My simple folks take , having been too busy to read each and every thing over the last two weeks and skim read a bit (and I will probably be wrong on bits #disclaimer) is that Valley Gold needs Charlton Athletic (Roland's bit of it) involved with it for legal reasons ( lottery style whatever) and grown up adult stuff. Therefore they can't just ostracise KM and the other fella from Charlton from the legally formed committee , so this ambiguous statement is released to keep the Valley Gold ship running smoothly (ish) They can't come out and say we've told the current Charlton Athletic freak show to poke it and no money is coming because it would leave Charlton in a position where they may pull out and it all collapses due to all the rules etc I'm taking it as they've told them (KM and co) unless things change dramatically the next payment will not be forthcoming , whenever it is due and that will then mean we get to a point further down the line without Valley Gold going in to meltdown. What happens when we get to the "no you're knocked" point further down the line who knows but if I have misjudged things and there is a payment to the freak show then I as a Valley Gold member from its first day will cancel my subscription straight away but for now I will continue .
My simple folks take , having been too busy to read each and every thing over the last two weeks and skim read a bit (and I will probably be wrong on bits #disclaimer) is that Valley Gold needs Charlton Athletic (Roland's bit of it) involved with it for legal reasons ( lottery style whatever) and grown up adult stuff. Therefore they can't just ostracise KM and the other fella from Charlton from the legally formed committee , so this ambiguous statement is released to keep the Valley Gold ship running smoothly (ish) They can't come out and say we've told the current Charlton Athletic freak show to poke it and no money is coming because it would leave Charlton in a position where they may pull out and it all collapses due to all the rules etc I'm taking it as they've told them (KM and co) unless things change dramatically the next payment will not be forthcoming , whenever it is due and that will then mean we get to a point further down the line without Valley Gold going in to meltdown. What happens when we get to the "no you're knocked" point further down the line who knows but if I have misjudged things and there is a payment to the freak show then I as a Valley Gold member from its first day will cancel my subscription straight away but for now I will continue .
If this is the case, then the VG statement was misleading and I would suggest deliberately so in order to shore up the remaining membership.
I have personally decided not to give RD another penny of my money. However despite saying that I have remained in Valley Gold. If another payment is made to the club then it's quite simple for me,I then cancel!
I am not a member but may I politely suggest the entire debate over Valley Gold on this board over the past days/ weeks represents a complete difference of understanding of what the organisation represents. It is I understand a registered Small Society under the Gaming Act under which people may join a lottery for a specified set of aims defined by the named organisation.
There should be a set of registered rules & regulations governing the purpose of the society, its operations, its powers, its officials, the appointment of officials, their powers, their duties, their responsibilities in fulfilling compliance with both the prevailing rules and pertinent legislation, and any "subscriber" rights.
Any official is bound by the rules and regulations of the society.
I very much understand the frustration of more than a few "subscribers" and their wish to influence the prevailing rules and regulations in terms of the release of funds to the club under the current regime.
I recognise the statement recently issued by the committee is open to interpretation. While I sympathize with the challenges in releasing any agreed statement where committee members hold opposing views I am afraid with the best will in the world in the current climate it is not sufficiently robust to assure, many who are contributing to the society, of its intent.
It is worth remembering it is the responsibility of all officials and operational committee members to act at all times in the best interest of the society and the debate has to revolve around whether in this instance they have done so. The committee can argue it appears on the basis of the percentage of objections received to this point they have. In the event sufficient subscribers register their concerns then they will have a case to answer.
I respect there will be many very unhappy with the current unfortunate situation. All very frustrating but the challenge here rests largely with how the society was set up in the first place.
In light of these challenges it should not be beyond the powers of the committee, in the interests of the society, to agree and issue extraordinarily a clarifying statement. Whether such provision is allowed for in its rules is an issue but I suggest under the remit to act at all times in the best interests of the society the committee has such authority.
In the event the committee is unable to agree a) to issue such a clarifying statement b) the wording of any such clarifying statement then it falls to the chair of the committee to advise such an agreement could not be reached.
Those contributing to the society can then quite clearly draw their own conclusion.
The overriding principle here is not what is in the interests of the club or indeed individual contributors but the best interests of the society. No matter whether your membership of the committee arises from your position within the club or as a representative of the contributors or as an a independent chair such positions/ interests are secondary to the responsibility to the society.
