lead but it can help.
Two practical requests to help
1. Help give out the scarves tomorrow from your stall.
Actions speak louder than words. Not much I can offer or do from here, but Ive not sponsored a player for the first time in 7 years and I wont buy any club merchandise for the forseeable future. Its a small thing, but its a start. As has been said by many here, we gave them a chance to talk and they have carried on regardless...its time to take another tact. Its got nothing to do with the 11 players on the pitch...this goes far deeper, this is about the survival of the club.
A sensible business man will always make the bottom line look good before selling. I doubt this is what Roley is after but we can live in hope. If the plan is business then capital investment for him is good, player investment is transferable assets only, short term capital.
Quite, but I think you do "a lot of people" a lot of disservice by assuming they can't grasp that this isn't a Charlton supporters vs Local Council 2015/16 edition. I think the can. I think they do. I think they want leadership.
I can actually give an example. I've seen at least one comment on here demand Freedom of Information laws are used to get information from CAFC. You can use FOI on a council, but not on a private company.
Anyway.
People might want leadership, but it seems to me that - because the old supporters' club fell to bits years back - that they are simply wanting someone who isn't them to organise some kind of demo/boycott/other form of protest.
Serious question: Is the trust - a very different organisation from a supporters' club because it is set up, essentially, with a long-term aim of having a role in running the club - the appropriate body to be doing that?
While I think the trust should take a harder line, it cannot and should not be alone in acting on this. You, me, anybody reading this - we all have a part to play. To sit back and demand the trust does everything helps nobody.
The Trust doesn't need to do everything. It just needs to do something.
It doesn't need to revert to its old ways of trying to take over, take credit for or control ever fan activity. Thankfully that is something is has grown out or or at least those individuals who thought that was the way forward have gone. But it now seems to have swung too far the other way.
The Trust just needs to stop standing on the touch line watching the game. Get your boots on, get on the pitch and join in the game with the other players. Sure your kit will get dirty and they won't be so welcome in the posh seats as a result. So what, the fans will see their trust doing something, joining in with, not leading, the actions of others.
The trust doesn't have to lead. It can offer organisation, numbers, contacts and a 5000 person network (sorry, couldn't resist that joke).
The Trust doesn't have to lead but it can help.
Two practical requests to help
1. Help give out the scarves tomorrow from your stall.
2. Transcribe the KM video.
There won't be a stall tomorrow unfortunately as not enough of us can get there in time due to Christmas family commitments.
However @rikofold and I are planning to be in the Swan tomorrow, and we'd like as many people as possible to give us their views. Just be straight and tell us whether you are a Trust member or not. I will be wearing my black and white Swansea scarf.
I am sure that there are plenty of CL readers with the right skills or equipment who can make short work of transcripting that video. If you mail the organizers of the conference they may have it available.
Your line about the Trust standing on the touchline watching is gratuitously offensive, and exactly the kind of antagonism of fellow fans @shirty5 above was asking us to stop doing.
Your line about the Trust standing on the touchline watching is gratuitously offensive, and exactly the kind of antagonism of fellow fans @shirty5 above was asking us to stop doing.
Sometimes the truth hurts. That you take offence rather that giving any counter argument or any offer of help says it all.
Happy to wear the scarf but not willing as a Trust to offer any assistance giving them out, funding more scarves or even as a Trust publicising the event.
Poor. if you'd asked Joe, you'd know that I bunged him £50 almost as soon as he opened his appeal for funds on PayPal. Plus something else which remains confidential between Joe and I.
It's offensive because the Trust board and many of its members have been working hard throughout the year on behalf of all of us, and because we're taking a course of action that you now disagree with you describe it as 'standing on the sidelines'. What you mean is, we've yet to join your initiative in the way you think we should.
We've made our position quite clear, and we're not going to take the lead on any protests at this time. You would be all over us if we attempted to take over, so how about recognising we're leading on another thrust rather than suggesting we're doing nothing? No, we won't be bullied or politically manoeuvred into making decisions just because they suit Ben Hayes. To suggest we've not publicised the campaign is, to coin a phrase, beyond parody - guess you missed Joe's article, or Craig and the attack dog handing out scarves then?
I'm getting a bit bored of this constant digging from you Ben. You're so quick to jump on people you perceive to be slagging off fellow fans, you're so quick to complain at the slightest hint of a dig in your direction, but you're not prepared to control yourself. As someone else once said, "a peculiar kind of conceit", and it doesn't make Charlton Life better reading.
@rikofold and I should be in the Swan from 1.30. So anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of what the Trust is or isn't doing ( or versions of that, per the above) please approach us.
I don' t think in my Mums house we have the materials to make the sign saying " You know those useless w*****s from the Trust? Well here are two of them" but we will try and make ourselves easily findable
At what point will the trust declare that it is time to stop waiting for meaningful dialogue and take a different approach?
