Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
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).
What about an experienced CEO? Media handler? Cheif scout? Manager?........
Yes all of the above - this is the aspect of their modus operandi which is hard to understand.
It's clear they do not trust anyone with responsibility who isn't part of their clique.
However I'd argue that it has only been the past 3-4 months where it's had any significant negative impact on the team - as noted on another thread, 92 points from 66 games from Riga's appointment to the Hull home game under Luzon.
Was that the Riga team largely constructed by Powell? And before our Belgian friends had even heard the words 'Charlton Athletic'?
That's a bit of a stretch but Riga got near play off form out if them from a hopeless situation.
If you think that, then you've got another stick to hit the regime with. Not retaining a manager of that quality is madness. (I don't personally see the furore over Riga BTW.)
Yes agree.
But that's my point NYA.
Anyone could see that we needed a new pitch. It was blatently staring us in the face each week. You could say the same about the seats and the ticketing arrangements. Although they require financial investment they don't require much brain power to put right and I would have expected any new owner with any level of wealth to have put that right.
When you look at the playing side of things though you really do need excellent thought and vision. You need to be brave enough to put your trust in people with past experience and not try to reshape the wheel with a two Bob initiation plan. And that in part is the crux.
The pitch took very little thought - supporters happy. Shiny new seats, easy to do- supporters happy Ticket system.its not rocket science- supporters happy.
They then used the same remit for the playing side of things and it has had the complete opposite effect. Are they willing to rethink? Do the have the intelligence or willingnes to do so? It looks very doubtful.
We'll find out I guess but it's only gone pear shaped recently regardless of how dysfunctional it may have appeared from the outside.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
NYA, there are numerous examples already, not that I haven't said that before.
In November 2014 there were debates in both houses about fans' roles in club management.
In September there was a debate on the future of non-league football.
Believe it or not, someone once suggested that the house come to state that Arsenal are the best team in the world.
The MP for Ayrshire once questioned Mike Ashley's fitness to run Newcastle in Parliament.
There's a Minister for Sport. There's a committee for football fans representation.
I could go on if you like.
Football is an important part of our economy and national culture. Walk out to any set of public pitches on a cold Sunday morning to see that. Walk into any pub on a Saturday.
The idea you can't fathom why anyone would care about us fans makes me ask you this:
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
I agree it's odd that she or another senior member of the club couldn't at least hear PV out over coffee, but if they have no interest in selling the club then it's not entirely surprising.
Her comments at the web summit were clearly naive and she doesn't strike me as particularly bright more generally, but I broadly welcome their investment in the matchday experience (new seats; better pitch; automatic turnstiles; better ticketing system; new screen etc.) regardless of whether she views us as customers or fans.
The problem is that none of that investment keeps us in this division.
The biggest investment was probably the pitch which was an embarrassment and not conducive to any type of tactical gameplan.
Any investment of this type is ultimately good for the club longer term* and we can't judge every financial decision based upon the immediate impact on the first team.
*excludes sofa
Absolutely, but ultimately we need player investment if all the (welcomed) background infrastructure is to be of benefit.
At the time of the pitch "investment", we were led to believe that the undersoil heating was necessary for when we made it to the Prem., (haha) and we found out later that it was funded by the sale of Kermogant. First of all the pitch had become almost unplayable, so as others have mentioned, it was likely part of the negotiation of RD's purchase of the club, either way no investment cost to RD. It seems lately, that if RD's valuation of the club is 50 million, that he's investing nothing at all in infrastructure, instead adding everything spent as debt that the club now owes him personally. Where could this end if he really doesn't want to sell? It would seem that making his ownership of the club as unpleasant as possible is our only option if we want a new owner.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
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).
What about an experienced CEO? Media handler? Cheif scout? Manager?........
Yes all of the above - this is the aspect of their modus operandi which is hard to understand.
It's clear they do not trust anyone with responsibility who isn't part of their clique.
However I'd argue that it has only been the past 3-4 months where it's had any significant negative impact on the team - as noted on another thread, 92 points from 66 games from Riga's appointment to the Hull home game under Luzon.
