In a deal like the Coco5 thing, I can see that is a straight transaction with the cafc regime - publicity for cash. Harming that deal takes cash directly from Roland's pocket.
With UofG, the relationship seems a bit more complex and community-based. Sharing facilities, providing students with valuable TV experience etc etc.
Everyone is free to do as they wish, but I'd be interested to see how much destroying the UofG sponsorship would actually cost the Regime. My guess is that UofG aren't shovelling over loads of money to cafc, and that this mostly just breaks community ties for the club and those that benefit at a much lower rung than the owner and CEO.
I can't imagine Roly D losing sleep because a university football team can't train in a sports hall, and their students can't train for future TV careers (or whatever).
Just my opinion, I'm not as well versed in this stuff as some on here.
If that's all it is , then UOG will swiftly remove their backing/sponsorship - however the sparrows lane redevelopments hinge on working with UOG so it could prove to be a huge obstacle or even derail those plans!
And the regime will have o find another sponsor t take UOG's place....
The fact we have announced studentpriced tickets for next season suggests there is already a deal in place for next season.
In fact, many kit and sponsorship deals get signed off many months beforehand, as the companies need to set the budgets for marketing, advertising and sponsorship pretty early on, so I think you'll find the boat has well and truly been missed
I don't think the season ticket option has anything specific to do with UoG. Indeed, it won't make any difference to the (majority of?) their students who are under 21.
I regret I must advise of the growing concern within the local community with regard to the Universitys' relationship with the current regime at Charlton Athletic Football Club.
When this relationship was announced I believe most welcomed the innovative approach in furthering the interests and profile of both organisations while strengthening ties and broadening services to the local community.
No one underestimates the potentially significant funds the current Belgian Corporate owner might invest in club and/ community facilities but very regrettably it is glaringly apparent with the curriculum they have chosen to impose none of the current executive either understands or respects the industry in which they have chosen to invest.
UK professional football can be described as being governed by, at best, benign dictatorship. As such, executive power has long been open to abuse. Students of professional football will know South London has seen its fair share of such abuse at Crystal Palace, at Wimbledon and the clubs' previous departure from the Valley in 1985.
It is a matter of unique history and no little pride the local community was able to secure the clubs return to the Valley in exhibiting what can be achieved in bringing about change through partnership and communication. It is little surprise the current executive appears to wish to draw a veil over the clubs' history.
While not as transparent the challenges for the club today are just as pernicious as those of three decades ago.
I am sure you will agree paramount to the developing the University's "partnership" with the club is the need to communicate and engage with the local communities and indeed with the very many interested parties beyond.
Through the Supporters Trust, a Spell it Out Campaign reinforced by the Black & White theme, supporters have gone beyond what is reasonable in attempting to engage with the club. The clubs' executive will not engage. They talk at the community, not to it and with each feeble missive it is depressingly clear they have little of value to say. Their response has been derisory.
Charlton Athletic Football Club as it is today has seen thousands vote with their feet and depart taking their money with them. There is every indication thousands more will follow.
Its future as a viable competitive professional club is at stake. The club today is unrecognisable as a professional sporting organisation. Executive policies have completely failed to provide one compelling argument by word or deed for their program. The end result has been little short of sporting and operational carnage.
They remain locked into the same dogma assumed from the day they took control. They neither understand nor respect the principles of competitive professional team sport or the unique heritage of Charlton Athletic Football Club.
Anecdotal evidence concerning the corporate umbrella of the owner abounds across Standard Liege, STVV (for a decade) in Belgium, Carl Zeiss Jena in Germany and SE7. Condemnations ring out across the sporting industry and international borders.
The statistics speak for themselves. They are not ones which speak to a vibrant and successful future. There is no vision here. For two strong functioning operating community organisations whose origins go back over a century this is neither the place nor the time for any intellectual project/ exercise worthy of consideration.
For the University of Greenwich, an institution built on the principles "to learn, to do, to achieve", your association with a regime which has palpably shown no ability or any aspiration to meet any of those criteria is poorly served and the relationship ill judged.
