Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
From memory, membership is around 1980 - but I'm not going to support a meeting just to be disruptive and I doubt the chair will either. It needs to have substance.
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
I was referring directly to Rick's post. My point is this: no-one's actually specified what they think a meeting would achieve yet though, what are its objectives? This is my point - you can call a meeting, but what for? To stop a donation? There's not one for 6 months at least. To change the committee? It works very well for its purpose, to run Valley Gold, as it is. To change the rules? Only the committee can do that and it's costly to change them.
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
Embarrass Meire in front of the fans. Discuss the shambles in a formal context. Invite the media.
As long as they were VG members, you could invite them. As I understand it, it's a meeting between members and the committee, and to be frank I'd be amazed if KM turned up.
But my question is looking for a more specific answer than that.
There is none .It's about disruption , ie a valid form of protest.
Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
From memory, membership is around 1980 - but I'm not going to support a meeting just to be disruptive and I doubt the chair will either. It needs to have substance.
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
I was referring directly to Rick's post. My point is this: no-one's actually specified what they think a meeting would achieve yet though, what are its objectives? This is my point - you can call a meeting, but what for? To stop a donation? There's not one for 6 months at least. To change the committee? It works very well for its purpose, to run Valley Gold, as it is. To change the rules? Only the committee can do that and it's costly to change them.
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
Embarrass Meire in front of the fans. Discuss the shambles in a formal context. Invite the media.
As long as they were VG members, you could invite them. As I understand it, it's a meeting between members and the committee, and to be frank I'd be amazed if KM turned up.
But my question is looking for a more specific answer than that.
As a member of the VG committee I would expect KM to attend a general meeting of such importance. No, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't show but that would just go to support the contempt with which she views her 'customers'.
Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
From memory, membership is around 1980 - but I'm not going to support a meeting just to be disruptive and I doubt the chair will either. It needs to have substance.
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
I was referring directly to Rick's post. My point is this: no-one's actually specified what they think a meeting would achieve yet though, what are its objectives? This is my point - you can call a meeting, but what for? To stop a donation? There's not one for 6 months at least. To change the committee? It works very well for its purpose, to run Valley Gold, as it is. To change the rules? Only the committee can do that and it's costly to change them.
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
Embarrass Meire in front of the fans. Discuss the shambles in a formal context. Invite the media.
As long as they were VG members, you could invite them. As I understand it, it's a meeting between members and the committee, and to be frank I'd be amazed if KM turned up.
But my question is looking for a more specific answer than that.
She'd be snubbing a group of people who commit to the club financially over and above their season ticket puchase then - a big statement in itself. Nice.
Bear in mind that VG members as a whole are perceived - perhaps caricatured - as generally older and more conservative than the average.
Well we have at least 20 confirmed VG members that have shown an interest on this thread of looking into the option of voting to withhold funds until RD has gone. I am happy to start a list to get this going.
We can't be anything like 2,000 members surely? Can we have a definitive number so that we can quantify the 10% required?
Do we have any more VG members not yet declared their willingness to support a general meeting?
From memory, membership is around 1980 - but I'm not going to support a meeting just to be disruptive and I doubt the chair will either. It needs to have substance.
Paul and I are not slow to challenge the club regarding the current situation, it has been openly discussed at the last two committee meetings - but we believe the success of the academy is something that remains in all our best interests.
Quite disappointed to see that your view seems simplistic enough to imply that the aim of such a meeting would "just to be disruptive".
I was referring directly to Rick's post. My point is this: no-one's actually specified what they think a meeting would achieve yet though, what are its objectives? This is my point - you can call a meeting, but what for? To stop a donation? There's not one for 6 months at least. To change the committee? It works very well for its purpose, to run Valley Gold, as it is. To change the rules? Only the committee can do that and it's costly to change them.
I'm genuinely confused as to what people are hoping to achieve.
Embarrass Meire in front of the fans. Discuss the shambles in a formal context. Invite the media.
As long as they were VG members, you could invite them. As I understand it, it's a meeting between members and the committee, and to be frank I'd be amazed if KM turned up.
But my question is looking for a more specific answer than that.
Isn't KM part of the committee? So, she should be there, the fact is, if doesn't show, it tells us what she thinks of us fans customers.
Can someone tell me what you're hoping to achieve with the meeting? Any specific objectives?
