CAFC Supporters Trust

LenGlover

My view is to attend to deny them the opportunity to spin that they tried to respond to the protests but their overtures were turned down.

We all know that the reality is that they have no interest whatsoever in engaging with the Trust or any other fans.

This meeting has been called purely to generate a press release in an attempt to make them look conciliatory and improve their tarnished image.

However any sign of hordes of security goons, irrelevant personnel, Johnnie Jackson or other distractions stand up and politely state that we've been here before and this is not why we attended.

Then issue your own press release!

C4FC4L1f3

No

cfgs

The Trust should say that will meet with representatives of the club only if Roly is present and other members of CARD are there. Although personally I think the time for talking is in the past, the club only want to lecture and berate, they never listen or follow through on their promises so what is the bloody point?

seth plum

I was distracted by the concept of 'behind the scenes' brought up in this thread.
I believe that three significant events during this campaign were the Woolwich meeting, the November invited fans meeting, and the most recently televised fans forum meeting.
All of those meetings are open to complete transparent scrutiny regarding what was said and who said it.
Out in the open, just like we wanted the Olympic Stadium redacted report to be, out in the open.
To me the easiest way to move past this internecine episode is to say that any meeting should be recorded in full, and asap put out on all the usual platforms.
I know CARD stands for coalition, but to me coalition also implies collaboration. Let us all get past this issue by continuing to collaborate with each other.

WestCountryAddick

cfgs said:

The Trust should say that will meet with representatives of the club only if Roly is present and other members of CARD are there. Although personally I think the time for talking is in the past, the club only want to lecture and berate, they never listen or follow through on their promises so what is the bloody point?

Other members of CARD are unlikely to be there. They recently issued a statement saying they will never collaborate with the current regime.

Killarahales

Just voted no. They already know we want them to sell, and they have nothing to say that we can believe.

cfgs

WestCountryAddick said:

cfgs said:

The Trust should say that will meet with representatives of the club only if Roly is present and other members of CARD are there. Although personally I think the time for talking is in the past, the club only want to lecture and berate, they never listen or follow through on their promises so what is the bloody point?

Other members of CARD are unlikely to be there. They recently issued a statement saying they will never collaborate with the current regime.

But they should be invited. Any meeting should encompass all elements of our support. Those refusing to collaborate are right if you ask me.

rememberbillybonds

By meeting you give acceptance to KM as a CEO. She is incapable of carrying out that role so meeting her as the CEO cannot improve anything.

SomervilleAddick

Declining the meeting would be a mistake in my opinion. As others have said, it gives them the opportunity to portray CAST as unwilling to work with them, and as a result, working to harm the club.

Meeting them has risks, but by participating, CAST is in a position to refute any wild claims they make after the meeting.

It is important to limit the participants. There's no point in meeting with all the management. At this point Miere & Murray should be enough, as the issues are philosophical not operational. An important issue that need to be determined up front is who the decision makers are. How much autonomy do Miere & Murray have? They either dig themselves into a hole by saying they have the power to make decisions without Roland's veto, making them totally responsible for the bad decisions, or they are simply advisors. If it's the latter, then the meeting can end, as this only makes sense if the decision maker is there..

Given the level of mistrust, why can't they just stream it? At this point private meetings only add a layer of opaqueness that we don't need, because what's missing to everyone other than the participants is not so much what was said, but how it was said.

LargeAddick

Have rethought my viewpoint. I'd vote 'no' because there is nothing to say to them except sell up and go which they already know we want. Issue a statement acknowledging the offer to meet but say it's too little too late and the stance is now get out of our Club. Anything less is dividing the support and the Trust effectively distancing itself from the aim of CARD although a number of the Trust Board are involved in CARD. How does that work? Surely one or other position would become untenable for them?

Off_it

LargeAddick said:

Have rethought my viewpoint. I'd vote 'no' because there is nothing to say to them except sell up and go which they already know we want. Issue a statement acknowledging the offer to meet but say it's too little too late and the stance is now get out of our Club. Anything less is dividing the support and the Trust effectively distancing itself from the aim of CARD although a number of the Trust Board are involved in CARD. How does that work? Surely one or other position would become untenable for them?

I agree and have just voted "no" for the same reason.

You only have to read this thread to realise that a number of "high profile" fans seem intent on digging the Trust out at every opportunity so I don't think the Trust should give THEM the ammunition. All very sad, but there it is.

