By my reckoning, a year has 12 months. So the "second half" is July to December.
I'm not being awkward but where does it categorically state Q2? It appears to be rather vague ...we were seeking certainty before making a decision to stay in or not.
We're going in circles here. The statement issued was agreed by the whole committee, so including KM and David Joyes. That is why it is "rather vague". You'll have to make your own mind up whether you trust the inferences or not, but I do believe that the fans ' reps have said they will withhold the June payment.
That's what I am looking for to put my mind at ease ...where can I find that statement?
Instead of paying out on 29th June it is paid on !st July, covers the committee's backside. Sound like a good old Trade Union v Employer fudge, where both sides are trying to save face.
I trust our two committee members of VG, I do not trust anyone employed by KM and therefore would like clarification what is meant by "later on in the year" but I realise that Rik is constrained by a joint decision and therefore I won't get clarification. Therefore my hope is to remain in VG until June and see what happens, my concern is how will I know what happens within V.G. and whether a payment is made to the club?
Shame the "all fans united" lasted as long as Wim de Corte's reign...
I think he's asking a perfectly pertinent question.
@rikofold has explained clearly why his tongue is tied and referred those asking to Sharron's comment re 2nd half of the year, which Henry was well aware of, but chose to ignore.
I didn't ignore it at all.
I made reference to it.
If what Sharon, an very able employee but still an employee, is saying is correct and no payment will be made in June then how is it she, an employee, can say this but a committee member can not? Has Sharon acted incorrectly and said something she shouldn't?
Why leave the ambiguity? Why allow more members to leave? Why not just say "There will be no payment in June" End of, done, everyone is happy and we "move on"
And if @rikofold doesn't want to answer my question because it is coming from me then answer the questions of the other VG members on this thread.
He won't say it because the the statement is, in my opinion, ambiguous. Whether @rikofold realised it was ambiguous at the time he helped draft it or only afterwards I don't know but it is ambiguous and I believe that some of the other committee members knew that it was at the time they drafted it. They teach you that in law school.
The problems I have are:
Under what circumstances will a payment be made? Statement was too vague. Why would the fans reps not give more detail? What would KM do if full disclosure of the threats were made public? Why won't the Management Committee facilitate a general meeting? Of course our hands are tied as we can't contact all members and they know that.
My next payment is due in a couple of weeks or so but I have cancelled my standing order. I would reconsider if there was more detail and that it said what I wanted to hear.
Sadly I do not anticipate changing my mind any time soon.
I trust our two committee members of VG, I do not trust anyone employed by KM and therefore would like clarification what is meant by "later on in the year" but I realise that Rik is constrained by a joint decision and therefore I won't get clarification. Therefore my hope is to remain in VG until June and see what happens, my concern is how will I know what happens within V.G. and whether a payment is made to the club?
That woman is on the VG committee. I was hoping she would have resigned by now, but alas no.
@rikofold has explained clearly why his tongue is tied
Then he should call a emergency GM and let the Members decided
It us up to members to call such a meeting - there is another thread re this.
The committee members can also call a general meeting is they so choose.
Didn't you suggest on a protest ideas thread that people shouldn't put forward ideas wanting others to make them happen?
Youre quite right I did which is why I called for VG members to write to VG to call a members meeting which many members but not yet the required 10% have done. I wrote to VG myself and called for such a meeting and I've written to the chair of VG asking for more information.
I doubt that minutes will be released given the vagueness of the statement. If they are, I am sure that they will be heavily sanitised or else rik would feel comfortable in giving more detail of the meeting.
Of course I am angry and want the regime out but I also think that as a member paying into this scheme I should be given greater information as people have requested. Members give the Management Committee the OK to operate the funds on our behalf and yes, I know that many many hours have been freely by rik and Paul of which I am grateful but times aren't normal and the status quo cannot surely continue?
When any committee that consists of opposing views issues a statement it is always a compromise and the committee members have to stick to the agreed statement, if they don't then the committee becomes unworkable. In the case of VG a payment to the club was due in June, the statement says that
"they would not consider any further major donations to the football club until later on in the year."
Now it seems to me that there possibly was a divergence of views on this and therefore we got an ambiguous statement but to me it says nothing will be handed over in June so that gives the members time to get the 10% and hold a general meeting. On that basis I shall write to VG asking for a meeting and keep paying my £10, after all if I don't I won't be a member and therefore can't ask for a meeting.
