sorry Prague but I for one will now consider leaving the Trust as I see no future in it, I understand that you wish to keep any future moves secret from the club but I can only judge your actions on what I know and all I know is that you have waved a bit of paper in the air and the club will just ignore you, a bit like 1939. we need a Churchill not a Chamberlain.
Let me remind you of one of the objectives in your constitution: 4.2 achieving the greatest possible supporter and community influence in the running and ownership of the Club;
with your current action you are not fulfilling that objective.
Sorry, I'm extremely confused. You suggested on the statement/Murray thread yesterday afternoon that the Trust should respond with the pertinent questions, which is exactly what we have done. Thought we were all meant to be pulling together?
A waste of time. The questions are far too polite and will be ignored by the club. What will we see from the trust in say.....2 weeks time, if they have not received a response from the club? A statement asking the club why they didn't respond to the trust? A polite letter to the club asking the same questions that they didn't initially get answers to? I'm sorry, but this failed experiment by RD & Co. has also raised questions about what the Trust does, it's purpose, it's objectives - because from where i'm sitting, I think the Trust needs to do far more than they currently are. Just my opinion.
A waste of time. The questions are far too polite and will be ignored by the club. What will we see from the trust in say.....2 weeks time, if they have not received a response from the club? A statement asking the club why they didn't respond to the trust? A polite letter to the club asking the same questions that they didn't initially get answers to? I'm sorry, but this failed experiment by RD & Co. has also raised questions about what the Trust does, it's purpose, it's objectives - because from where i'm sitting, I think the Trust needs to do far more than they currently are. Just my opinion.
Personally, I feel that the Trust has to remain polite if it is to have any chance of influencing the club in any way. Being aggressive or impolite isn't going to get them anywhere. It's fair enough for individual fans or large groups of individual fans to act more emotionally and passionately, but as a representative body, which aspires to be taken seriously I feel that the Trust is acting in the only way it can. I feel sure that the first draft of those questions wasn't so polite! :-)
Nothing wrong with being polite. The questions are there to be answered. Addresses the issues and should an answer not be forthcoming then The Trust have the right to escalate their action. Well done.
I am normally critical of the trust but they replied to yesterday's worthless 'statement' very well. However, the response does need to be issued as an official press release to the same press that the club used.
I am normally critical of the trust but they replied to yesterday's worthless 'statement' very well. However, the response does need to be issued as an official press release to the same press that the club used.
I am normally critical of the trust but they replied to yesterday's worthless 'statement' very well. However, the response does need to be issued as an official press release to the same press that the club used.
Play them at there own game.
Thanks. Press is being worked on as we speak.
then you should put on your web site what you intend to do with these excellent questions, not leave it to us to guess, after all not all fans read CL
Why does the Trust "welcome" the rubbish that was spouted? Sorry but I find this further approach for dialogue as divisive. It splits the fans between those who want new owners and who are getting all the publicity and gains and the Trust who still it appears still want the owners just to adjust things with them as advisors. What if the club answered the questions fully? What difference would it make?
Posted my appreciation for Weegie's efforts on the other thread running already but these are a well constructed, clearly defined set of questions and issues that needs/needed responding to by the Board.
The fact that the Q&A issued yesterday addressed none of these issues is being highlighted by the Trust through the media is also appreciated. Any talk of them being too polite or criticism of the lack of any deadline for a response is misplaced imo.
The Trust has a very difficult line to tread in not burning all its bridges with the club whilst at the same time representing it's members. Have they got that balance right on every occasion? No they haven't in my opinion but I don't see too much room to criticise in their response to the platitudes we were fed by the club yesterday.
Just because the trust welcome the comments is doesn't mean that it endorses them.
If you do not welcome the comments it also plays into there game of the fans being seen to being unreasonable. Charlton fans are better than that and them.
A waste of time. The questions are far too polite and will be ignored by the club. What will we see from the trust in say.....2 weeks time, if they have not received a response from the club? A statement asking the club why they didn't respond to the trust? A polite letter to the club asking the same questions that they didn't initially get answers to? I'm sorry, but this failed experiment by RD & Co. has also raised questions about what the Trust does, it's purpose, it's objectives - because from where i'm sitting, I think the Trust needs to do far more than they currently are. Just my opinion.