Was that the Riga team largely constructed by Powell? And before our Belgian friends had even heard the words 'Charlton Athletic'?
That's a bit of a stretch but Riga got near play off form out if them from a hopeless situation.
If you think that, then you've got another stick to hit the regime with. Not retaining a manager of that quality is madness. (I don't personally see the furore over Riga BTW.)
Yes agree.
But that's my point NYA.
Anyone could see that we needed a new pitch. It was blatently staring us in the face each week. You could say the same about the seats and the ticketing arrangements. Although they require financial investment they don't require much brain power to put right and I would have expected any new owner with any level of wealth to have put that right.
When you look at the playing side of things though you really do need excellent thought and vision. You need to be brave enough to put your trust in people with past experience and not try to reshape the wheel with a two Bob initiation plan. And that in part is the crux.
The pitch took very little thought - supporters happy. Shiny new seats, easy to do- supporters happy Ticket system.its not rocket science- supporters happy.
They then used the same remit for the playing side of things and it has had the complete opposite effect. Are they willing to rethink? Do the have the intelligence or willingnes to do so? It looks very doubtful.
We'll find out I guess but it's only gone pear shaped recently regardless of how dysfunctional it may have appeared from the outside.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
NYA, there are numerous examples already, not that I haven't said that before.
In November 2014 there were debates in both houses about fans' roles in club management.
In September there was a debate on the future of non-league football.
Believe it or not, someone once suggested that the house come to state that Arsenal are the best team in the world.
The MP for Ayrshire once questioned Mike Ashley's fitness to run Newcastle in Parliament.
There's a Minister for Sport. There's a committee for football fans representation.
I could go on if you like.
Football is an important part of our economy and national culture. Walk out to any set of public pitches on a cold Sunday morning to see that. Walk into any pub on a Saturday.
The idea you can't fathom why anyone would care about us fans makes me ask you this:
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
But in all kinds of issues, from closing the ticket office to the issue of playing staff, there's every indication the club is being run down - namely from one that had ambitions to play in the top flight to one that solely sells players to the top flight and has given up on any plan to be in that top flight. (Whether or not we've got a bountiful transfer budget, the lack of transparency in who is making the decisions about that is being spent is an issue, even if one only for fans.)
Granted, you wouldn't expect an MP to pile in with a list of potential transfer targets, but there is a general air of mismanagement on and off the field and fans are concerned. If an MP can amplify those concerns, so much the better.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
Do we know what they received in from player transfers? They seem happy to say they've spent £9 million on fees but not sure I've seen what they've received from sales.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
If that's true, which I seriously doubt, they've managed to make more of a pigs ear of it than Big nose.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
Do we know what they received in from player transfers? They seem happy to say they've spent £9 million on fees but not sure I've seen what they've received from sales.
We'll have to wait for the accounts due in the next few months.
Admittedly my studies of the accounts are rather geeky, but I urge every fan to read them to understand just how inherently awful the day-to-day finances of the club are.
It might make them more sympathetic to a new approach, albeit one not without its many flaws.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
How's that big transfer budget working out for us?
Suppose a tour operator sells ten thousand holidays and spends the money on cabin fit outs, video screens and entertainment systems but doesn't provide qualified crew to fly the planes. So the customers sit watching a film instead of going on holiday.
Or a school spends a fortune on playing fields but doesn't employ a headmaster. So none of the teachers or pupils know what class to attend.
Of course local MPs would get to hear about this level of absurd incompetence.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
Do we know what they received in from player transfers? They seem happy to say they've spent £9 million on fees but not sure I've seen what they've received from sales.
We'll have to wait for the accounts due in the next few months.
Admittedly my studies of the accounts are rather geeky, but I urge every fan to read them to understand just how inherently awful the day-to-day finances of the club are.
It might make them more sympathetic to a new approach, albeit one not without its many flaws.
I've had a look at the accounts, and they're grim. And English football's finances outside the PL are screwed. But RD is using this club as an experiment, without even having the courtesy or honesty to even show up or explain what he's doing, and with a chief exec who insults fans.
