I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
Low blow, I'm deeply wounded .
Give the ticket office NHS call centre a ring.
I like you GA at least you give me credit for being able to use the phone .
Landline, I hope, not one of these mobile things the young people have these days
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
Low blow, I'm deeply wounded .
Give the ticket office NHS call centre a ring.
I like you GA at least you give me credit for being able to use the phone .
Landline, I hope, not one of these mobile things the young people have these days
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
Have you found many booking sites that require you to call up so you can use them, though?
I also think it serves as the public face of the club when people visit the ground and since you must have ticketing staff why wouldn't you have them available to talk to fans face to face?
I have only had to call up occasionally eg. Leeds, but agree the site is not exactly seamless.
The online ticketing system is actually pretty decent, although it looks like shit and it's slow - the ability to print tickets off and order without being on the phone waiting for ages is great. That said, I was knocking out enterprise software at my last job which looked prettier.
Leeds was a good demonstration of one of it's weaknesses though: it looked as though you couldn't order tickets online, but you could if you logged in. So the system is also aware of restricted sale tickets, and seems to have logic to verify who can buy them... unless anyone can register and bypass those checks?
I do see online ticket sales as an adjunct to traditional methods - i.e in person and by telephone. Besides that, anything with technology needs staff to be on hand to resolve any difficulties.
The logic doesn't seem to reflect the actual restrictions, in my experience. For example, if you can buy two tickets as a season ticket holder it requires the second holder also to be eligible too (and then won't let you link to them because they are already on the system).
I set up bogus accounts to allow me to buy the tickets I need, but you don't need as many as you want tickets because you can buy one in each price category for each person, regardless of their age.
I do agree that the buy and print function for home games works well, but as soon as you need anything complicated it becomes a problem.
Out of interest is Airman a member of the Trust? Would have thought he'd be a great person to have on board
I am a member of the trust. I wouldn't want to be on its board, because as we've seen on here it leads people to believe you must be speaking for the trust when you're not.
The Trust are very aware of the issues raised above and pay particular attention to comments by members (sorry, Henry Irving and Kentred et al). As stated already by Prague and Rikofold it is a tricky balance.
I have been much quieter and more of an observer /listener on here since I joined the Trust Board, perhaps also as a result of a fair amount of pretty personal criticism because I dared to interview Chris Powell on behalf of Trust News on the eve of him visiting as an opposition manager. Little did I realise at the time that he would see it as an opportunity to pour his heart out to Charlton fans (at least he gets what the Trust is about...)
Opinions welcome, but please don't accuse the Trust of lack of concern or of self interest.
The Trust are very aware of the issues raised above and pay particular attention to comments by members (sorry, Henry Irving and Kentred et al). As stated already by Prague and Rikofold it is a tricky balance.
I have been much quieter and more of an observer /listener on here since I joined the Trust Board, perhaps also as a result of a fair amount of pretty personal criticism because I dared to interview Chris Powell on behalf of Trust News on the eve of him visiting as an opposition manager. Little did I realise at the time that he would see it as an opportunity to pour his heart out to Charlton fans (at least he gets what the Trust is about...)
Opinions welcome, but please don't accuse the Trust of lack of concern or of self interest.
The Trust are very aware of the issues raised above and pay particular attention to comments by members (sorry, Henry Irving and Kentred et al). As stated already by Prague and Rikofold it is a tricky balance.
I have been much quieter and more of an observer /listener on here since I joined the Trust Board, perhaps also as a result of a fair amount of pretty personal criticism because I dared to interview Chris Powell on behalf of Trust News on the eve of him visiting as an opposition manager. Little did I realise at the time that he would see it as an opportunity to pour his heart out to Charlton fans (at least he gets what the Trust is about...)
Opinions welcome, but please don't accuse the Trust of lack of concern or of self interest.
See what is wrong with wanting to interview a former legend of a player and manager. This trust bashing is mental to me. They do a great job. Anyway I appreciate there are other treads dedicated to the trust so won't dwell on it, just keen to put my continued support on record
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
Low blow, I'm deeply wounded .
So, an enterprise that you don't trust the management to run the club, that has made cutbacks in the back room, doesn't currently have a head of comms, but you do trust them to run a secure website and Internet booking facility with all your personal banking details ?