Personally, I feel that the Trust has to remain polite if it is to have any chance of influencing the club in any way. Being aggressive or impolite isn't going to get them anywhere. It's fair enough for individual fans or large groups of individual fans to act more emotionally and passionately, but as a representative body, which aspires to be taken seriously I feel that the Trust is acting in the only way it can. I feel sure that the first draft of those questions wasn't so polite! :-)
Exactly! And we should remember that the club's statement was not produced because of last Saturday's protests but because of the media coverage of the protests. Therefore it's important that the Trust's response is presented in a media-friendly way, even though, like most people, I would ask the questions somewhat more direct !
Good that it is being sent to press; should be an open letter. Also think it works better without a deadline. In the meantime protests must go on and be stepped up. Pressure from all angles in all ways. Little has ever been gained by stopping dialogue.
Why does the Trust "welcome" the rubbish that was spouted? Sorry but I find this further approach for dialogue as divisive. It splits the fans between those who want new owners and who are getting all the publicity and gains and the Trust who still it appears still want the owners just to adjust things with them as advisors. What if the club answered the questions fully? What difference would it make?
It's just being polite (no harm in that) and while Murray missed some massive issues he did explain the club's thinking in other areas. We not approve, but unlike Meire and RD at least he has spoken.
It does matter that we know where the club stands and that the board answers questions. With issues such as Fraeye, the lack of any certainty fuels discontent. If Murray has said Fraeye is in place to the end of the season, then at least we can stop wondering (and it would also show we had been lied to).
That he did not even address the two big grievances he had to be aware of after Saturday's protest (Meire and the manager) just underlines how out of touch the club is and how much he has sold out and is willing to try to remain a figure the fans can trust. I would suggest that the reason he did discuss these points is that he knows the answers (they are here for as long as Roland wants) would only antagonise people more. Sadly, that's just what he has done anyway.
It's a good article. The real question is likely to be for the trust when it does not get a satisfactory response - and really the timescale doesn't need spelling out, because delay will be an answer of itself.
I am not a member, but am glad the trust are maintaining this position. We need a good cop here, it has the obvious advantage of providing the club an outlet for dialogue if they cannot 'win' with other fans, but it also gives other movements license to be more creative and push the boundaries. The trust are clearly sympathetic to the aims of the protesters and this is their avenue for trying to affect change. Crack on I say. What possible harm could it do?
Why does the Trust "welcome" the rubbish that was spouted? Sorry but I find this further approach for dialogue as divisive. It splits the fans between those who want new owners and who are getting all the publicity and gains and the Trust who still it appears still want the owners just to adjust things with them as advisors. What if the club answered the questions fully? What difference would it make?
I agree with this. For all it had to do with the current predicament we're in he might has well have responded to the "questions" posed with his mums Christmas pudding recipe.
I think those questions should be on the billboards close to the ground, with a tick box (and a date) next to each one for when they are responded to...
Happy to help with any press release strategy - am planning a quiet day in the office ;-)
I think those questions should be on the billboards close to the ground, with a tick box (and a date) next to each one for when they are responded to...
Happy to help with any press release strategy - am planning a quiet day in the office ;-)
edit: well done trust.
And what difference would it make if they were answered. Even if they were fully honestly answered. None. If no answers protest and if honest answers protest.
I am not a member, but am glad the trust are maintaining this position. We need a good cop here, it has the obvious advantage of providing the club an outlet for dialogue if they cannot 'win' with other fans, but it also gives other movements license to be more creative and push the boundaries. The trust are clearly sympathetic to the aims of the protesters and this is their avenue for trying to affect change. Crack on I say. What possible harm could it do?
Spot on. I'm not a member and therefore the Trust don't speak for me but at the same time we are on the same side.
I'm more inclined to be in support of direct action like last Saturday to get this board out and hence will go down that route.
At the same time the Trust are providing a far less vitriolic avenue of dialogue.
This means that the board cannot hide without ridicule behind the defence of not having suitable channels through which to sufficiently communicate to.
The Trust do not represent the entire fan base nor have they ever claimed to to my knowledge. They represent their members who are invited to set the mandate via surveys and email communication from what I see.
Whether our displeasure is communicated via the diplomatic route of the Trust or the more militant vocal protests that many of us prefer the message is ultimately the same.