We may not be 100% correct. RD and KM may not be 100% wrong. But an approach from an MP might force them to the table to at least talk.
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
How's that big transfer budget working out for us?
It's irrelevant to the point I was making which was to emphasise the absurdity of phrases like 'asset stripping' and 'running down the club'.
No club has a perfect record on transfers and ours is clearly mixed**, but at least we have a budget which wasn't true under the spivs nor the tail end of the Murray regime.
(**until they put a proper recognised manager/coach in charge we'll never know if there might be a decent player lurking inside Ba, Bergdich, Sarr etc.)
I've had a look at the accounts, and they're grim. And English football's finances outside the PL are screwed. But RD is using this club as an experiment, without even having the courtesy or honesty to even show up or explain what he's doing, and with a chief exec who insults fans.
We may not be 100% correct. RD and KM may not be 100% wrong. But an approach from an MP might force them to the table to at least talk.
Hi Inspector, Can you email me in regard to this particular part of the campaign Interested in discussing this, I was on the trust board till last AGM, and design the trust news, we have also worked for the same media organisation. email: ken.sinyard@btinternet.com
Either way back to ths topic of the thread I simply don't understand why it would be of any concern to the local MP.
MPs get involved in all kinds of things. At the end of 2014 I started an online petition to help save a brilliant music venue in north London, the Buffalo Bar. Within a week, a group of us were meeting the local MP, Emily Thornberry, about what she could do to help. We didn't succeed, but she and her team were great to deal with, and she agreed with our arguments that the club was a lynchpin of the local economy and losing it would suffer. Many of the same arguments apply to the running-down of CAFC by RD and KM.
But what specific issues would you complain about? You can't seriously sit in front of an MP and demand the club appoint a new manager and invest in the team (especially when they're already financing a £5-10m pa deficit).
No, but you can argue the club is being mismanaged in a broader sense, and that RD and KM have a duty to address fans' concerns rather than hiding in Belgium or insulting fans at tech summits.
You may not agree with their model and argue the execution thereof has been misguided, but terms like 'running down' the club aren't helpful considering the investment in infrastructure and the largest transfer budget since Pardew was pissing cash up the wall for Varney and Mcleod.
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
How's that big transfer budget working out for us?
It's irrelevant to the point I was making which was to emphasise the absurdity of phrases like 'asset stripping' and 'running down the club'.
No club has a perfect record on transfers and ours is clearly mixed**, but at least we have a budget which wasn't true under the spivs nor the tail end of the Murray regime.
(**until they put a proper recognised manager/coach in charge we'll never know if there might be a decent player lurking inside Ba, Bergdich, Sarr etc.)
I believe our budget is the third lowest in the league?
You are comparing it to budgets before the new money and when we had all of our financial backing pulled, neither of which are accurate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying we should support them based on the fact they've put some money into the club, and you have no problems with their business model of player farming with no ambition other than financial.
He definitely agrees that politicians have a role to play. The specific goal, he says, is not that important. If a politician agrees that his/her consitutuents are right to be concerned they are likely to take up the issue - and first of all with the club itself. They will do this to satisfy themselves that there is a real issue at all, and how big it is. Just that act will increase overall pressure on the club and that is why it is worth doing. I know that Clive Efford has already talked with KM at least once (about the OS, and came away confused by what she told him).
Now, we are lucky that both local MPs have already either expressed an interest (Pennycock) or have the genral issue of club governance on their personal agenda (Efford). So to answer @newyorkaddick hopefully definitively, the Charlton case is relevant to Efford's biggest personal political activity in Parliament. It's a no-brainer.
Broadly what we should do is write referring to Efford's bill. Acknowledge that RD is a private owner, who has made investment, some of it of real value. But then go on to point out the rapid rise of discontent, leading to protests unprecedented since we left the Valley in 1985. The best thing we can ask the politicians for is to seek serious reassurance (and evidence) that our worst fears are unfounded. Of course they will not ask KM to sack Fraeye or spend x amount on players. But they may well suggest that unless they (KM and RD) seriously address the discontent, things could get worse, and as constituency MPs they don't want to see that on their patch. They don't want to see trouble, they don't want to see police time tied up, and they don't want to see normal law abiding citizens so unhappy that they have to resort to this. And they do want to be all over any such issue, not taken by surprise by it
So take no notice of @newyorkaddick. Regardless of what he thinks, Kevin Rye says this is exactly what politicians believe they exist for at local level. And I say, thank the Lord for that!.