"Anne Poulson, the University of Greenwich’s Chief Operating Officer, says the partnership is an exciting venture. “Both institutions have long-standing commitments to serving our local community, and it made a great deal of sense for us to come together, combining resources to work more closely with, for instance, schools, hospitals and community groups,” she says."
"Anne Poulson, the University of Greenwich’s Chief Operating Officer, says the partnership is an exciting venture. “Both institutions have long-standing commitments to serving our local community, and it made a great deal of sense for us to come together, combining resources to work more closely with, for instance, schools, hospitals and community groups,” she says."
(Some poor sod is probably sitting there thinking "FFS, not ANOTHER one!")
I sent my email to Prof Maguire on 4 March! Not so much as an acknowledgement as yet mate.
In my former life an acknowledgement to correspondence had to be sent within 48 hours as a bare minimum. Things just ain't what they used to be, more's the pity . He could be on leave or off sick I suppose .
In a deal like the Coco5 thing, I can see that is a straight transaction with the cafc regime - publicity for cash. Harming that deal takes cash directly from Roland's pocket.
With UofG, the relationship seems a bit more complex and community-based. Sharing facilities, providing students with valuable TV experience etc etc.
Everyone is free to do as they wish, but I'd be interested to see how much destroying the UofG sponsorship would actually cost the Regime. My guess is that UofG aren't shovelling over loads of money to cafc, and that this mostly just breaks community ties for the club and those that benefit at a much lower rung than the owner and CEO.
I can't imagine Roly D losing sleep because a university football team can't train in a sports hall, and their students can't train for future TV careers (or whatever).
Just my opinion, I'm not as well versed in this stuff as some on here.
Depends on your definition of shovelling over loads of money Davey, after all the regime as you call it were quick enough to comment on the good work of there community work with the community trust when the MP's enquired, and the submission of the training ground planning proposals also endlessly mentions the local community, and the community trust in its planning application. As I have posted on this page above, the University is an important part of the community, and its role in education is very important. As I mentioned it is not only the financial input that the UoG put in, but there endorsement, the same could be said of the RBG who use the premises of CAFC for seminars and presentations. I used to use the valley for my local football club presentation night, I have mentioned this to the now club chairman and they have cancelled there awards night. I also mentioned the hiring of the pitch at the end of the season to various organisations, to contacts in the events planning world. This is a question of cutting off the revenue, and showing this regime that supporters have an effect, not in only attending games and purchasing pies and shirts, but that the 'Club' are part of the community, in both the business and social marketing sense.
Pity that the UoG employees\posters have not commented on this page eh 'Henry the cat'...... Be interested to hear those views, either in support of the current situation.
I have deliberately not been commenting and have kept out of this conversation so far, but since you asked Ken...
I have not been party to the arrangements around the direct shirt sponsorship deal and am not particularly interested in it if I am honest. My interest is in how I can increase opportunities for students to gain experience in work which is applicable to their studies. The overall partnership is quite complex and isn't a simple transaction of paying money for name on a shirt. It involves working in partnership on a number of projects which includes coursework as part of various courses, employing students to do different activities (again in line with their studies) and some volunteering. It spreads right across the University and there are a number of programmes (particularly in health and science and education) which have embedded work with the club and the trust into courses.
The partnership also includes the community trust and is an important part, in my mind, of making the University a community based institution rather than a high handed academic organisation. To give a picture of the depth of interaction, in the past week I have been corresponding with three different areas of the club and two areas of the community trust, all on different projects involving students. Some have been research based, some giving work experience, and some volunteering.
From my view breaking the relationship between club and UoG would make my students experience a lot worse and remove a whole load of opportunities I have been working on for the last few months. These are things which would be really good for the students. Putting aside all of the problems we have with RD, etc. the relationship has been a great success and there are students who have obtained work directly on the back of the work done at Charlton. This is why I haven't commented so far.