Very sadly in the event committee, through its protection of separate interests, cannot fulfil its obligations under such responsibilities the implication is regrettably, no matter the personal attributes and efforts of the individuals concerned, the committee in its current format is not fit for purpose.
Such an issue would then (normally) have to be the subject of an extraordinary general meeting.
A very harsh possibly costly reality but them (normally) is the rules.
Actually what you've been trying to do is force a member of the committee to act in isolation and depart from the message that could be agreed with the committee. Read Ooahmortimer's post.
I accept Grapevine's point of view, the legal constitution is key but the interests of the scheme are a little more complex than whether members are happy this week or not. I have no issue not being on the committee, but the challenge is clearly that we have two parties in entrenched positions. Changing the personnel doesn't change that and neither party will accept an imbalanced reconstitution. One side holds the sway in terms of funding decisions, but not in terms of the statement that can be issued. It is obviously a compromise.
I will go back to the chair with Grapevine's views, but his independence means he will seek consensus, which led us to the statement. It is not in the scheme's interests to set a date and firm criteria, that's our problem, but as the next funding decision was due in June and the statement says it won't be considered until later in the year members might want to consider when the most effective measure of the club's intentions re the Academy players will next occur.
To be frank I think everything that's been said makes the position of the fans' reps obvious, even if not explicitly stated in a statement with which the club had to agree. It's simply a question of whether you want to believe we're in the club's thrall or batting for the members.
All I'll say on that is a search for two people who would hold the club to account in the context of the scheme more firmly than we have been doing will be a long one.
I feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall even though we are on the same side.
I dare so Rik feels the same. How many more times do you want him to explain how the statement had to be derived ? Do you really think you are asking a simple question or are you just pretending you think it is ?
I feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall even though we are on the same side.
I dare so Rik feels the same. How many more times do you want him to explain how the statement had to be derived ? Do you really think you are asking a simple question or are you just pretending you think it is ?
I feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall even though we are on the same side.
I dare so Rik feels the same. How many more times do you want him to explain how the statement had to be derived ? Do you really think you are asking a simple question or are you just pretending you think it is ?
Pico, if it was just me then fair enough. But it's not just me is it!
And if you think I am doing this just to get a rise then you can just piss off ...that is a genuinely offensive remark.
There's no point obviously.
I have already stated my decision will be made when I read the minutes.
Stonemuse - Sorry but I just don't understand how you can think you are asking a simple question when Rik and others (eg OoahMortimer) have clearly explained the complexities of the situation.
"Members unsettlement and the future of Charlton Club
The Committee discussed the members concerns over comments made by KM at a conference in Dublin. A statement is to be made to clarify how VG works, the club’s proposition and the funding of the Academy. Statement to go on the VG website and sent to all members with the next mail out."
There is nothing else about withholding or delaying payments and no record of any agreed action or deadline relating to delaying payment
The truth is out there ...unfortunately it isn't deemed necessary that we be informed of the details behind the minutes.
Too many people are taking the piss at the moment ...this is the briefest precis I have ever seen ...minutes are meant to be precise and a detailed record of the discussions that led to a recommendation and subsequently to the released statement.
The truth is out there ...unfortunately it isn't deemed necessary that we be informed of the details behind the minutes.
Too many people are taking the piss at the moment ...this is the briefest precis I have ever seen ...minutes are meant to be precise and a detailed record of the discussions that led to a recommendation and subsequently to the released statement.
Very poor show.
I share Stonemuse's (and others) frustration here, the situation is ridiculous. If the reps on Valley Gold feel that they can't give a definitive, clear statement on whether a payment will be made in June or not they should hold another meeting quickly with this issue being the sole agenda item. Then get back to all VG members to confirm June payment or otherwise.
Comments
Therefore they can't just ostracise KM and the other fella from Charlton from the legally formed committee , so this ambiguous statement is released to keep the Valley Gold ship running smoothly (ish)
They can't come out and say we've told the current Charlton Athletic freak show to poke it and no money is coming because it would leave Charlton in a position where they may pull out and it all collapses due to all the rules etc
I'm taking it as they've told them (KM and co) unless things change dramatically the next payment will not be forthcoming , whenever it is due and that will then mean we get to a point further down the line without Valley Gold going in to meltdown.
What happens when we get to the "no you're knocked" point further down the line who knows but if I have misjudged things and there is a payment to the freak show then I as a Valley Gold member from its first day will cancel my subscription straight away but for now I will continue .
