E-mail Campaign to Greenwich MP

Chunes

Matthew Pennycook is the MP for Royal Greenwich. I've seen on his twitter that he's already somewhat aware of what's going on. If enough of us e-mail him, we could petition him to raise the question in Parliament and propose that protections for fans are put in place, using our plight as the prime example. This would certainly keep up the momentum and amp up the pressure on RD and KM.

Football is our national game and part of our deep cultural identity, and there should be protections in place to stop clubs being eroded by foreign ownership who do not engage, and even openly dislike, the fans. Who use the club as moneymakers, strip down their assets and walk away, with absolutely no respect for the game or the culture.

His e-mail: matthew.pennycook.mp@parliament.uk

(edit - everyone can e-mail him, but he can only respond to his constituents. So if you would like a response, you are required to provide your home address, postcode and home telephone number).

shirty5

Another good idea. Not a resident anymore in the borough but will certainly drop him a line.

RodneyCharltonTrotta

Should go straight to the top and do a light projection of "RD OUT" like the below if anyone knows how...

usedtobegood

Great idea. Will send mine today. Keep the pressure up on all fronts.

newyorkaddick

How does the investment in the stadium, training facilities and Academy meet the definition of asset stripping?

Chunes

newyorkaddick said:

How does the investment in the stadium, training facilities and Academy meet the definition of asset stripping?

I was more thinking of our players but fair comment.

newyorkaddick

It's a daft argument sorry - he may have brought in mediocre players at inflated prices but they've been paying meaningful transfer fees.

The execution of their model is the issue not the model per se.

Chunes

newyorkaddick said:

It's a daft argument sorry - he may have brought in mediocre players at inflated prices but they've been paying meaningful transfer fees.

The execution of their model is the issue not the model per se.

This thread is about emailing an MP to keep our protest up, you can email him whatever argument you like.

PragueAddick

Hold on a minute.

Clive Efford, the Eltham MP, is still the Shadow Sports Minister. His bill to reform football recently had a second reading, and it addresses many of the governance issues you want to raise. I think h'd be disappointed if you didn't go to him. You could always address them both.(they are both Labour)

I'm speaking to Kevin Rye (Supporters Direct) today, and he knows about all of this kind of stuff as a professional. It's quite possible that he will recommend the Trust should approach them, but either way it never does any harm for individuals to write to MPs. Bear in mind though that they tend to ignore individual approaches from people outside their constituencies.

Why not give me 24 hours to feed back the guidance from Kevin. He always offers good advice.

newyorkaddick

Chunes said:

newyorkaddick said:

It's a daft argument sorry - he may have brought in mediocre players at inflated prices but they've been paying meaningful transfer fees.

The execution of their model is the issue not the model per se.

This thread is about emailing an MP to keep our protest up, you can email him whatever argument you like.

I think I'd prefer our MPs to focus on rather more pressing local and national issues.

PragueAddick

newyorkaddick said:

Chunes said:

newyorkaddick said:

It's a daft argument sorry - he may have brought in mediocre players at inflated prices but they've been paying meaningful transfer fees.

The execution of their model is the issue not the model per se.

This thread is about emailing an MP to keep our protest up, you can email him whatever argument you like.

I think I'd prefer our MPs to focus on rather more pressing local and national issues.

With respect, Clive Efford would thoroughly disagree with you, for reasons I've just outlined. Are you aware of his Football Supporters Bill?

newyorkaddick

No surprise that he's a Corbynite

PragueAddick

newyorkaddick said:

No surprise that he's a Corbynite

I don't know whether he is or not. I do know that he has a great reputation as a constituency MP, (played the key role in getting my Mum's Blue badge back, as chronicled here) will happily talk to anyone in the Long Pond pub, and is a proper football fan (albeit a Spanner), who knows, rather painfully, about our history. And he is leading the political effort to address the problems in football which have led us to this position with the current owners. if his bill were in place we would have had a voice on the board which at the very least would have provided early warning signals both the owner and the fanbase.

Apart from that he's totally irrelevant :-)

newyorkaddick

The problem is that even if RD paid off all of our debts and gifted the club to the Trust, we'd be insolvent within months and desperate for a new benefactor (who probably wouldn't want the fans having an official seat at the table!).

PragueAddick

newyorkaddick said:

The problem is that even if RD paid off all of our debts and gifted the club to the Trust, we'd be insolvent within months and desperate for a new benefactor (who probably wouldn't want the fans having an official seat at the table!).

That may be true, and there is no problem with you raising such issues, we need to think about them. But you have highlighted the desperate mayhem that pervades English football - and is absent in Germany, where RD is also involved. The only way to introduce German style sanity is via the political process, which is exactly what one of our local MPs is trying to do.

So your argument that we are wasting both our time and his, does not seem to have any merit.

newyorkaddick

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

PeanutsMolloy

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

I agree 100% with all of your points NYA. The problem is that the execution and PR has been so poor (and naïve) that they have irrevocably lost the fans. There can be no doubt of that now.
It is very much a case of be careful what we wish for (RD certainly has brought solvency) but one is left with the question, what is a football club and what future does it have if it has disaffected a substantial proportion of its supporters?

PragueAddick

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

You must be joking?

There is a list as long as my arm. Many of them are operational, but would have been avoided if there was a strong supporter voice on the Board, exactly as Efford's bill envisages. At the same time that voice might have conveyed some of the financial realities back to the fanbase more effectively, which presumably you would support.

Of course you have a point that we could "force RD out" and then be at the mercy of someone even worse. So we have to address the long term strategic problems in English football governance, as well as the short term executional issues at Charlton. That is the goal of the Supporters Trust movement.