I don't know for sure, but nothing has come my way that suggests the relationship is under threat. The recent publicity about CAFC and our health departments shows the long term commitment to the partnership. Having CAFC as a partner in a research bid will be seen as positive regardless of the current bad publicity.
Any relationship that UoG has with the Club would be better served by the Community Trust, as they're experienced, awarding-winning and know what they are doing.
"Anne Poulson, the University of Greenwich’s Chief Operating Officer, says the partnership is an exciting venture. “Both institutions have long-standing commitments to serving our local community, and it made a great deal of sense for us to come together, combining resources to work more closely with, for instance, schools, hospitals and community groups,” she says."
How ignorant is that??!!
I don't see why that is ignorant ?
I agree on reflection. Wrong word to use. Uninformed would have been closer to what I meant.
In a deal like the Coco5 thing, I can see that is a straight transaction with the cafc regime - publicity for cash. Harming that deal takes cash directly from Roland's pocket.
With UofG, the relationship seems a bit more complex and community-based. Sharing facilities, providing students with valuable TV experience etc etc.
Everyone is free to do as they wish, but I'd be interested to see how much destroying the UofG sponsorship would actually cost the Regime. My guess is that UofG aren't shovelling over loads of money to cafc, and that this mostly just breaks community ties for the club and those that benefit at a much lower rung than the owner and CEO.
I can't imagine Roly D losing sleep because a university football team can't train in a sports hall, and their students can't train for future TV careers (or whatever).
Just my opinion, I'm not as well versed in this stuff as some on here.
If that's all it is , then UOG will swiftly remove their backing/sponsorship - however the sparrows lane redevelopments hinge on working with UOG so it could prove to be a huge obstacle or even derail those plans!
That was very true of the original scheme - I think it's much less true (if at all) of the revised one, judging from the planning statement submitted with the application. There are other links, however.
Oh ok , I thought the plans were very similar in regards to what UOG had added etc! I don't care for Cat1 under RD , so stopping any trading ground work being done is a good thing as it stops the regime from using us as they plan!
Not sure about this, having Cat1 seems necessary for a premiership or premiership ambition club, seems sensible for a championship club, like a total waste of money for a league 1 club
I have deliberately not been commenting and have kept out of this conversation so far, but since you asked Ken...
I have not been party to the arrangements around the direct shirt sponsorship deal and am not particularly interested in it if I am honest. My interest is in how I can increase opportunities for students to gain experience in work which is applicable to their studies. The overall partnership is quite complex and isn't a simple transaction of paying money for name on a shirt. It involves working in partnership on a number of projects which includes coursework as part of various courses, employing students to do different activities (again in line with their studies) and some volunteering. It spreads right across the University and there are a number of programmes (particularly in health and science and education) which have embedded work with the club and the trust into courses.
The partnership also includes the community trust and is an important part, in my mind, of making the University a community based institution rather than a high handed academic organisation. To give a picture of the depth of interaction, in the past week I have been corresponding with three different areas of the club and two areas of the community trust, all on different projects involving students. Some have been research based, some giving work experience, and some volunteering.
From my view breaking the relationship between club and UoG would make my students experience a lot worse and remove a whole load of opportunities I have been working on for the last few months. These are things which would be really good for the students. Putting aside all of the problems we have with RD, etc. the relationship has been a great success and there are students who have obtained work directly on the back of the work done at Charlton. This is why I haven't commented so far.
I don't know for sure, but nothing has come my way that suggests the relationship is under threat. The recent publicity about CAFC and our health departments shows the long term commitment to the partnership. Having CAFC as a partner in a research bid will be seen as positive regardless of the current bad publicity.
I did ask and thank you for the reply, although I do not quite share shall we say quite the perspective that you choose to highlight, You yourself have highlighted the importance and mutual benefit that the UoG brings to the table, something that we both discussed and planned to do so over a year ago, so that others on this site are aware.