With respect I don't see how that statement says that no money will be handed over in June.
No it doesn't, but, as Lancashire Lad points out - it is a statement issued by a committee that consists of (wildly) opposing views. Therefore, it is an unsatisfactory compromise and I imagine there was wrangling over it for a good length of time just to achieve what we have ended up with
It isn't feasible for a member of that committee to then "clarify" it in a public forum, however much some would like to pretend they think it is a simple matter to do so.
So you have to make your interpretation from what is written in the statement and from what you have read from RikOfOld on this and other threads over recent months.
My interpretation of his position vis a vis the Duchatelet regime from his posts on CL is that he will rigorously protect VG contributions until he is satisfied that VG contributors would be comfortable with them being handed over.
If people decide to curtail their contributions that is their choice. But please don't do it just because Rik is handcuffed by an agreed committee statement
However, the supporters’ representatives felt that they could not overlook the concerns raised, and indicated that they would not consider any further major donations to the football club until later on in the year.
That could mean payment will be made in June .... which, as you know, many of us do not want.
It is a fair question and the longer Rich avoids it the more it seems that the answer is not one that you or I would like.
That could be easily and quickly disproved by @rikofold giving a direct answer.
We know he opposed the idea of withholding a payment in June and argued against it.
I'm not avoiding the question, but the committee agreed a statement and it's not for me to make my own variation.
What I will say is what Sharron has already said to you Henry - that it's reasonable to assume we're talking about the second half of the year. Make of that what you will, but as I say most people seem to have understood what the statement is saying.
I'm not the enemy, try not to forget that everyone, but I am constrained by my role.
But Sharon isn't a committee member, you are and I don't want to assume incorrectly.
Answer the question.
Henry, think u are being very harsh to at the reply you have been given - Rickfold has told you why he cannot reply to your request - accept it - we are all in this together some more than others - surely u can understand that!!
Just catching up on this. It's clear the membership needs to be fully consulted on withholding payment to the club. If I discover any more money is moving from VG into the coffers of the RD regime, then I'm afraid I'll have to cancel. No point in boycotting games if my cash is still going into his pockets via this route.
Never won a penny, either. Bloody scandal that too!
I agree, this is yet another communication shambles at best. At worst it is people in authority making decisions that should not be made without consulting with the Valley Gold members. Just send out a ballot asking the membership whether they want the June payment to be made. It's that simple
It is clear to me . Rik can not say more than the statement . That statement clearly says no payments will be made until later in the year and Rik has clearly said the majority would be with the fans . I believe the decision will depend on the situation at the time. I trust our representatives as real fans and suggest everyone stops vilifying rikofold and wait and see .
Cancellation of your subscription means less in the scheme and will lead to VG not being important to RD money wise, which in the end mean the end the whole thing......so let's keep in it provided not further payments are made to the club - What i would add is that VG members hold a meeting to discuss where donations should go if the current position with the owners does not change (Maybe payment to a separate account/the Trust) - just my thoughts......
As somebody who was particularly vocal and a bit hard on Rikofold on a previous thread, I think I do undertsand his message. I am happy to be corrected, but that is not that Valley Gold will pay the monies to the club later in the year, but will consider doing so. This is reasonable, if the conditions that force the original decision to change themselves change. I think it would have been helpful if that line was added to the message. That would be clear for the club, and would satisfy me as a member. I am, like others beyond angry at what this owner is doing to my club and that is why there are such strong feelings on here. I think an opportunity is now at hand to gauge the feelings of members to inform that later decision. I know that Rikofold isn't a supporter of the regime, so am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but the position taken has to reflect what the members want. We can find that out by just letting them walk away, but surely it is better to canvas opinion and keep them in. These are not just plain members, but people donating money, and that should never be forgotten. Henry's suggestion for a meeting would a) hopefully bring some more attention to the situation, and b) give members more of a chance to have a say. That is a way of ensuring members don't just leave, which I am as close to doing as I can possibly be. I think that is why Henry suggested it.
Wow, I am confused now. I thought that the VG Committee (probably by a majority of 3 to 2) had decided to withhold funds that were due now and that they had said payment of those, and presumably ongoing, would be reconsidered in June.