I've come round to thinking that rather than speaking for the entirety of discontented supporters they're a faction communicating the same message in a different manner.
We are still all operating in a unified approach and neither strategy is mutually exclusive.
For all those knocking the Trust (and I am not part of it), surely at times like this we are best having as many voices hammering at the door as possible? We cannot all behave in the same way. We (the fans) can, and should, protest and chant etc ... that doesn't mean other approaches through other channels are not just as effective.
For all those knocking the Trust (and I am not part of it), surely at times like this we are best having as many voices hammering at the door as possible? We cannot all behave in the same way. We (the fans) can, and should, protest and chant etc ... that doesn't mean other approaches through other channels are not just as effective.
I agree.
Rodney has summed it up that there can be different approaches.
I'm very pleased the Trust has stepped up and is now asking for specific answers to specific questions and not just for dialogue. It is what a lot of people having been suggesting for sometime.
I still think there should be a cut off point/deadline, whether that is made public or not, where the Trust says "Right, you haven't responded so we move to the next stage of campaigning".
@kentred2 I don't believe that they will answer the questions...the point of the billboard would be to embarrass them and remind them (and other, so far less engaged, supporters) of the deafening silence coming from them... If they were to ever actually answer them, then we would have more info to go on and act appropriately but yes, I still ultimately want them gone....this would hopefully speed things up...
Comments
Play them at there own game.
Sorry but I find this further approach for dialogue as divisive. It splits the fans between those who want new owners and who are getting all the publicity and gains and the Trust who still it appears still want the owners just to adjust things with them as advisors.
What if the club answered the questions fully? What difference would it make?
The fact that the Q&A issued yesterday addressed none of these issues is being highlighted by the Trust through the media is also appreciated. Any talk of them being too polite or criticism of the lack of any deadline for a response is misplaced imo.
The Trust has a very difficult line to tread in not burning all its bridges with the club whilst at the same time representing it's members. Have they got that balance right on every occasion? No they haven't in my opinion but I don't see too much room to criticise in their response to the platitudes we were fed by the club yesterday.
The Trust are not the problem here.
Just because the trust welcome the comments is doesn't mean that it endorses them.
If you do not welcome the comments it also plays into there game of the fans being seen to being unreasonable. Charlton fans are better than that and them.
Manners are free to all
It does matter that we know where the club stands and that the board answers questions. With issues such as Fraeye, the lack of any certainty fuels discontent. If Murray has said Fraeye is in place to the end of the season, then at least we can stop wondering (and it would also show we had been lied to).
That he did not even address the two big grievances he had to be aware of after Saturday's protest (Meire and the manager) just underlines how out of touch the club is and how much he has sold out and is willing to try to remain a figure the fans can trust. I would suggest that the reason he did discuss these points is that he knows the answers (they are here for as long as Roland wants) would only antagonise people more. Sadly, that's just what he has done anyway.
For all it had to do with the current predicament we're in he might has well have responded to the "questions" posed with his mums Christmas pudding recipe.
Happy to help with any press release strategy - am planning a quiet day in the office ;-)
edit: well done trust.
I'm more inclined to be in support of direct action like last Saturday to get this board out and hence will go down that route.
At the same time the Trust are providing a far less vitriolic avenue of dialogue.
This means that the board cannot hide without ridicule behind the defence of not having suitable channels through which to sufficiently communicate to.
The Trust do not represent the entire fan base nor have they ever claimed to to my knowledge. They represent their members who are invited to set the mandate via surveys and email communication from what I see.
Whether our displeasure is communicated via the diplomatic route of the Trust or the more militant vocal protests that many of us prefer the message is ultimately the same.
I've come round to thinking that rather than speaking for the entirety of discontented supporters they're a faction communicating the same message in a different manner.
We are still all operating in a unified approach and neither strategy is mutually exclusive.
A much stronger opponent to the regime this way.
Rodney has summed it up that there can be different approaches.
I'm very pleased the Trust has stepped up and is now asking for specific answers to specific questions and not just for dialogue. It is what a lot of people having been suggesting for sometime.
I still think there should be a cut off point/deadline, whether that is made public or not, where the Trust says "Right, you haven't responded so we move to the next stage of campaigning".