You won’t burst my bubble rikofold because as I said in my original post I want to cause the Belgians as much inconvenience as possible and holding a meeting with some of our most loyal supporters, who will undoubtedly do their best to hold the club to account, will do just that in my humble opinion.
If the Club representatives didn’t turn up the only likely outcome would be a haemorrhaging of support for Valley Gold and that can’t surely be what they want.
If nothing else the meeting could try and resolve some of the issues that Clive makes, because these need sorting.
Like Razil I urge you all to stick with Valley Gold and let’s take this opportunity to reform it to the satisfaction of its members.
Maybe, but thats what I'm saying about mob rule - perhaps unfortunate words, but things can sometimes take on their own momentum and get out of control.
Time for some reflection. I think democratising the vg process would be a very good objective, there seem to be some holes in an organisation we all treasure, and which takes a huge amount of money by the average fans standards, and therefore deserves some attention.
So we have an unelected committee who decide where our money is donated & if we want a meeting they don't even have to turn up,i'm sure if members were aware of this they would think very hard about continuing to remain in the scheme.
I think you're leaving out the context here. Your fans' reps would attend, I certainly would, as would the chair. The context for the club is that they are not the turkey about to vote for Christmas so they won't bother turning up. Your only hope of influence is on me and Paul, and we're already batting for you in the context of making the scheme successful.
There are circumstances in which we would consider voting to withhold funds, but they would have to be a bit more watertight than our CEO stumbling over her words on a stage in Dublin. Neither Paul nor I see Valley Gold as a valid target for protests - it's an independent organisation that has received funds over several years to a stated primary aim. It's benefits are worked out long term and it's very probably that withholding funds now would affect a future owner considerably more than it would the current one.
I understand everyone's anger - I'm angry too - but Valley Gold is not the club. It's perhaps the one remaining opportunity for fans to directly contribute to the future wellbeing of the club, and I think supporters should think twice before taking action to damage it. Particularly if they believe protest action will be successful in driving RD out, because it will his successor who suffers.
The problem is that the people in charge want to sell the future wellbeing of the club before we have really appreciated them
Ok, I'll pick up this last point. The money we withhold now will mostly affect players who won't be ready for the first team for 3-5 years. It will have no bearing on Lookman et al because they are now in the first team squad and have progressed from the academy. The point being that it will only affect RD if he is still here in 3-5 years.
I get it, ok. I'm angry we appear to have managed to only get £3.5m for Gomez, but negotiate late and that's what happens. I'm angry Lookman looks likely to leave when another season or two will add a zero to his value.
If we want to protest, we need to target something that has an impact today don't we? Valley Gold will never be that.
No one has explained why CASC have a seat at this table, the organisation disappeared as a going concern 6 or 7 years ago. What membership does it have?
That's why the rules had to be changed. Well over a year ago. CASC has no seat at the table because it doesn't exist.
No one has explained why CASC have a seat at this table, the organisation disappeared as a going concern 6 or 7 years ago. What membership does it have?
That's why the rules had to be changed. Well over a year ago. CASC has no seat at the table because it doesn't exist.
I think Rothko is asking who Paul is representing on the committee.
No one has explained why CASC have a seat at this table, the organisation disappeared as a going concern 6 or 7 years ago. What membership does it have?
That's why the rules had to be changed. Well over a year ago. CASC has no seat at the table because it doesn't exist.
I think Rothko is asking who Paul is representing on the committee.
Exactly, why is Paul there, when he was the chair of supporters club whole it died.
Cant we find out how many members we know who would be willing to ask for a meeting? I don't know any other than me, but I am one person willing to do so. Let's see what numbers we are dealing with, Lifers can talk to mates, people sitting near them in teh ground - let's see what we can do.
@Fanny Fanackapan and others can I appeal to you to stick with the scheme at least until we have had a chance to reform it?
R
Is there any chance of a reform when those at the top, to me at least, seem more interested in maintaining their own position rather than the will of those they claim to represent?
Rikofold don't think you have done yourself or the scheme any favours with your extremely negative approach to what seems to be a pretty straightforward request from your members.
Plenty of excuses why a meeting shouldn't be held, surely you should listen to what people have to say in the right environment of a meeting, rather than say this or that won't, can't happen on an Internet site on which only a few members will have access.