By the way, it would help me if you could include your member numbers. I'll forward a list to the committee once the magic 190 ish is reached.
If you think that 190 members are coming on here to call for a meeting, I think you will have a long wait, surely enough members have voiced their concerns for the fans reps to consider calling a meeting. The first objective is to remove KM from the committee, whether you think it is a bad idea or not, it is what those who are calling for a meeting want, at a meeting you could then explain why you want her to stay. You cannot hide behind the Trust board on this one. You need to act as at least 25 CL members are proposing to leave or have already left if this steamrolls then VG will be defunct. There was a target of 4000 members a few years ago it is now less than half that and falling just like attendances at matches. ACT NOW.
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
If like me you want the Belgians out then causing them as much inconvenience as possible is absolutely the right thing to do. Therefore as a Valley Gold member since 1989 I’m all for Charlton Club, the organisation responsible for Valley Gold, holding a meeting to discuss whether the money raised should:
1. Continue to be spent on the academy 2. Be redirected to the campaign to get Duchatelet out 3. Not be given to CAFC at this moment in time
By Charlton Club holding such a meeting it would surely stem the flow of members leaving and allow them a say in what’s been going on at CAFC of late.
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
If that is you stance as someone who is supposed to represent us. I am out
Can someone tell me what you're hoping to achieve with the meeting? Any specific objectives?
By the way, it would help me if you could include your member numbers. I'll forward a list to the committee once the magic 190 ish is reached.
If you think that 190 members are coming on here to call for a meeting, I think you will have a long wait, surely enough members have voiced their concerns for the fans reps to consider calling a meeting. The first objective is to remove KM from the committee, whether you think it is a bad idea or not, it is what those who are calling for a meeting want, at a meeting you could then explain why you want her to stay. You cannot hide behind the Trust board on this one. You need to act as at least 25 CL members are proposing to leave or have already left if this steamrolls then VG will be defunct. There was a target of 4000 members a few years ago it is now less than half that and falling just like attendances at matches. ACT NOW.
FFS, it's got nothing to do with the Trust and I've spent a couple of hours away from my family on New Year's Day to try to face up to the two threads that people are posting on tonight. How is that hiding?
It is not in the interests of the scheme or its members to remove the key club decision maker from that committee, it really isn't. I'm sorry if you disagree, but you're asking people with responsibility for the scheme's success to make decisions that work to its detriment.
I've asked what the objective of the members' meeting is, i.e. what Valley Gold business are you going to discuss amongst yourselves, but as yet no-one has been able to articulate anything realistic.
For the record, membership is not falling, it's increasing.
a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
We are members of a club that is giving money to an organisation that we are not happy with, are you saying that we should care what happens with the money?
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
Come off it, he's on the committee as a senior employee of the football club, as is Meire. It's part of his job. And incidentally he has come very heavy questions to answer about his professional responsibilities, although not in this context.
If like me you want the Belgians out then causing them as much inconvenience as possible is absolutely the right thing to do. Therefore as a Valley Gold member since 1989 I’m all for Charlton Club, the organisation responsible for Valley Gold, holding a meeting to discuss whether the money raised should:
1. Continue to be spent on the academy 2. Be redirected to the campaign to get Duchatelet out 3. Not be given to CAFC at this moment in time
By Charlton Club holding such a meeting it would surely stem the flow of members leaving and allow them a say in what’s been going on at CAFC of late.
I stand corrected, some relatively sensible objectives.
1. This is a reasonable discussion point, but the difficulty is that all the money collected to date has been given for that primary purpose. The committee has a degree of freedom on this, but it would need the agreement of the club and the chair to effect a complete change of the scheme's primary purpose.
2. There is no chance that the money will be redirected to a protest campaign. The club will not vote for it and neither will the Chair. And frankly I doubt the fans reps would either, because it's not what the money was given for and not all members will support the protests.
3. It won't be given to the club at this time. The next donation isn't due until June.
Valley Gold is independent of the club. A meeting can't be called to 'have a say in what's been going on at CAFC of late'. The only leverage we have is £100k compared to the £0.5bn of the owner.
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
I should state in the interests of transparency that I am not a member myself (I've been on the verge of joining often over the years but something has occurred to put me off) but if sufficient of the members are unhappy then they are entitled to their meeting regardless of whether or not you consider it a good use of the Committee's energies.