It was exactly the project\discussions that we had just over a year ago, and proves the valuable relationship that you quite rightly talk about. Good luck with the students I do not think anyone would want to harm there career, or the opportunities that can come about.
However, I did not ever think you would be involved with the shirt sponsorship, but your colleagues in the marketing department would be. I am sure your views would be as a supporter, along with your fellow colleagues that I meet at the University cannot be entirely happy about the situation at CAFC.? As I say it is important that people like yourself speak about the 'community relationship', and the importance of that.
I myself have decided not be be apart of the CAFC fan community, in regard to assisting this current club ownership, partly as I saw a potential conflict of interest, and is why I am no longer a season ticket holder, or buy goods or services from the club. Of course that is a personal choice, made as an individual. I have also suspended professional association with the club, until the current situation is resolved. As your website states...... Greenwich continually strives to make a strong impact on the communities it serves. The innovative partnership between the university and Charlton Athletic Football Club, launched in 2014, is at the heart of this mission to create significant and lasting relationships with local people and organisations.
The two partners see mutual benefits from this close association: they share expertise and work closely together in areas of education and research, employment, and community engagement and outreach. It further goes on to state.......... To add to the club’s community ethos, some of its home fixtures have been dubbed ‘ClubUoG matches’, for which students and staff have been able to purchase discounted match tickets, enjoy free refreshments and sit together in a specially designated ‘fanzone’ within Charlton’s stadium. Further offers may be rolled out for university alumni.
The current conflict, brought about by the ownership in my opinion has resulted in this situation.
You have shared your views,in relationship to your role as a head of faculty, there is however a wider question here, social responsibility to the community. As others have posted the UoG could work with the 'community trust' who are a separate organisation and are not governed by the club board . If my memory is correct that was the original intention of our meetings, that an the museum which is independent of the club.
Thanks for the comments, and adding to the discussion.
Unlike one of the fellow 'posters' on here I value your students contribution, I feel that the direction could be more appropriately directed as mentioned.
@henrythecat are you not a bit worried that there seems to be a tendency to blame UoG students for negative stuff? Cheap labour? The Alan Campbell thing? The Vaz te/Macelney thing/ the embarrassment of the cheerleaders, the use of students to gather and disseminate club propaganda? You may well have experienced some micro success with some individual students which is nice, but I can see that being offset by Charlton Supporters in positions of influence advising youngsters to steer clear of paying the UoG £9000 a year to go there. Even if it is inaccurate to blame students for stuff, the example (for example) of blaming the Royal mail for the season ticket fiasco shows how eagerly the heart of this regime wants to dump on anybody but themselves.
@henrythecat, I understand your perspective but the fundemental requirement of a professional football club is to play football successfully. If Roland delivers his project to completion there may not be a football club, no relationship with UoG and no work experience for students. Wouldn't UoG be advised to a longer term view ? Or perhaps UoG will just move on to the next available football club ?
The club is grimly holding on to 'community' links as it just about the only thing it can point to as being successful, even though almost all of it is being delivered by other organisations. Whether RBG, UoG or even the Community Trust like it or not, CAFC are using them as a human shield. Is that what UoG want ?
@henrythecat are you not a bit worried that there seems to be a tendency to blame UoG students for negative stuff? Cheap labour? The Alan Campbell thing? The Vaz te/Macelney thing/ the embarrassment of the cheerleaders, the use of students to gather and disseminate club propaganda? You may well have experienced some micro success with some individual students which is nice, but I can see that being offset by Charlton Supporters in positions of influence advising youngsters to steer clear of paying the UoG £9000 a year to go there. Even if it is inaccurate to blame students for stuff, the example (for example) of blaming the Royal mail for the season ticket fiasco shows how eagerly the heart of this regime wants to dump on anybody but themselves.
Just to be clear about this, as a fan I am horrified about what is going on at the club and have given my view elsewhere (both here and to people within the club) on why I think the whole approach taken by RD and gang is flawed from top to bottom.