Messrs Pennycock and Efford may come back with some messages which seek to pacify us, but let's see. The value to us will have been that they went so far as to call up KM and ask the questions.
I certainly expect that in the next few days the Trust will write to Clive Efford about it, but there is no need to wait for that, and nothing wrong with individuals writing separately. MP's have a rule of thumb. For every constituent who takes the trouble to write in, they assume 100 more have the same view. And your own words carry more weight than some template letter, they get too many of them from pressure groups nowadays.
So an update on this, specifically re Clive Efford.
There is a feeling among some other Trust board members who are closer to home, that Clive Efford initially had a positive impression of this regime (and he has certainly had contact with them during 2014). We are not sure if he has had any contact more recently, so he may be a bit out of date. He's not going to have followed every step of what's been going on, especially as he's a Spanner.So it would actually help us, if an advance guard of individual fans in his constituency could write to Clive and (politely) start to put him right. Maybe a lot of you might feel able to agree that you too had a positive impression at first, but this has all fallen apart in the last months because, because, because. Previous recommendation to refer to his Bill stands, you could point out how this lot are apparently showing why it is necessary.
If he gets a few letters before the Trust approaches him, it means we don't have to cover too much the detail of their misdemeanours. If Matthew Pennycock gets similar mail that would be good because they will probably compare notes.
I could offer to contact Efford, but last time I contacted Eltham Labour Party the didn't respond.it was to tell them the next leaflet delivered to my door would be returned by brick through the window of their office. Maybe Pragues approach will be more fruitful
So an update on this, specifically re Clive Efford.
There is a feeling among some other Trust board members who are closer to home, that Clive Efford initially had a positive impression of this regime (and he has certainly had contact with them during 2014). We are not sure if he has had any contact more recently, so he may be a bit out of date. He's not going to have followed every step of what's been going on, especially as he's a Spanner.So it would actually help us, if an advance guard of individual fans in his constituency could write to Clive and (politely) start to put him right. Maybe a lot of you might feel able to agree that you too had a positive impression at first, but this has all fallen apart in the last months because, because, because. Previous recommendation to refer to his Bill stands, you could point out how this lot are apparently showing why it is necessary.
If he gets a few letters before the Trust approaches him, it means we don't have to cover too much the detail of their misdemeanours. If Matthew Pennycock gets similar mail that would be good because they will probably compare notes.
Comments
In November 2014 there were debates in both houses about fans' roles in club management.
In September there was a debate on the future of non-league football.
Believe it or not, someone once suggested that the house come to state that Arsenal are the best team in the world.
The MP for Ayrshire once questioned Mike Ashley's fitness to run Newcastle in Parliament.
There's a Minister for Sport. There's a committee for football fans representation.
I could go on if you like.
Football is an important part of our economy and national culture. Walk out to any set of public pitches on a cold Sunday morning to see that. Walk into any pub on a Saturday.
The idea you can't fathom why anyone would care about us fans makes me ask you this:
Are you Katrien Meire?
As I've stated several times it's their weird attutude to managers that troubles me the most and threatens the entire raison d'etre of their approach.
Granted, you wouldn't expect an MP to pile in with a list of potential transfer targets, but there is a general air of mismanagement on and off the field and fans are concerned. If an MP can amplify those concerns, so much the better.
Admittedly my studies of the accounts are rather geeky, but I urge every fan to read them to understand just how inherently awful the day-to-day finances of the club are.
It might make them more sympathetic to a new approach, albeit one not without its many flaws.
Or a school spends a fortune on playing fields but doesn't employ a headmaster. So none of the teachers or pupils know what class to attend.
Of course local MPs would get to hear about this level of absurd incompetence.
We may not be 100% correct. RD and KM may not be 100% wrong. But an approach from an MP might force them to the table to at least talk.