I would also be worried if I was involved on the committee on the trust as I believe a decent solicitor could rip your trust document to shreds.
My advice to you and your committee, for what it's worth, is let the members have a meeting, listen to what is said and then make a well informed decision, but more importantly than that get your trust agenda/rules looked at urgently as IMHO they are not fit for purpose.
Rikofold don't think you have done yourself or the scheme any favours with your extremely negative approach to what seems to be a pretty straightforward request from your members.
Plenty of excuses why a meeting shouldn't be held, surely you should listen to what people have to say in the right environment of a meeting, rather than say this or that won't, can't happen on an Internet site on which only a few members will have access.
I would also be worried if I was involved on the committee on the trust as I believe a decent solicitor could rip your trust document to shreds.
My advice to you and your committee, for what it's worth, is let the members have a meeting, listen to what is said and then make a well informed decision, but more importantly than that get your trust agenda/rules looked at urgently as IMHO they are not fit for purpose.
Just a point of order that hopefully will go some way to demonstrating how people are making this a target without really understanding it, the Gambling Act precludes us from being members, so we can't presume we can attend.
Those regulations govern our rules, which are prepared and formalised through an expensive process that a solicitor has to deal with.
It's got nothing to do with excuses to get out of being at a meeting, but frankly more to do with the time:benefit ratio for you all. But I'm giving up trying to help you guys see it now.
Again, not sure why the Trust has anything to do with this. Sigh.
No one has explained why CASC have a seat at this table, the organisation disappeared as a going concern 6 or 7 years ago. What membership does it have?
That's why the rules had to be changed. Well over a year ago. CASC has no seat at the table because it doesn't exist.
I think Rothko is asking who Paul is representing on the committee.
Good question. He predated me so I can't really answer that, but it's not representative in the sense every supporter has an individual voice through their rep but the ability to ensure members' interest are to the fore. The Committee can't be members, so it will never be "one elected from our number."
Why does the Management Committee not call the meeting of its members, due to the unrest? If the members call a meeting who is responsible for making the arrangements ie hiring of venue etc and cost of same?
It would seem that the VG Management Committee don't want a meeting to take place at all, hence little prospect of that happening it would appear.
If anything is going to save VG then a meeting must take place and members can then ensure that their views are represented going forward.
There is absolutely no point in waiting until June in order to try and prevent further funds being sent to subsidise RDs experiment when we need to organise ourselves now.
We need to get an idea of what we want collectively. We need to contact all members, how will this happen in practice if we do not get co-operation from Management Committee? Where will the meeting take place?
Practical issues all need to be addressed before we can move forward assuming that we can achieve the 10%.
I am really disappointed in this thread. Of all the things that have gone on in the last 5 years the one success is Valley Gold. Yes we have sold the stars but we have a core of good players from the initiative. I am of course not happy with the current situation but the termination of support toVG may have longer term implications long after the Belgians leave. I won't cancel. Maybe I will have a better chance of wining the jackpot (joke)
Rikofold don't think you have done yourself or the scheme any favours with your extremely negative approach to what seems to be a pretty straightforward request from your members.
Plenty of excuses why a meeting shouldn't be held, surely you should listen to what people have to say in the right environment of a meeting, rather than say this or that won't, can't happen on an Internet site on which only a few members will have access.
I would also be worried if I was involved on the committee on the trust as I believe a decent solicitor could rip your trust document to shreds.
My advice to you and your committee, for what it's worth, is let the members have a meeting, listen to what is said and then make a well informed decision, but more importantly than that get your trust agenda/rules looked at urgently as IMHO they are not fit for purpose.
Just a point of order that hopefully will go some way to demonstrating how people are making this a target without really understanding it, the Gambling Act precludes us from being members, so we can't presume we can attend.
Those regulations govern our rules, which are prepared and formalised through an expensive process that a solicitor has to deal with.
It's got nothing to do with excuses to get out of being at a meeting, but frankly more to do with the time:benefit ratio for you all. But I'm giving up trying to help you guys see it now.
Again, not sure why the Trust has anything to do with this. Sigh.
Have a nice day all.
Just to say that when I referred to the trust I was talking about valley gold, as it is a private members club, I presumed the committee are trustees if wrong I apologise.