As said previously, the relationship between University and club is very complex and, as far as I can tell, will continue. I have no influence on it at all and much of it is stuff that I am not involved in. I would prefer that UoG wasn't on the shirts at the moment and I have no problem with people asking for UoG name to be removed.
My interest is in finding opportunities for students to get appropriate work experience. This could continue with or without any shirt sponsorship deal. My role is very much about mentoring and protecting the students from being exploited (no cheap labour here - students are paid a fair rate). We won't endorse or run unpaid internships for commercial work, for example. It is my day job to look after the students and they have committed their time to doing this work, some giving up other jobs to do it. It would be unfair on them if the work was to be pulled.
Just on your negative list:
Cheap labour? - No. All our students are paid at a reasonable rate for the work they do.
The Alan Campbell thing? - Despite what Ollie said, this was nothing to do with the students
The Vaz te/Macelney thing - Not sure what this is
the embarrassment of the cheerleaders, - As far as I can tell, this was entirely down to the club and not managing the information properly.
the use of students to gather and disseminate club propaganda? - Not sure what you mean by this.
I mean photography projects. Previously we have been told that UoG students create a photo journal or visual record of a football day. Perhaps the club has used this material. There seem to be a lot of student aged photographers involved in picturing kids along the East Stand.
Comments
Not so easy or lucrative if we're in L1 by then.
Retweeted by @CAFCOfficial today
I regret I must advise of the growing concern within the local community with regard to the Universitys' relationship with the current regime at Charlton Athletic Football Club.
When this relationship was announced I believe most welcomed the innovative approach in furthering the interests and profile of both organisations while strengthening ties and broadening services to the local community.
No one underestimates the potentially significant funds the current Belgian Corporate owner might invest in club and/ community facilities but very regrettably it is glaringly apparent with the curriculum they have chosen to impose none of the current executive either understands or respects the industry in which they have chosen to invest.
UK professional football can be described as being governed by, at best, benign dictatorship. As such, executive power has long been open to abuse. Students of professional football will know South London has seen its fair share of such abuse at Crystal Palace, at Wimbledon and the clubs' previous departure from the Valley in 1985.
It is a matter of unique history and no little pride the local community was able to secure the clubs return to the Valley in exhibiting what can be achieved in bringing about change through partnership and communication. It is little surprise the current executive appears to wish to draw a veil over the clubs' history.
While not as transparent the challenges for the club today are just as pernicious as those of three decades ago.
I am sure you will agree paramount to the developing the University's "partnership" with the club is the need to communicate and engage with the local communities and indeed with the very many interested parties beyond.
Through the Supporters Trust, a Spell it Out Campaign reinforced by the Black & White theme, supporters have gone beyond what is reasonable in attempting to engage with the club. The clubs' executive will not engage. They talk at the community, not to it and with each feeble missive it is depressingly clear they have little of value to say. Their response has been derisory.
Charlton Athletic Football Club as it is today has seen thousands vote with their feet and depart taking their money with them. There is every indication thousands more will follow.
Its future as a viable competitive professional club is at stake. The club today is unrecognisable as a professional sporting organisation. Executive policies have completely failed to provide one compelling argument by word or deed for their program. The end result has been little short of sporting and operational carnage.
They remain locked into the same dogma assumed from the day they took control. They neither understand nor respect the principles of competitive professional team sport or the unique heritage of Charlton Athletic Football Club.
Anecdotal evidence concerning the corporate umbrella of the owner abounds across Standard Liege, STVV (for a decade) in Belgium, Carl Zeiss Jena in Germany and SE7. Condemnations ring out across the sporting industry and international borders.
The statistics speak for themselves. They are not ones which speak to a vibrant and successful future. There is no vision here. For two strong functioning operating community organisations whose origins go back over a century this is neither the place nor the time for any intellectual project/ exercise worthy of consideration.
For the University of Greenwich, an institution built on the principles "to learn, to do, to achieve", your association with a regime which has palpably shown no ability or any aspiration to meet any of those criteria is poorly served and the relationship ill judged.