For the record, I used to be a member but as I think that the current regime are completely uninterested in what we think I let it lapse. I have no beef with anyone at the trust.
The setting up of the 'Target 20k' is IMHO, just KM dangling the proverbial carrot. Now, if the trust back the protest then KM could take the offer away of dialogue via the 'Target 20k' avenue. Understandably the trust might not willing to risk this as they have worked long and hard to get this far. If they don't back the protest then it creates a divide of the fans and any movement becomes fragmented and weak. It's a classic example of divide and conquer by KM.
The above comment is my opinion and not a dig at anyone or the trust itself, it's just the way I see it.
you lot arguing with each other really pisses me off, now is the time for all fans to get together and fight for our club. I can understand the Trust's point of view and I applaud the B&W campaign. Surely it is not beyond the whit of the Trust leadership and B&W organisers, which I think includes Ben Hayes, to get together and work for the saving of our club instead of all this bloody in fighting.
What can I do? - very little except a minimal financial support to your efforts so please talk to each other today and help each other to organise the protest that must come even if it is not in the name of the Trust but has the Trust's assistance.
At what point will the trust declare that it is time to stop waiting for meaningful dialogue and take a different approach?
For the record, I used to be a member but as I think that the current regime are completely uninterested in what we think I let it lapse. I have no beef with anyone at the trust.
The setting up of the 'Target 20k' is IMHO, just KM dangling the proverbial carrot. Now, if the trust back the protest then KM could take the offer away of dialogue via the 'Target 20k' avenue. Understandably the trust might not willing to risk this as they have worked long and hard to get this far. If they don't back the protest then it creates a divide of the fans and any movement becomes fragmented and weak. It's a classic example of divide and conquer by KM.
The above comment is my opinion and not a dig at anyone or the trust itself, it's just the way I see it.
Whatever the situation, it wouldn't be smart for a Trust to post speculative plans on an open forum where others can read it.
However I think several of us have already said on CL that we believe it is important to see what happens in the window before rushing to judgement. However, we are not sitting back until the end of the window in the hope that significant positive action (replacement of the interim coach, as well as significant new playing resources) actually materializes. So we have said that we are developing plans B and C. We are meeting tomorrow evening to flesh them out. But again, we would be silly to post on here what we agree.
Comments
Anyway.
People might want leadership, but it seems to me that - because the old supporters' club fell to bits years back - that they are simply wanting someone who isn't them to organise some kind of demo/boycott/other form of protest.
Serious question: Is the trust - a very different organisation from a supporters' club because it is set up, essentially, with a long-term aim of having a role in running the club - the appropriate body to be doing that?
While I think the trust should take a harder line, it cannot and should not be alone in acting on this. You, me, anybody reading this - we all have a part to play. To sit back and demand the trust does everything helps nobody.
If you want your views represented, just cough up the fiver.
I think there are a lot of supporters who would recoil from your description of the Supporters' Trust as "the over-arching fans representative body". We may be the largest group, and we may have objectives unique among supporters groups, but we can't assume to be 'over-arching'.
The simple answer to 'what dialogue' is the establishment of the group to advise the club at a strategic level. This is a commitment KM made at the fans meeting the week after the web summit video appears to have been recorded (who knows, perhaps the NASL guy had some positive influence there). We've challenged the club to put something in the diary as soon as possible, let's see what happens. They might be messing us around, but it was a public commitment and it will be judged as such.
I do want to stress a point someone else made earlier. We have a constitutional commitment to a long-term influence, so we can't play fast and loose with that responsibility. We feel what everyone else is feeling, but we need to be wise as well: leadership isn't about reacting to every gust of wind. We committed earlier this year to seek meaningful dialogue, specifically that the club's strategy, plans, and decisions were explained to us and that dialogue would be ongoing. The appetite for alternative action dissipated with the upturn of results. We asked our members again around the AGM just a few weeks ago and they want us to continue.
Right now we fans have two clear options being actively worked on. Whether each is successful or not today is not really the point. The question is this: at a time when we need the most leverage we can exert, should we be abandoning any option open to us? And to imagine the Supporters' Trust can lead protests and pursue constructive conversation at the same time is a pipe dream. The latter is our part in action, not inactivity.
Joe is hardly short of energy when it comes to the protests, and Rick is hardly short of experience. It's a good blend, and they will both help keep momentum, and I know other fans are involved with them too.
In the meantime, if fans are serious about the Trust being the organisation through which such things should happen, then perhaps they might like to put their money where their mouth is, join up and join in. We're stronger with every supporter that joins.