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
Low blow, I'm deeply wounded .
So, an enterprise that you don't trust the management to run the club, that has made cutbacks in the back room, doesn't currently have a head of comms, but you do trust them to run a secure website and Internet booking facility with all your personal banking details ?
Eh? That's one hell of a leap there. It was a tongue in cheek comment to Mogodon at his inference that us oldies are deemed technophobes hence the winky / smiley thing. I wouldn't trust them to run me a bath as it happens and they certainly don't have my banking details! Hope that makes it a bit clearer for you.
I can understand the trusts stance and why they are delaying getting fully behind the Roland out movement. They need to see if a few signings and an upturn in results is enough to dissipate fan feelings like last year. I think that this is unlikely to happen and that feeling is much stronger this year I do think that the end of the month is D day for the trust though! I expect to see a trust statement on the first of Feb explaining how any attempt at dialogue has been rejected and so the time for talking is over and they are now backing the campaign.
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
I think it is, for the reasons already stated, and I also because as far as I am aware, every other reasonably sized football club in the land has an office available on every normal working day where you can buy a ticket in person. As do theatres and concert venues etc. If they see the value in it, I am happy to go along with the 99.99% rather than, well, err... one football club somewhere in south east London.
No one is accusing the trust of lack of concern, just what appears to be a lack of action.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
Lack of action in terms of leading the protest side? Sure, but not lack of action per se, as has been said a number of times. A lot of work has and is going into action to secure the ongoing influential conversation, and to get the real plans properly shared. It may well prove fruitless, but we and the G21 were the only ones trying to do anything back in January, lest we forget, and we've continued our work throughout the year.
No one is accusing the trust of lack of concern, just what appears to be a lack of action.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
Lack of action in terms of leading the protest side? Sure, but not lack of action per se, as has been said a number of times. A lot of work has and is going into action to secure the ongoing influential conversation, and to get the real plans properly shared. It may well prove fruitless, but we and the G21 were the only ones trying to do anything back in January, lest we forget, and we've continued our work throughout the year.
Just for the record, my comment was not a critiscm of the trust.
No one is accusing the trust of lack of concern, just what appears to be a lack of action.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
Lack of action in terms of leading the protest side? Sure, but not lack of action per se, as has been said a number of times. A lot of work has and is going into action to secure the ongoing influential conversation, and to get the real plans properly shared. It may well prove fruitless, but we and the G21 were the only ones trying to do anything back in January, lest we forget, and we've continued our work throughout the year.
"Influential conversation" as an aim is the problem when the majority just want new owners. It is a problem because it assumes a conversation is possible, it assumes the Trust can add anything that would improve things and thirdly it adds legitimacy to the owners whilst others want them out.
As a member I feel frustrated that the Trust Board (influenced by Murray?) continue with this course of action.
The Trust is an irritant to KM, she will say she will listen and also wants dialogue with her customers but at the end of the day she is only paying lip service to the trust.
No one is accusing the trust of lack of concern, just what appears to be a lack of action.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
Lack of action in terms of leading the protest side? Sure, but not lack of action per se, as has been said a number of times. A lot of work has and is going into action to secure the ongoing influential conversation, and to get the real plans properly shared. It may well prove fruitless, but we and the G21 were the only ones trying to do anything back in January, lest we forget, and we've continued our work throughout the year.
"Influential conversation" as an aim is the problem when the majority just want new owners. It is a problem because it assumes a conversation is possible, it assumes the Trust can add anything that would improve things and thirdly it adds legitimacy to the owners whilst others want them out.
As a member I feel frustrated that the Trust Board (influenced by Murray?) continue with this course of action.
I feel this is potentially a large issue that the Trust board needs to consider; a lot of Supporter sentiment at the moment revolves around the position of the current regime being both untenable and beyond the point of repair. Similarly, the supporters are arguably in their strongest position ever.
Were it to conspire that the Trust had, despite the apparent Supporter sentiment, gone against those that they represent and effectively enabled the current regime to continue - I think it would be very damaging. Not just that they enabled the current regime to continue, but also because they'd effectively propped the regime up at the one point the Supporters were at the strongest - both in voice and media.