Yours faithfully
Richard Holmes
(Some poor sod is probably sitting there thinking "FFS, not ANOTHER one!")
"Anne Poulson, the University of Greenwich’s Chief Operating Officer, says the partnership is an exciting venture. “Both institutions have long-standing commitments to serving our local community, and it made a great deal of sense for us to come together, combining resources to work more closely with, for instance, schools, hospitals and community groups,” she says."
How ignorant is that??!!
In my former life an acknowledgement to correspondence had to be sent within 48 hours as a bare minimum. Things just ain't what they used to be, more's the pity
I have not been party to the arrangements around the direct shirt sponsorship deal and am not particularly interested in it if I am honest. My interest is in how I can increase opportunities for students to gain experience in work which is applicable to their studies. The overall partnership is quite complex and isn't a simple transaction of paying money for name on a shirt. It involves working in partnership on a number of projects which includes coursework as part of various courses, employing students to do different activities (again in line with their studies) and some volunteering. It spreads right across the University and there are a number of programmes (particularly in health and science and education) which have embedded work with the club and the trust into courses.
The partnership also includes the community trust and is an important part, in my mind, of making the University a community based institution rather than a high handed academic organisation. To give a picture of the depth of interaction, in the past week I have been corresponding with three different areas of the club and two areas of the community trust, all on different projects involving students. Some have been research based, some giving work experience, and some volunteering.
From my view breaking the relationship between club and UoG would make my students experience a lot worse and remove a whole load of opportunities I have been working on for the last few months. These are things which would be really good for the students. Putting aside all of the problems we have with RD, etc. the relationship has been a great success and there are students who have obtained work directly on the back of the work done at Charlton. This is why I haven't commented so far.
I don't know for sure, but nothing has come my way that suggests the relationship is under threat. The recent publicity about CAFC and our health departments shows the long term commitment to the partnership. Having CAFC as a partner in a research bid will be seen as positive regardless of the current bad publicity.
Aim for a commercial organisation such as Andrews AC if you want to flex CARD's muscle - this is a step backwards and quite selfish.
I don't care for Cat1 under RD , so stopping any trading ground work being done is a good thing as it stops the regime from using us as they plan!
I have not been party to the arrangements around the direct shirt sponsorship deal and am not particularly interested in it if I am honest. My interest is in how I can increase opportunities for students to gain experience in work which is applicable to their studies. The overall partnership is quite complex and isn't a simple transaction of paying money for name on a shirt. It involves working in partnership on a number of projects which includes coursework as part of various courses, employing students to do different activities (again in line with their studies) and some volunteering. It spreads right across the University and there are a number of programmes (particularly in health and science and education) which have embedded work with the club and the trust into courses.
The partnership also includes the community trust and is an important part, in my mind, of making the University a community based institution rather than a high handed academic organisation. To give a picture of the depth of interaction, in the past week I have been corresponding with three different areas of the club and two areas of the community trust, all on different projects involving students. Some have been research based, some giving work experience, and some volunteering.
From my view breaking the relationship between club and UoG would make my students experience a lot worse and remove a whole load of opportunities I have been working on for the last few months. These are things which would be really good for the students. Putting aside all of the problems we have with RD, etc. the relationship has been a great success and there are students who have obtained work directly on the back of the work done at Charlton. This is why I haven't commented so far.
I don't know for sure, but nothing has come my way that suggests the relationship is under threat. The recent publicity about CAFC and our health departments shows the long term commitment to the partnership. Having CAFC as a partner in a research bid will be seen as positive regardless of the current bad publicity.
I did ask and thank you for the reply, although I do not quite share shall we say quite the perspective that you choose to highlight, You yourself have highlighted the importance and mutual benefit that the UoG brings to the table, something that we both discussed and planned to do so over a year ago, so that others on this site are aware.
It was exactly the project\discussions that we had just over a year ago, and proves the valuable relationship that you quite rightly talk about. Good luck with the students I do not think anyone would want to harm there career, or the opportunities that can come about.