The Club are selling Academy products for derisory sums so that alone would be sufficient motivation for me to question the efficacy of how they are using my hard earned contribution if I was a member.
This thread alone has contributions from more than the 'mere' 2% of discontents Meire claims if Valley Gold has approximately 2,000 members!
The alternative is that they vote with their feet.
I repeat my question from page 3 of the thread:
Is the role of the Academy and Valley Gold, as a source of its funds, to develop players for the benefit of Charlton Athletic FC or Roland Duchatelet's pocket?
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
You really don't show yourself in a good light here rikofold.
You are saying that you and the whole committee can't be arsed to a face to face meeting about the money that we provide?
We could always call a vote of no confidence in the whole committee and vote on changing the rules and the committee members.
We could always just drop out and leave you to it.
I would happily continue with Valley Gold if I thought the revenue they plan to generate through farming youth players would be put in to the club or invested wisely back in to the squad.
The evidence so far suggests this isn't going to happen and as I don't support this regime, their business model or their perceptions of their 'customers' I don't see why I should continue to play a part in funding them.
If the scheme collapses I will happily pay extra to re-launch it once these parasites have f****d off.
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
Come off it, he's on the committee as a senior employee of the football club, as is Meire. It's part of his job. And incidentally he has come very heavy questions to answer about his professional responsibilities, although not in this context.
Before KM and DJ, it was almost impossible to get senior decision makers to commit to VG. There is no obligation for the committee to attend a members' meeting - it's a meeting for the members. Paul and I would almost certainly turn up, but if there's no obligation I doubt the club would. You may think it's their responsibility, but I don't think you believe for a second that if they had an out they wouldn't take it.
If like me you want the Belgians out then causing them as much inconvenience as possible is absolutely the right thing to do. Therefore as a Valley Gold member since 1989 I’m all for Charlton Club, the organisation responsible for Valley Gold, holding a meeting to discuss whether the money raised should:
1. Continue to be spent on the academy 2. Be redirected to the campaign to get Duchatelet out 3. Not be given to CAFC at this moment in time
By Charlton Club holding such a meeting it would surely stem the flow of members leaving and allow them a say in what’s been going on at CAFC of late.
The only leverage we have is £100k compared to the £0.5bn of the owner.
If that's the case and he doesn't need it, we might as well closed VG down.
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
Come off it, he's on the committee as a senior employee of the football club, as is Meire. It's part of his job. And incidentally he has come very heavy questions to answer about his professional responsibilities, although not in this context.
Before KM and DJ, it was almost impossible to get senior decision makers to commit to VG. There is no obligation for the committee to attend a members' meeting - it's a meeting for the members. Paul and I would almost certainly turn up, but if there's no obligation I doubt the club would. You may think it's their responsibility, but I don't think you believe for a second that if they had an out they wouldn't take it.
Indeed, but that's not my point. They are on there as employees - it's no good saying Joyes would be taking time away from his family. Most people do that when they go out to work. Football isn't a nine to five business.
If they don't turn up they might find the scheme amended or dissolved without their input.
If like me you want the Belgians out then causing them as much inconvenience as possible is absolutely the right thing to do. Therefore as a Valley Gold member since 1989 I’m all for Charlton Club, the organisation responsible for Valley Gold, holding a meeting to discuss whether the money raised should:
1. Continue to be spent on the academy 2. Be redirected to the campaign to get Duchatelet out 3. Not be given to CAFC at this moment in time
By Charlton Club holding such a meeting it would surely stem the flow of members leaving and allow them a say in what’s been going on at CAFC of late.
I stand corrected, some relatively sensible objectives.
1. This is a reasonable discussion point, but the difficulty is that all the money collected to date has been given for that primary purpose. The committee has a degree of freedom on this, but it would need the agreement of the club and the chair to effect a complete change of the scheme's primary purpose.
2. There is no chance that the money will be redirected to a protest campaign. The club will not vote for it and neither will the Chair. And frankly I doubt the fans reps would either, because it's not what the money was given for and not all members will support the protests.
3. It won't be given to the club at this time. The next donation isn't due until June.
Valley Gold is independent of the club. A meeting can't be called to 'have a say in what's been going on at CAFC of late'. The only leverage we have is £100k compared to the £0.5bn of the owner.