No club has a perfect record on transfers and ours is clearly mixed**, but at least we have a budget which wasn't true under the spivs nor the tail end of the Murray regime.
(**until they put a proper recognised manager/coach in charge we'll never know if there might be a decent player lurking inside Ba, Bergdich, Sarr etc.)
I've had a look at the accounts, and they're grim. And English football's finances outside the PL are screwed. But RD is using this club as an experiment, without even having the courtesy or honesty to even show up or explain what he's doing, and with a chief exec who insults fans.
We may not be 100% correct. RD and KM may not be 100% wrong. But an approach from an MP might force them to the table to at least talk.
Hi Inspector,
Can you email me in regard to this particular part of the campaign
Interested in discussing this, I was on the trust board till last AGM, and design the trust news, we have also worked for the same media organisation.
email: ken.sinyard@btinternet.com
You are comparing it to budgets before the new money and when we had all of our financial backing pulled, neither of which are accurate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying we should support them based on the fact they've put some money into the club, and you have no problems with their business model of player farming with no ambition other than financial.
He definitely agrees that politicians have a role to play. The specific goal, he says, is not that important. If a politician agrees that his/her consitutuents are right to be concerned they are likely to take up the issue - and first of all with the club itself. They will do this to satisfy themselves that there is a real issue at all, and how big it is. Just that act will increase overall pressure on the club and that is why it is worth doing. I know that Clive Efford has already talked with KM at least once (about the OS, and came away confused by what she told him).
Now, we are lucky that both local MPs have already either expressed an interest (Pennycock) or have the genral issue of club governance on their personal agenda (Efford). So to answer @newyorkaddick hopefully definitively, the Charlton case is relevant to Efford's biggest personal political activity in Parliament. It's a no-brainer.
Broadly what we should do is write referring to Efford's bill. Acknowledge that RD is a private owner, who has made investment, some of it of real value. But then go on to point out the rapid rise of discontent, leading to protests unprecedented since we left the Valley in 1985. The best thing we can ask the politicians for is to seek serious reassurance (and evidence) that our worst fears are unfounded. Of course they will not ask KM to sack Fraeye or spend x amount on players. But they may well suggest that unless they (KM and RD) seriously address the discontent, things could get worse, and as constituency MPs they don't want to see that on their patch. They don't want to see trouble, they don't want to see police time tied up, and they don't want to see normal law abiding citizens so unhappy that they have to resort to this. And they do want to be all over any such issue, not taken by surprise by it
So take no notice of @newyorkaddick. Regardless of what he thinks, Kevin Rye says this is exactly what politicians believe they exist for at local level. And I say, thank the Lord for that!.
Messrs Pennycock and Efford may come back with some messages which seek to pacify us, but let's see. The value to us will have been that they went so far as to call up KM and ask the questions.
I certainly expect that in the next few days the Trust will write to Clive Efford about it, but there is no need to wait for that, and nothing wrong with individuals writing separately. MP's have a rule of thumb. For every constituent who takes the trouble to write in, they assume 100 more have the same view. And your own words carry more weight than some template letter, they get too many of them from pressure groups nowadays.
There is a feeling among some other Trust board members who are closer to home, that Clive Efford initially had a positive impression of this regime (and he has certainly had contact with them during 2014). We are not sure if he has had any contact more recently, so he may be a bit out of date. He's not going to have followed every step of what's been going on, especially as he's a Spanner.So it would actually help us, if an advance guard of individual fans in his constituency could write to Clive and (politely) start to put him right. Maybe a lot of you might feel able to agree that you too had a positive impression at first, but this has all fallen apart in the last months because, because, because. Previous recommendation to refer to his Bill stands, you could point out how this lot are apparently showing why it is necessary.
If he gets a few letters before the Trust approaches him, it means we don't have to cover too much the detail of their misdemeanours. If Matthew Pennycock gets similar mail that would be good because they will probably compare notes.
Maybe Pragues approach will be more fruitful
http://www.cliveefford.org.uk/
Twitter @CliveEfford
He has a 'campaign' page on the website