However,
I did not ever think you would be involved with the shirt sponsorship, but your colleagues in the marketing department would be.
I am sure your views would be as a supporter, along with your fellow colleagues that I meet at the University cannot be entirely happy about the situation at CAFC.? As I say it is important that people like yourself speak about the 'community relationship', and the importance of that.
I myself have decided not be be apart of the CAFC fan community, in regard to assisting this current club ownership, partly as I saw a potential conflict of interest, and is why I am no longer a season ticket holder, or buy goods or services from the club.
Of course that is a personal choice, made as an individual. I have also suspended professional association with the club, until the current situation is resolved.
As your website states......
Greenwich continually strives to make a strong impact on the communities it serves. The innovative partnership between the university and Charlton Athletic Football Club, launched in 2014, is at the heart of this mission to create significant and lasting relationships with local people and organisations.
The two partners see mutual benefits from this close association: they share expertise and work closely together in areas of education and research, employment, and community engagement and outreach.
It further goes on to state..........
To add to the club’s community ethos, some of its home fixtures have been dubbed ‘ClubUoG matches’, for which students and staff have been able to purchase discounted match tickets, enjoy free refreshments and sit together in a specially designated ‘fanzone’ within Charlton’s stadium. Further offers may be rolled out for university alumni.
The current conflict, brought about by the ownership in my opinion has resulted in this situation.
You have shared your views,in relationship to your role as a head of faculty, there is however a wider
question here, social responsibility to the community.
As others have posted the UoG could work with the 'community trust' who are a separate organisation and are not governed by the club board . If my memory is correct that was the original intention of our meetings, that an the museum which is independent of the club.
Thanks for the comments, and adding to the discussion.
Unlike one of the fellow 'posters' on here I value your students contribution, I feel that the direction could be more appropriately directed as mentioned.
Cheap labour? The Alan Campbell thing? The Vaz te/Macelney thing/ the embarrassment of the cheerleaders, the use of students to gather and disseminate club propaganda?
You may well have experienced some micro success with some individual students which is nice, but I can see that being offset by Charlton Supporters in positions of influence advising youngsters to steer clear of paying the UoG £9000 a year to go there.
Even if it is inaccurate to blame students for stuff, the example (for example) of blaming the Royal mail for the season ticket fiasco shows how eagerly the heart of this regime wants to dump on anybody but themselves.
I understand your perspective but the fundemental requirement of a professional football club is to play football successfully. If Roland delivers his project to completion there may not be a football club, no relationship with UoG and no work experience for students. Wouldn't UoG be advised to a longer term view ? Or perhaps UoG will just move on to the next available football club ?
The club is grimly holding on to 'community' links as it just about the only thing it can point to as being successful, even though almost all of it is being delivered by other organisations. Whether RBG, UoG or even the Community Trust like it or not, CAFC are using them as a human shield. Is that what UoG want ?
As said previously, the relationship between University and club is very complex and, as far as I can tell, will continue. I have no influence on it at all and much of it is stuff that I am not involved in. I would prefer that UoG wasn't on the shirts at the moment and I have no problem with people asking for UoG name to be removed.
My interest is in finding opportunities for students to get appropriate work experience. This could continue with or without any shirt sponsorship deal. My role is very much about mentoring and protecting the students from being exploited (no cheap labour here - students are paid a fair rate). We won't endorse or run unpaid internships for commercial work, for example. It is my day job to look after the students and they have committed their time to doing this work, some giving up other jobs to do it. It would be unfair on them if the work was to be pulled.
Just on your negative list:
Cheap labour? - No. All our students are paid at a reasonable rate for the work they do.
The Alan Campbell thing? - Despite what Ollie said, this was nothing to do with the students
The Vaz te/Macelney thing - Not sure what this is
the embarrassment of the cheerleaders, - As far as I can tell, this was entirely down to the club and not managing the information properly.
the use of students to gather and disseminate club propaganda? - Not sure what you mean by this.