But it's drip drip Rikofold like the people who have stopped buying a pie and a pint, the boycotting of games, circa 3000 absent season ticket holders, the black and white scarves, the chants of 'get them out' at the last home game it all sends a message of discontent.
The natives are very restless, I'd try and accommodate their wishes if you can, so what if KM doesn't show it's another stick to beat her with and DJ assuming he attends can give her a first hand account of the state of the nation.
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
I should state in the interests of transparency that I am not a member myself (I've been on the verge of joining often over the years but something has occurred to put me off) but if sufficient of the members are unhappy then they are entitled to their meeting regardless of whether or not you consider it a good use of the Committee's energies.
The Club are selling Academy products for derisory sums so that alone would be sufficient motivation for me to question the efficacy of how they are using my hard earned contribution if I was a member.
This thread alone has contributions from more than the 'mere' 2% of discontents Meire claims if Valley Gold has approximately 2,000 members!
The alternative is that they vote with their feet.
I repeat my question from page 3 of the thread:
Is the role of the Academy and Valley Gold, as a source of its funds, to develop players for the benefit of Charlton Athletic FC or Roland Duchatelet's pocket?
I meant 'our' as fans, not as the committee. I've said I would be there and I'd expect Paul to be as well.
Re derisory sums I agree - but it's not easy to hold the club to account to this because they don't have an obligation to let us in on the actual fees received.
Your last sentence is absolutely the point, and this is what I will be taking up at the next committee meeting. As I've already said.
Of course it wouldn't show her in a great light, but do you think people calling for a meeting hold her in a great light today?
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
Come off it, he's on the committee as a senior employee of the football club, as is Meire. It's part of his job. And incidentally he has come very heavy questions to answer about his professional responsibilities, although not in this context.
Before KM and DJ, it was almost impossible to get senior decision makers to commit to VG. There is no obligation for the committee to attend a members' meeting - it's a meeting for the members. Paul and I would almost certainly turn up, but if there's no obligation I doubt the club would. You may think it's their responsibility, but I don't think you believe for a second that if they had an out they wouldn't take it.
Indeed, but that's not my point. They are on there as employees - it's no good saying Joyes would be taking time away from his family. Most people do that when they go out to work. Football isn't a nine to five business.
If they don't turn up they might find the scheme amended or dissolved without their input.
Rick, the members' meeting people are talking of calling doesn't involve the committee other than the Chair. It's not a committee meeting, which as you know are currently scheduled for normal working hours.
Do you really think they will attend a meeting they don't have to, outside normal working hours (unless you think you'll get 200 people to a meeting in working hours), where they will be the target of negative comment throughout? Mate, we both know it's just not going to happen.
The outcome will simply be Matt, Paul and I attending a meeting where we know what people are going to say but is something we can make no decision on until June.
Finally, members cannot dissolve the scheme. Only the Committee can - and that needs to be unanimous.
Valley Gold was originally set up to raise money to help Charlton return to The Valley. It was then repositioned to raise money for the academy in the mid 1990s. So there is precedent for a change of direction.
If the membership decided that the money was best spent on some other cause it would be incredulous to think that the club or chair wouldn’t take note and act. If they didn’t membership would significantly decline and you would probably find another Charlton lottery would be set up.
Do you know exactly how many members we would need to call a meeting?
Why would the Valley Gold scheme have to collapse even if it was reduced to something like 200 members wouldn't you then just amend the prizes on offer e.g only one person wins on a matchday rather than ten ? And the amount of money donated for schemes is in the £100's rather than £1,000's?
If like me you want the Belgians out then causing them as much inconvenience as possible is absolutely the right thing to do. Therefore as a Valley Gold member since 1989 I’m all for Charlton Club, the organisation responsible for Valley Gold, holding a meeting to discuss whether the money raised should:
1. Continue to be spent on the academy 2. Be redirected to the campaign to get Duchatelet out 3. Not be given to CAFC at this moment in time
By Charlton Club holding such a meeting it would surely stem the flow of members leaving and allow them a say in what’s been going on at CAFC of late.
I stand corrected, some relatively sensible objectives.
1. This is a reasonable discussion point, but the difficulty is that all the money collected to date has been given for that primary purpose. The committee has a degree of freedom on this, but it would need the agreement of the club and the chair to effect a complete change of the scheme's primary purpose.