You are aware of the extent and limitations of RD's involvement in Jena (thanks to legally protected German regulation), or should I repeat it here?

clive

newyorkaddick said:

Chunes said:

newyorkaddick said:

It's a daft argument sorry - he may have brought in mediocre players at inflated prices but they've been paying meaningful transfer fees.

The execution of their model is the issue not the model per se.

This thread is about emailing an MP to keep our protest up, you can email him whatever argument you like.

I think I'd prefer our MPs to focus on rather more pressing local and national issues.

Fox hunting,for example.

iainment

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

I love a conversation about engaging local MPs from Prague and New York. :-)

newyorkaddick

PragueAddick said:

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

You must be joking?

There is a list as long as my arm. Many of them are operational, but would have been avoided if there was a strong supporter voice on the Board, exactly as Efford's bill envisages. At the same time that voice might have conveyed some of the financial realities back to the fanbase more effectively, which presumably you would support.

Of course you have a point that we could "force RD out" and then be at the mercy of someone even worse. So we have to address the long term strategic problems in English football governance, as well as the short term executional issues at Charlton. That is the goal of the Supporters Trust movement.

You are aware of the extent and limitations of RD's involvement in Jena (thanks to legally protected German regulation), or should I repeat it here?

Let me know one specific thing that you think should be of the remotest interest to a member of parliament (unless you want him to ask David Cameron during PMQ to recommend a new manager).

iainment

newyorkaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

You must be joking?

There is a list as long as my arm. Many of them are operational, but would have been avoided if there was a strong supporter voice on the Board, exactly as Efford's bill envisages. At the same time that voice might have conveyed some of the financial realities back to the fanbase more effectively, which presumably you would support.

Of course you have a point that we could "force RD out" and then be at the mercy of someone even worse. So we have to address the long term strategic problems in English football governance, as well as the short term executional issues at Charlton. That is the goal of the Supporters Trust movement.

You are aware of the extent and limitations of RD's involvement in Jena (thanks to legally protected German regulation), or should I repeat it here?

Let me know one specific thing that you think should be of the remotest interest to a member of parliament (unless you want him to ask David Cameron during PMQ to recommend a new manager).

I would have thought that Labour in Greenwich would be interested in a campaign about Charlton. They still have members who will remember the Valley Party and how it effected their vote. So for that reason alone I think local MPs would be interested.
I live in, and vote in, the Greenwich constituency. How the MPs, councillors and future candidates relate to this will have an effect on who I vote for. This will interest them.

PragueAddick

newyorkaddick said:

PragueAddick said:

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

You must be joking?

There is a list as long as my arm. Many of them are operational, but would have been avoided if there was a strong supporter voice on the Board, exactly as Efford's bill envisages. At the same time that voice might have conveyed some of the financial realities back to the fanbase more effectively, which presumably you would support.

Of course you have a point that we could "force RD out" and then be at the mercy of someone even worse. So we have to address the long term strategic problems in English football governance, as well as the short term executional issues at Charlton. That is the goal of the Supporters Trust movement.

You are aware of the extent and limitations of RD's involvement in Jena (thanks to legally protected German regulation), or should I repeat it here?

Let me know one specific thing that you think should be of the remotest interest to a member of parliament (unless you want him to ask David Cameron during PMQ to recommend a new manager).

I think I have already answered that question.

This is Clive Efford's bill.

In what way is our case not relevant to his Bill? I'd suggest he'd be using it as an example for a 3rd reading.

MuttleyCAFC

Most fans don't want more money spent, they want the club to be run properely. When budgets are tight, this becomes all the more essential.

carly burn

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

You surprise me NYA. Fair enough with the MP suggestion and I agree with you.

But your general stance on the owners appears to be that they haven't done a lot wrong. I find any cafc fan with that attitude hard to fathom.

newyorkaddick

I don't recall any fans complaining as recently as late August when optimism was buoyant after we continued the good form and flowing football from last season.

So in short my interpretation is that we want to engage an MP to improve our fortunes on the pitch which is mildly bizarre.

PragueAddick

newyorkaddick said:

I don't recall any fans complaining as recently as late August when optimism was buoyant after we continued the good form and flowing football from last season.

So in short my interpretation is that we want to engage an MP to improve our fortunes on the pitch which is mildly bizarre.

That is a deliberately obtuse version of what this thread is about, and certainly would not be what I would write about.

The Trust has been consistently calling for meaningful dialogue this whole year, as a part of a move towards a more permanent supporter voice in the oversight of our Club, and all other clubs. (except the likes of Swansea where it already exists)

Consistently. Regardless of the results on the pitch.

carly burn

newyorkaddick said:

I don't recall any fans complaining as recently as late August when optimism was buoyant after we continued the good form and flowing football from last season.
.

Are you saying that the regime needs to be given a chance?

Atletico Addick

newyorkaddick said:

I don't recall any fans complaining as recently as late August when optimism was buoyant after we continued the good form and flowing football from last season.

So in short my interpretation is that we want to engage an MP to improve our fortunes on the pitch which is mildly bizarre.

There were plenty.

newyorkaddick

carly burn said:

newyorkaddick said:

I don't recall any fans complaining as recently as late August when optimism was buoyant after we continued the good form and flowing football from last season.
.

Are you saying that the regime needs to be given a chance?

If they can learn lessons and accept the need for an experienced manager to mould the mix of youth and undeveloped foreign talent (a model I broadly agree with however cackhanded their execution).

newyorkaddick

iainment said:

newyorkaddick said:

But you can't point to anything specific that the owners have done wrong apart from poor general execution of a model (which may not be flawed in isolation as Watford suggest).

I love a conversation about engaging local MPs from Prague and New York. :-)

I'm in the Tory heartland of South West Hertfordshire!