There should be a set of registered rules & regulations governing the purpose of the society, its operations, its powers, its officials, the appointment of officials, their powers, their duties, their responsibilities in fulfilling compliance with both the prevailing rules and pertinent legislation, and any "subscriber" rights.
Any official is bound by the rules and regulations of the society.
I very much understand the frustration of more than a few "subscribers" and their wish to influence the prevailing rules and regulations in terms of the release of funds to the club under the current regime.
I recognise the statement recently issued by the committee is open to interpretation. While I sympathize with the challenges in releasing any agreed statement where committee members hold opposing views I am afraid with the best will in the world in the current climate it is not sufficiently robust to assure, many who are contributing to the society, of its intent.
It is worth remembering it is the responsibility of all officials and operational committee members to act at all times in the best interest of the society and the debate has to revolve around whether in this instance they have done so. The committee can argue it appears on the basis of the percentage of objections received to this point they have. In the event sufficient subscribers register their concerns then they will have a case to answer.
I respect there will be many very unhappy with the current unfortunate situation. All very frustrating but the challenge here rests largely with how the society was set up in the first place.
In light of these challenges it should not be beyond the powers of the committee, in the interests of the society, to agree and issue extraordinarily a clarifying statement. Whether such provision is allowed for in its rules is an issue but I suggest under the remit to act at all times in the best interests of the society the committee has such authority.
In the event the committee is unable to agree a) to issue such a clarifying statement b) the wording of any such clarifying statement then it falls to the chair of the committee to advise such an agreement could not be reached.
Those contributing to the society can then quite clearly draw their own conclusion.
The overriding principle here is not what is in the interests of the club or indeed individual contributors but the best interests of the society. No matter whether your membership of the committee arises from your position within the club or as a representative of the contributors or as an a independent chair such positions/ interests are secondary to the responsibility to the society.
Very sadly in the event committee, through its protection of separate interests, cannot fulfil its obligations under such responsibilities the implication is regrettably, no matter the personal attributes and efforts of the individuals concerned, the committee in its current format is not fit for purpose.
Such an issue would then (normally) have to be the subject of an extraordinary general meeting.
A very harsh possibly costly reality but them (normally) is the rules.
I accept Grapevine's point of view, the legal constitution is key but the interests of the scheme are a little more complex than whether members are happy this week or not. I have no issue not being on the committee, but the challenge is clearly that we have two parties in entrenched positions. Changing the personnel doesn't change that and neither party will accept an imbalanced reconstitution. One side holds the sway in terms of funding decisions, but not in terms of the statement that can be issued. It is obviously a compromise.
I will go back to the chair with Grapevine's views, but his independence means he will seek consensus, which led us to the statement. It is not in the scheme's interests to set a date and firm criteria, that's our problem, but as the next funding decision was due in June and the statement says it won't be considered until later in the year members might want to consider when the most effective measure of the club's intentions re the Academy players will next occur.
To be frank I think everything that's been said makes the position of the fans' reps obvious, even if not explicitly stated in a statement with which the club had to agree. It's simply a question of whether you want to believe we're in the club's thrall or batting for the members.
All I'll say on that is a search for two people who would hold the club to account in the context of the scheme more firmly than we have been doing will be a long one.
Have a nice day.
As I said, I'll now wait for the minutes before making my decision.
Let me try and put it simply:
I do not want to leave Valley Gold
I have never wanted to leave Valley Gold
I do not want one penny of my money to go into the club whilst RD and KM are there.
I would like a categorical assurance of the fact that this will be the case.
I do not see why, as a member, I have to 'read between the lines'. Spell it out in Black and White.
Hopefully the minutes will give me the clarification I need.
You are only a customer.......
etc, etc, wibble. ......
And if you think I am doing this just to get a rise then you can just piss off ...that is a genuinely offensive remark.
There's no point obviously.
I have already stated my decision will be made when I read the minutes.
The Committee discussed the members concerns over comments made by KM at a conference in Dublin.
A statement is to be made to clarify how VG works, the club’s proposition and the funding of the Academy.
Statement to go on the VG website and sent to all members with the next mail out."
There is nothing else about withholding or delaying payments and no record of any agreed action or deadline relating to delaying payment
Too many people are taking the piss at the moment ...this is the briefest precis I have ever seen ...minutes are meant to be precise and a detailed record of the discussions that led to a recommendation and subsequently to the released statement.
Very poor show.
Was there an apology or an explanation that the words had been taken out of context? Did she even care that supporters were unhappy about it?