However, were they to continue on the path of trying to open dialog - and if such attempts failed - it would demonstrate that The Trust were essentially neglecting a very real and strong fan-led movement whilst chasing a futile path that had failed previously. That they were doing this and essentially weakening any Supporter efforts by providing the regime with an alternative to confronting the fans directly would be also be very damaging.
That last possibility is the likelihood as far as I'm concerned.
Despite this, I will be renewing my subscription as mentioned yesterday, because I do feel tha the Trust are acting in a way that does have the best of intentions regarding the club. I do fear for the potential of the Trust becoming a party to any club-led 'divide and conquer' tactics, but would trust that were that situation to occur they would then remember who they are truly loyal too (The Supporters) and suitably adjust their stance appropriately. In short I have faith in The Trust, but do fear that their current stance may be at odds with general Supporter sentiment - but that given the Trust's position, along with their requirement for a working relationship with the club, they may need to exhaust all potential avenues before they "join the protests".
No one is accusing the trust of lack of concern, just what appears to be a lack of action.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
Lack of action in terms of leading the protest side? Sure, but not lack of action per se, as has been said a number of times. A lot of work has and is going into action to secure the ongoing influential conversation, and to get the real plans properly shared. It may well prove fruitless, but we and the G21 were the only ones trying to do anything back in January, lest we forget, and we've continued our work throughout the year.
"Influential conversation" as an aim is the problem when the majority just want new owners. It is a problem because it assumes a conversation is possible, it assumes the Trust can add anything that would improve things and thirdly it adds legitimacy to the owners whilst others want them out.
As a member I feel frustrated that the Trust Board (influenced by Murray?) continue with this course of action.
I feel this is potentially a large issue that the Trust board needs to consider; a lot of Supporter sentiment at the moment revolves around the position of the current regime being both untenable and beyond the point of repair. Similarly, the supporters are arguably in their strongest position ever.
Were it to conspire that the Trust had, despite the apparent Supporter sentiment, gone against those that they represent and effectively enabled the current regime to continue - I think it would be very damaging. Not just that they enabled the current regime to continue, but also because they'd effectively propped the regime up at the one point the Supporters were at the strongest - both in voice and media.
However, were they to continue on the path of trying to open dialog - and if such attempts failed - it would demonstrate that The Trust were essentially neglecting a very real and strong fan-led movement whilst chasing a futile path that had failed previously. That they were doing this and essentially weakening any Supporter efforts by providing the regime with an alternative to confronting the fans directly would be also be very damaging.
That last possibility is the likelihood as far as I'm concerned.
Despite this, I will be renewing my subscription as mentioned yesterday, because I do feel tha the Trust are acting in a way that does have the best of intentions regarding the club. I do fear for the potential of the Trust becoming a party to any club-led 'divide and conquer' tactics, but would trust that were that situation to occur they would then remember who they are truly loyal too (The Supporters) and suitably adjust their stance appropriately.
I really don't think the Supporters Trust are "propping the regime up".
No one is accusing the trust of lack of concern, just what appears to be a lack of action.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
Lack of action in terms of leading the protest side? Sure, but not lack of action per se, as has been said a number of times. A lot of work has and is going into action to secure the ongoing influential conversation, and to get the real plans properly shared. It may well prove fruitless, but we and the G21 were the only ones trying to do anything back in January, lest we forget, and we've continued our work throughout the year.
"Influential conversation" as an aim is the problem when the majority just want new owners. It is a problem because it assumes a conversation is possible, it assumes the Trust can add anything that would improve things and thirdly it adds legitimacy to the owners whilst others want them out.
As a member I feel frustrated that the Trust Board (influenced by Murray?) continue with this course of action.
I feel this is potentially a large issue that the Trust board needs to consider; a lot of Supporter sentiment at the moment revolves around the position of the current regime being both untenable and beyond the point of repair. Similarly, the supporters are arguably in their strongest position ever.
Were it to conspire that the Trust had, despite the apparent Supporter sentiment, gone against those that they represent and effectively enabled the current regime to continue - I think it would be very damaging. Not just that they enabled the current regime to continue, but also because they'd effectively propped the regime up at the one point the Supporters were at the strongest - both in voice and media.