I hope the dialogue route is fruitful but I believe that the time will come when hope has to be abandoned and the Trust will have to get behind the protests. Duchatelet and Meire are cancers eating away at our club and we will have to remove them to allow healthy tissue to return.
For me the web summit video showed two main points:
1. What the real strategy is
2. KM/RD's feeling towards the fans ('customers') - how dare we think we can have a say in how the club is run as we don't own it.
So what on earth is the point in establishing a group to advise the club at a strategic level? IF it happened it would be yet another appeasement and a chance to say 'we hear what you're saying'. That's not 'meaningful dialogue'. They've never had any intention for dialogue with fans (customers). Meaningful dialogue will never happen. We have given them WAY more than enough time.
Protest is the only way to try and stop the death of OUR club as we know and love it. Ignore this at your peril and become the type of customer they want.
That's not a dig at you by the way
What am I waiting for? Nothing from a personal thing. I'm doing my own protest, as I'm sure you are and other people are.
How about a collective protest though. As one. Instead of arguing the toss and hoping the owner and CEO may give in.
How about it.
It doesn't need to revert to its old ways of trying to take over, take credit for or control ever fan activity. Thankfully that is something is has grown out or or at least those individuals who thought that was the way forward have gone. But it now seems to have swung too far the other way.
The Trust just needs to stop standing on the touch line watching the game. Get your boots on, get on the pitch and join in the game with the other players. Sure your kit will get dirty and they won't be so welcome in the posh seats as a result. So what, the fans will see their trust doing something, joining in with, not leading, the actions of others.
The trust doesn't have to lead. It can offer organisation, numbers, contacts and a 5000 person network (sorry, couldn't resist that joke).
The Trust doesn't have to lead but it can help.
Two practical requests to help
1. Help give out the scarves tomorrow from your stall.
2. Transcribe the KM video.
However @rikofold and I are planning to be in the Swan tomorrow, and we'd like as many people as possible to give us their views. Just be straight and tell us whether you are a Trust member or not. I will be wearing my black and white Swansea scarf.
I am sure that there are plenty of CL readers with the right skills or equipment who can make short work of transcripting that video. If you mail the organizers of the conference they may have it available.
Your line about the Trust standing on the touchline watching is gratuitously offensive, and exactly the kind of antagonism of fellow fans @shirty5 above was asking us to stop doing.
Poor. if you'd asked Joe, you'd know that I bunged him £50 almost as soon as he opened his appeal for funds on PayPal. Plus something else which remains confidential between Joe and I.
We've made our position quite clear, and we're not going to take the lead on any protests at this time. You would be all over us if we attempted to take over, so how about recognising we're leading on another thrust rather than suggesting we're doing nothing? No, we won't be bullied or politically manoeuvred into making decisions just because they suit Ben Hayes. To suggest we've not publicised the campaign is, to coin a phrase, beyond parody - guess you missed Joe's article, or Craig and the attack dog handing out scarves then?
I'm getting a bit bored of this constant digging from you Ben. You're so quick to jump on people you perceive to be slagging off fellow fans, you're so quick to complain at the slightest hint of a dig in your direction, but you're not prepared to control yourself. As someone else once said, "a peculiar kind of conceit", and it doesn't make Charlton Life better reading.
@rikofold and I should be in the Swan from 1.30. So anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of what the Trust is or isn't doing ( or versions of that, per the above) please approach us.
I don' t think in my Mums house we have the materials to make the sign saying " You know those useless w*****s from the Trust? Well here are two of them" but we will try and make ourselves easily findable
At what point will the trust declare that it is time to stop waiting for meaningful dialogue and take a different approach?
For the record, I used to be a member but as I think that the current regime are completely uninterested in what we think I let it lapse. I have no beef with anyone at the trust.
The setting up of the 'Target 20k' is IMHO, just KM dangling the proverbial carrot. Now, if the trust back the protest then KM could take the offer away of dialogue via the 'Target 20k' avenue. Understandably the trust might not willing to risk this as they have worked long and hard to get this far. If they don't back the protest then it creates a divide of the fans and any movement becomes fragmented and weak. It's a classic example of divide and conquer by KM.
The above comment is my opinion and not a dig at anyone or the trust itself, it's just the way I see it.
What can I do? - very little except a minimal financial support to your efforts so please talk to each other today and help each other to organise the protest that must come even if it is not in the name of the Trust but has the Trust's assistance.
Whatever the situation, it wouldn't be smart for a Trust to post speculative plans on an open forum where others can read it.
However I think several of us have already said on CL that we believe it is important to see what happens in the window before rushing to judgement. However, we are not sitting back until the end of the window in the hope that significant positive action (replacement of the interim coach, as well as significant new playing resources) actually materializes. So we have said that we are developing plans B and C. We are meeting tomorrow evening to flesh them out. But again, we would be silly to post on here what we agree.