2. There is no chance that the money will be redirected to a protest campaign. The club will not vote for it and neither will the Chair. And frankly I doubt the fans reps would either, because it's not what the money was given for and not all members will support the protests.
3. It won't be given to the club at this time. The next donation isn't due until June.
Valley Gold is independent of the club. A meeting can't be called to 'have a say in what's been going on at CAFC of late'. The only leverage we have is £100k compared to the £0.5bn of the owner.
But it's drip drip Rikofold like the people who have stopped buying a pie and a pint, the boycotting of games, circa 3000 absent season ticket holders, the black and white scarves, the chants of 'get them out' at the last home game it all sends a message of discontent.
The natives are very restless, I'd try and accommodate their wishes if you can, so what if KM doesn't show it's another stick to beat her with and DJ assuming he attends can give her a first hand account of the state of the nation.
Drip drip isn't leverage though, and we can't withhold £100k until December - we can withhold £50k in June.
Personally I think the best course of action is for Paul and I to push the issues regarding Katrien's comments in Dublin at the committee meeting. The impact it is having on here is enough for it to be taken seriously, and I shall personally make the point that the scheme exists for the benefit of the club not the owner.
My view is that the biggest impact a members' meeting will have is on the precious time of the members and the Chair. Sorry, but as a protest action it really does nothing more than assist a narrative.
Why would the Valley Gold scheme have to collapse even if it was reduced to something like 200 members wouldn't you then just amend the prizes on offer e.g only one person wins on a matchday rather than ten ? And the amount of money donated for schemes is in the £100's rather than £1,000's?
It needs to cover its own costs, (wages and such) for a start.
Valley Gold was originally set up to raise money to help Charlton return to The Valley. It was then repositioned to raise money for the academy in the mid 1990s. So there is precedent for a change of direction.
If the membership decided that the money was best spent on some other cause it would be incredulous to think that the club or chair wouldn’t take note and act. If they didn’t membership would significantly decline and you would probably find another Charlton lottery would be set up.
Do you know exactly how many members we would need to call a meeting?
Well of course - but that change of direction was because the initial objective had been fulfilled. The choice was to dissolve the scheme or to direct it to something new.
You're right about the membership, but that's the entire membership not 10% of it. You need just short of 200 to call a meeting, 198 or 199 I think. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it won't achieve what you think it will and the club won't be there.
Why would the Valley Gold scheme have to collapse even if it was reduced to something like 200 members wouldn't you then just amend the prizes on offer e.g only one person wins on a matchday rather than ten ? And the amount of money donated for schemes is in the £100's rather than £1,000's?
It needs to cover its own costs, (wages and such) for a start.
Fair enough, thanks for the response. Is there a minimum number needed then to keep the scheme as it is, can it still operate on a smaller scale to the point where costs are covered?
Rikofold, I respect what you are saying but us VG members appear to want a meeting and whether you like it or not, if enough members vote for one you have to attend.
Comments
Bear in mind that VG members as a whole are perceived - perhaps caricatured - as generally older and more conservative than the average.
fanscustomers.Can someone tell me what you're hoping to achieve with the meeting? Any specific objectives?
By the way, it would help me if you could include your member numbers. I'll forward a list to the committee once the magic 190 ish is reached.
If you think that 190 members are coming on here to call for a meeting, I think you will have a long wait, surely enough members have voiced their concerns for the fans reps to consider calling a meeting. The first objective is to remove KM from the committee, whether you think it is a bad idea or not, it is what those who are calling for a meeting want, at a meeting you could then explain why you want her to stay. You cannot hide behind the Trust board on this one. You need to act as at least 25 CL members are proposing to leave or have already left if this steamrolls then VG will be defunct. There was a target of 4000 members a few years ago it is now less than half that and falling just like attendances at matches. ACT NOW.
What would probably happen is that your main target won't be there, but the two supporters reps, the chair and possibly the very decent David Joyes would take time away from their families to sit and face a meeting that will principally be nothing about Valley Gold business but about fans' discontent with the football club, an organisation entirely separate from Valley Gold.
But read the rules again. The meeting is a meeting of members called by members. The only committee member obligated to be there is the Chair. And without obligation, you've got two hopes of getting the CEO there: Bob and no.
I understand the clamour - but nothing anyone's said is persuading me it's a good use of our energies.