However, were they to continue on the path of trying to open dialog - and if such attempts failed - it would demonstrate that The Trust were essentially neglecting a very real and strong fan-led movement whilst chasing a futile path that had failed previously. That they were doing this and essentially weakening any Supporter efforts by providing the regime with an alternative to confronting the fans directly would be also be very damaging.
That last possibility is the likelihood as far as I'm concerned.
Despite this, I will be renewing my subscription as mentioned yesterday, because I do feel tha the Trust are acting in a way that does have the best of intentions regarding the club. I do fear for the potential of the Trust becoming a party to any club-led 'divide and conquer' tactics, but would trust that were that situation to occur they would then remember who they are truly loyal too (The Supporters) and suitably adjust their stance appropriately.
I really don't think the Supporters Trust are "propping the regime up".
Nope, not at all. That's a worst case scenario, but one that I think the Trust would potentially be open too.
If it were to conspire that the regime were contemplating liaising with potential buyers (which, is something we understand as a possibility) and had realised just how strong the fan sentiment is against them, it would undoubtedly make them more open to exiting the club more quickly than expected.
However, if the Trust were to open dialog with the club - and suggest that by doing so the Trust may be able to "improve relations with the supporters" it could well provide the regime with a lifeline that would prolong their tenure here. Something which is directly at odds with the fans, and is arguably a form of strengthening the regime's position (or mindset, at least) and could be construed as propping them up.
The trust would be crazy not to take advantage of any situation like that, because it gives them a stronger position with the existing regime - the one in power that they need an ideal relationship with. Unfortunately, the fans seemingly think the time for a relationship has gone as they're damaging the club irreparably with no clear indication that they care or are likely to change.
I guess I see The Trust as being a bit buggered at the moment; if they align themselves to the protests, then they distance themselves with the regime - and vice-versa; when they need a good working relationship with both. If they distance themselves with the protests via dialog with the fans then it's equally lose-lose, as they either fail and look futile - or they succeed and get accused of what I describe above. I have no answers, and have said above that I'll be subscribing to the trust again as I have faith that they'll do as they see best.
No one is accusing the trust of lack of concern, just what appears to be a lack of action.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
Lack of action in terms of leading the protest side? Sure, but not lack of action per se, as has been said a number of times. A lot of work has and is going into action to secure the ongoing influential conversation, and to get the real plans properly shared. It may well prove fruitless, but we and the G21 were the only ones trying to do anything back in January, lest we forget, and we've continued our work throughout the year.
"Influential conversation" as an aim is the problem when the majority just want new owners. It is a problem because it assumes a conversation is possible, it assumes the Trust can add anything that would improve things and thirdly it adds legitimacy to the owners whilst others want them out.
As a member I feel frustrated that the Trust Board (influenced by Murray?) continue with this course of action.
The Trust is an irritant to KM, she will say she will listen and also wants dialogue with her customers but at the end of the day she is only paying lip service to the trust.
I think the sentiment is perfectly clear, and these three posts are just ones on this page.
I tend to agree that dialog is destined to fail and that the regime have made it clear how much they really care about our views on previous occasions. I also agree that the best move for Charlton Athletic is for new ownership to be sought, and to open up the current regime to negotiating with potential investors.
For me, media attention and obvious fan unrest are potentially a good way at initially putting pressure on the owners.
The Trust is an irritant to KM, she will say she will listen and also wants dialogue with her customers but at the end of the day she is only paying lip service to the trust.
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
I think it is, for the reasons already stated, and I also because as far as I am aware, every other reasonably sized football club in the land has an office available on every normal working day where you can buy a ticket in person. As do theatres and concert venues etc. If they see the value in it, I am happy to go along with the 99.99% rather than, well, err... one football club somewhere in south east London.
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet. Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
But surely she knows most Charlton fans are pensioners and don't understand the interweb and such things?
Low blow, I'm deeply wounded .
Give the ticket office NHS call centre a ring.
I'm wondering if Katrien is a big fan of the Saturday night TVs series , casualty, and wants the real thing at Charlton, the clubs certainly in the A and E department at the moment, where the heck the defibrillators are is anyone's guess!
I consider myself relatively old-fashioned but I can't recall the last time I booked a ticket for a sports event, cinema, theatre, flight, gig, hotel etc. via any route other than the internet.
Shutting it on matchdays (for selling tickets for other games) would be pretty daft of course.