Rikofold - what I find bizarre is how out of touch you seem to be with the people you are there to represent.
I can tell you from long experience that there is nothing new about Valley Gold members cancelling their membership in an act of protest against CAFC. However, what Charlton Club should always try and do is mitigate against this and at this time recognise the level of discontent members have with the present owners and the threat this poses to the very existence of the scheme.
Let me try and be constructive and offer a way forward.
Next week the committee should send an email or letter to those members you don’t have email addresses for that recognises the level of discontent and asks members whether the committee should:
1. Continue to donate money to the academy 2. Postpone indefinitely giving money to CAFC 3. Donate the money to another CAFC cause 4. Democratise the chair and fans representatives on the committee 5. Organise a meeting to discuss these issues and others that members might put forward
Before you start quoting the rules to me having this discussion is not against the law and rules can be changed as long as they comply with the law.
If you do nothing you will be in big danger of losing a significant chunk of support.
Comments
If the Club representatives didn’t turn up the only likely outcome would be a haemorrhaging of support for Valley Gold and that can’t surely be what they want.
If nothing else the meeting could try and resolve some of the issues that Clive makes, because these need sorting.
Like Razil I urge you all to stick with Valley Gold and let’s take this opportunity to reform it to the satisfaction of its members.
Time for some reflection. I think democratising the vg process would be a very good objective, there seem to be some holes in an organisation we all treasure, and which takes a huge amount of money by the average fans standards, and therefore deserves some attention.
I get it, ok. I'm angry we appear to have managed to only get £3.5m for Gomez, but negotiate late and that's what happens. I'm angry Lookman looks likely to leave when another season or two will add a zero to his value.
If we want to protest, we need to target something that has an impact today don't we? Valley Gold will never be that.
Night all.
Pedant : Lookman is not from our academy
Plenty of excuses why a meeting shouldn't be held, surely you should listen to what people have to say in the right environment of a meeting, rather than say this or that won't, can't happen on an Internet site on which only a few members will have access.
I would also be worried if I was involved on the committee on the trust as I believe a decent solicitor could rip your trust document to shreds.
My advice to you and your committee, for what it's worth, is let the members have a meeting, listen to what is said and then make a well informed decision, but more importantly than that get your trust agenda/rules looked at urgently as IMHO they are not fit for purpose.
Those regulations govern our rules, which are prepared and formalised through an expensive process that a solicitor has to deal with.
It's got nothing to do with excuses to get out of being at a meeting, but frankly more to do with the time:benefit ratio for you all. But I'm giving up trying to help you guys see it now.
Again, not sure why the Trust has anything to do with this. Sigh.
Have a nice day all.
The chair saying there is no need for a meeting when those funding the thing are demanding one seems a very strange approach.
Not digging you out here Rikofold but you must have known this day was coming and in light of recent events probably sooner rather than later.
Also its easy enough to resign or suspend membership once elected
If anything is going to save VG then a meeting must take place and members can then ensure that their views are represented going forward.
There is absolutely no point in waiting until June in order to try and prevent further funds being sent to subsidise RDs experiment when we need to organise ourselves now.
We need to get an idea of what we want collectively.
We need to contact all members, how will this happen in practice if we do not get co-operation from Management Committee?
Where will the meeting take place?
Practical issues all need to be addressed before we can move forward assuming that we can achieve the 10%.
I can tell you from long experience that there is nothing new about Valley Gold members cancelling their membership in an act of protest against CAFC. However, what Charlton Club should always try and do is mitigate against this and at this time recognise the level of discontent members have with the present owners and the threat this poses to the very existence of the scheme.
Let me try and be constructive and offer a way forward.
Next week the committee should send an email or letter to those members you don’t have
email addresses for that recognises the level of discontent and asks members whether the committee should:
1. Continue to donate money to the academy
2. Postpone indefinitely giving money to CAFC
3. Donate the money to another CAFC cause
4. Democratise the chair and fans representatives on the committee
5. Organise a meeting to discuss these issues and others that members might put forward
Before you start quoting the rules to me having this discussion is not against the law and rules can be changed as long as they comply with the law.
If you do nothing you will be in big danger of losing a significant chunk of support.