1. Continue to be spent on the academy
2. Be redirected to the campaign to get Duchatelet out
3. Not be given to CAFC at this moment in time
By Charlton Club holding such a meeting it would surely stem the flow of members leaving and allow them a say in what’s been going on at CAFC of late.
It is not in the interests of the scheme or its members to remove the key club decision maker from that committee, it really isn't. I'm sorry if you disagree, but you're asking people with responsibility for the scheme's success to make decisions that work to its detriment.
I've asked what the objective of the members' meeting is, i.e. what Valley Gold business are you going to discuss amongst yourselves, but as yet no-one has been able to articulate anything realistic.
For the record, membership is not falling, it's increasing.
1. This is a reasonable discussion point, but the difficulty is that all the money collected to date has been given for that primary purpose. The committee has a degree of freedom on this, but it would need the agreement of the club and the chair to effect a complete change of the scheme's primary purpose.
2. There is no chance that the money will be redirected to a protest campaign. The club will not vote for it and neither will the Chair. And frankly I doubt the fans reps would either, because it's not what the money was given for and not all members will support the protests.
3. It won't be given to the club at this time. The next donation isn't due until June.
Valley Gold is independent of the club. A meeting can't be called to 'have a say in what's been going on at CAFC of late'. The only leverage we have is £100k compared to the £0.5bn of the owner.
The Club are selling Academy products for derisory sums so that alone would be sufficient motivation for me to question the efficacy of how they are using my hard earned contribution if I was a member.
This thread alone has contributions from more than the 'mere' 2% of discontents Meire claims if Valley Gold has approximately 2,000 members!
The alternative is that they vote with their feet.
I repeat my question from page 3 of the thread:
Is the role of the Academy and Valley Gold, as a source of its funds, to develop players for the benefit of Charlton Athletic FC or Roland Duchatelet's pocket?
You are saying that you and the whole committee can't be arsed to a face to face meeting about the money that we provide?
We could always call a vote of no confidence in the whole committee and vote on changing the rules and the committee members.
We could always just drop out and leave you to it.
The evidence so far suggests this isn't going to happen and as I don't support this regime, their business model or their perceptions of their 'customers' I don't see why I should continue to play a part in funding them.
If the scheme collapses I will happily pay extra to re-launch it once these parasites have f****d off.
If they don't turn up they might find the scheme amended or dissolved without their input.
The natives are very restless, I'd try and accommodate their wishes if you can, so what if KM doesn't show it's another stick to beat her with and DJ assuming he attends can give her a first hand account of the state of the nation.
Re derisory sums I agree - but it's not easy to hold the club to account to this because they don't have an obligation to let us in on the actual fees received.
Your last sentence is absolutely the point, and this is what I will be taking up at the next committee meeting. As I've already said.
Do you really think they will attend a meeting they don't have to, outside normal working hours (unless you think you'll get 200 people to a meeting in working hours), where they will be the target of negative comment throughout? Mate, we both know it's just not going to happen.
The outcome will simply be Matt, Paul and I attending a meeting where we know what people are going to say but is something we can make no decision on until June.
Finally, members cannot dissolve the scheme. Only the Committee can - and that needs to be unanimous.
Valley Gold was originally set up to raise money to help Charlton return to The Valley. It was then repositioned to raise money for the academy in the mid 1990s. So there is precedent for a change of direction.
If the membership decided that the money was best spent on some other cause it would be incredulous to think that the club or chair wouldn’t take note and act. If they didn’t membership would significantly decline and you would probably find another Charlton lottery would be set up.
Do you know exactly how many members we would need to call a meeting?
Personally I think the best course of action is for Paul and I to push the issues regarding Katrien's comments in Dublin at the committee meeting. The impact it is having on here is enough for it to be taken seriously, and I shall personally make the point that the scheme exists for the benefit of the club not the owner.
My view is that the biggest impact a members' meeting will have is on the precious time of the members and the Chair. Sorry, but as a protest action it really does nothing more than assist a narrative.
You're right about the membership, but that's the entire membership not 10% of it. You need just short of 200 to call a meeting, 198 or 199 I think. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it won't achieve what you think it will and the club won't be there.
Where are the minutes published of the cte meetings?
If the club dont attend I can't imagine the membership generally thinking much of that.
Simple really