What I think I am reading is that the VG Committee have decided (probably by a majority of 3 to 2) is to consider withholding payments due in June (or second half of year payment for the pedants) i.e. no actual financial penalty to Duchatelet now?
If this is the case, the VG statement is misleading because it implied something was already being withheld. That would also be very disappointing because the implication is that they could agree to continue to make the payment in June and there has, in effect been no disruption in the flow of funds to Duchatelet.
Rikofold shouldn't come on here making the case if he's going to hide behind an ambiguously worded Committee statement. It's clearly ambiguous because of the repeat questions members are asking and the fact that he is hiding behind the Committee decision to avoid elaborating. What he should do is go back to the Committee and seek agreement to clarify the statement. If he doesn't, then you draw the conclusion that it was deliberately ambiguous to give the impression some action was being taken when in fact it was only a vague threat.
The simple fact is the VG Committee were forced into this statement by the number go ongoing cancellations and threat to the scheme. Unless there is clarification, I suggest those left consider cancelling their Standing Orders until we get a proper explanation. Unfortunately, dealing with the Regime now is all about action taken. That's the one thing we have learnt since the Woolwich Town Hall meeting one year ago.
Comments
Under what circumstances will a payment be made?
Statement was too vague. Why would the fans reps not give more detail?
What would KM do if full disclosure of the threats were made public?
Why won't the Management Committee facilitate a general meeting? Of course our hands are tied as we can't contact all members and they know that.
My next payment is due in a couple of weeks or so but I have cancelled my standing order. I would reconsider if there was more detail and that it said what I wanted to hear.
Sadly I do not anticipate changing my mind any time soon.
At that stage, provided the minutes do not take too long to get out, I will make my decision.
Of course I am angry and want the regime out but I also think that as a member paying into this scheme I should be given greater information as people have requested. Members give the Management Committee the OK to operate the funds on our behalf and yes, I know that many many hours have been freely by rik and Paul of which I am grateful but times aren't normal and the status quo cannot surely continue?
In the case of VG a payment to the club was due in June, the statement says that
"they would not consider any further major donations to the football club until later on in the year."
Now it seems to me that there possibly was a divergence of views on this and therefore we got an ambiguous statement but to me it says nothing will be handed over in June so that gives the members time to get the 10% and hold a general meeting.
On that basis I shall write to VG asking for a meeting and keep paying my £10, after all if I don't I won't be a member and therefore can't ask for a meeting.
It isn't feasible for a member of that committee to then "clarify" it in a public forum, however much some would like to pretend they think it is a simple matter to do so.
So you have to make your interpretation from what is written in the statement and from what you have read from RikOfOld on this and other threads over recent months.
My interpretation of his position vis a vis the Duchatelet regime from his posts on CL is that he will rigorously protect VG contributions until he is satisfied that VG contributors would be comfortable with them being handed over.
If people decide to curtail their contributions that is their choice. But please don't do it just because Rik is handcuffed by an agreed committee statement
Are VG going to give money to the RD ownership or not ?
contact, via email, valley gold.
What I think I am reading is that the VG Committee have decided (probably by a majority of 3 to 2) is to consider withholding payments due in June (or second half of year payment for the pedants) i.e. no actual financial penalty to Duchatelet now?
If this is the case, the VG statement is misleading because it implied something was already being withheld. That would also be very disappointing because the implication is that they could agree to continue to make the payment in June and there has, in effect been no disruption in the flow of funds to Duchatelet.
Rikofold shouldn't come on here making the case if he's going to hide behind an ambiguously worded Committee statement. It's clearly ambiguous because of the repeat questions members are asking and the fact that he is hiding behind the Committee decision to avoid elaborating. What he should do is go back to the Committee and seek agreement to clarify the statement. If he doesn't, then you draw the conclusion that it was deliberately ambiguous to give the impression some action was being taken when in fact it was only a vague threat.
The simple fact is the VG Committee were forced into this statement by the number go ongoing cancellations and threat to the scheme. Unless there is clarification, I suggest those left consider cancelling their Standing Orders until we get a proper explanation. Unfortunately, dealing with the Regime now is all about action taken. That's the one thing we have learnt since the Woolwich Town Hall meeting one year ago.