I think it is, for the reasons already stated, and I also because as far as I am aware, every other reasonably sized football club in the land has an office available on every normal working day where you can buy a ticket in person. As do theatres and concert venues etc. If they see the value in it, I am happy to go along with the 99.99% rather than, well, err... one football club somewhere in south east London.
The diverse nature of the Ticket office under Roland, Means you now have a Happy hour, when you can get a Match ticket and Viagra ? Stand up if you love Charlton !
Comments
I set up bogus accounts to allow me to buy the tickets I need, but you don't need as many as you want tickets because you can buy one in each price category for each person, regardless of their age.
I do agree that the buy and print function for home games works well, but as soon as you need anything complicated it becomes a problem.
I have been much quieter and more of an observer /listener on here since I joined the Trust Board, perhaps also as a result of a fair amount of pretty personal criticism because I dared to interview Chris Powell on behalf of Trust News on the eve of him visiting as an opposition manager. Little did I realise at the time that he would see it as an opportunity to pour his heart out to Charlton fans (at least he gets what the Trust is about...)
Opinions welcome, but please don't accuse the Trust of lack of concern or of self interest.
However, members will have to trust the board and hope that what they are doing is right.
As a member I feel frustrated that the Trust Board (influenced by Murray?) continue with this course of action.
Were it to conspire that the Trust had, despite the apparent Supporter sentiment, gone against those that they represent and effectively enabled the current regime to continue - I think it would be very damaging. Not just that they enabled the current regime to continue, but also because they'd effectively propped the regime up at the one point the Supporters were at the strongest - both in voice and media.
However, were they to continue on the path of trying to open dialog - and if such attempts failed - it would demonstrate that The Trust were essentially neglecting a very real and strong fan-led movement whilst chasing a futile path that had failed previously. That they were doing this and essentially weakening any Supporter efforts by providing the regime with an alternative to confronting the fans directly would be also be very damaging.
That last possibility is the likelihood as far as I'm concerned.
Despite this, I will be renewing my subscription as mentioned yesterday, because I do feel tha the Trust are acting in a way that does have the best of intentions regarding the club. I do fear for the potential of the Trust becoming a party to any club-led 'divide and conquer' tactics, but would trust that were that situation to occur they would then remember who they are truly loyal too (The Supporters) and suitably adjust their stance appropriately. In short I have faith in The Trust, but do fear that their current stance may be at odds with general Supporter sentiment - but that given the Trust's position, along with their requirement for a working relationship with the club, they may need to exhaust all potential avenues before they "join the protests".
If it were to conspire that the regime were contemplating liaising with potential buyers (which, is something we understand as a possibility) and had realised just how strong the fan sentiment is against them, it would undoubtedly make them more open to exiting the club more quickly than expected.
However, if the Trust were to open dialog with the club - and suggest that by doing so the Trust may be able to "improve relations with the supporters" it could well provide the regime with a lifeline that would prolong their tenure here. Something which is directly at odds with the fans, and is arguably a form of strengthening the regime's position (or mindset, at least) and could be construed as propping them up.
The trust would be crazy not to take advantage of any situation like that, because it gives them a stronger position with the existing regime - the one in power that they need an ideal relationship with. Unfortunately, the fans seemingly think the time for a relationship has gone as they're damaging the club irreparably with no clear indication that they care or are likely to change.
I guess I see The Trust as being a bit buggered at the moment; if they align themselves to the protests, then they distance themselves with the regime - and vice-versa; when they need a good working relationship with both. If they distance themselves with the protests via dialog with the fans then it's equally lose-lose, as they either fail and look futile - or they succeed and get accused of what I describe above. I have no answers, and have said above that I'll be subscribing to the trust again as I have faith that they'll do as they see best.
Do me a favour!!!!!!
I tend to agree that dialog is destined to fail and that the regime have made it clear how much they really care about our views on previous occasions. I also agree that the best move for Charlton Athletic is for new ownership to be sought, and to open up the current regime to negotiating with potential investors.
For me, media attention and obvious fan unrest are potentially a good way at initially putting pressure on the owners.
Means you now have a Happy hour, when you can get a Match ticket
and Viagra ? Stand up if you love Charlton !
Anonymous owners and another disastrous managerial appointment have the Addicks fearing relegation to League Two.