Stu_of_Kunming

LargeAddick said:

Have rethought my viewpoint. I'd vote 'no' because there is nothing to say to them except sell up and go which they already know we want. Issue a statement acknowledging the offer to meet but say it's too little too late and the stance is now get out of our Club. Anything less is dividing the support and the Trust effectively distancing itself from the aim of CARD although a number of the Trust Board are involved in CARD. How does that work? Surely one or other position would become untenable for them?

I thought this straight away, the CARD statement was clear and to the point, any meeting with the puppets would totally undermine the statement put out by CARD.

Good old fashioned divide and rule, it'll work too, sadly.

Interesting how board members have posted since WSS asked his question, yet no answer has been given...

se9addick

Stu_of_Kunming said:

LargeAddick said:

Have rethought my viewpoint. I'd vote 'no' because there is nothing to say to them except sell up and go which they already know we want. Issue a statement acknowledging the offer to meet but say it's too little too late and the stance is now get out of our Club. Anything less is dividing the support and the Trust effectively distancing itself from the aim of CARD although a number of the Trust Board are involved in CARD. How does that work? Surely one or other position would become untenable for them?

I thought this straight away, the CARD statement was clear and to the point, any meeting with the puppets would totally undermine the statement put out by CARD.

Good old fashioned divide and rule, it'll work too, sadly.

Interesting how board members have posted since WSS asked his question, yet no answer has been given...

But CAST aren't CARD and CARD aren't CAST. One of the reasons they aren't the same is because the Trust are governed along democratic, representative grounds. Previously Trust members have said that CAST should support the protests whilst continuing to pursue dialogue, which I believe is what they've been doing. Now the opportunity for some sort of (imperfect) dialogue appears to be here the survey will show if Trust members still support that approach.

I don't quite understand how this undermines CARD as this has pretty much been the Trust position as I understand it throughout.

Stu_of_Kunming

se9addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

LargeAddick said:

Have rethought my viewpoint. I'd vote 'no' because there is nothing to say to them except sell up and go which they already know we want. Issue a statement acknowledging the offer to meet but say it's too little too late and the stance is now get out of our Club. Anything less is dividing the support and the Trust effectively distancing itself from the aim of CARD although a number of the Trust Board are involved in CARD. How does that work? Surely one or other position would become untenable for them?

I thought this straight away, the CARD statement was clear and to the point, any meeting with the puppets would totally undermine the statement put out by CARD.

Good old fashioned divide and rule, it'll work too, sadly.

Interesting how board members have posted since WSS asked his question, yet no answer has been given...

But CAST aren't CARD and CARD aren't CAST. One of the reasons they aren't the same is because the Trust are governed along democratic, representative grounds. Previously Trust members have said that CAST should support the protests whilst continuing to pursue dialogue, which I believe is what they've been doing. Now the opportunity for some sort of (imperfect) dialogue appears to be here the survey will show if Trust members still support that approach.

I don't quite understand how this undermines CARD as this has pretty much been the Trust position as I understand it throughout.

I assume you read the CARD statement, to support that and a meeting with RM and KM would be impossible, surely?

se9addick

Stu_of_Kunming said:

se9addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

LargeAddick said:

Have rethought my viewpoint. I'd vote 'no' because there is nothing to say to them except sell up and go which they already know we want. Issue a statement acknowledging the offer to meet but say it's too little too late and the stance is now get out of our Club. Anything less is dividing the support and the Trust effectively distancing itself from the aim of CARD although a number of the Trust Board are involved in CARD. How does that work? Surely one or other position would become untenable for them?

I thought this straight away, the CARD statement was clear and to the point, any meeting with the puppets would totally undermine the statement put out by CARD.

Good old fashioned divide and rule, it'll work too, sadly.

Interesting how board members have posted since WSS asked his question, yet no answer has been given...

But CAST aren't CARD and CARD aren't CAST. One of the reasons they aren't the same is because the Trust are governed along democratic, representative grounds. Previously Trust members have said that CAST should support the protests whilst continuing to pursue dialogue, which I believe is what they've been doing. Now the opportunity for some sort of (imperfect) dialogue appears to be here the survey will show if Trust members still support that approach.

I don't quite understand how this undermines CARD as this has pretty much been the Trust position as I understand it throughout.

I assume you read the CARD statement, to support that and a meeting with RM and KM would be impossible, surely?

But the Trust aren't asking what CARD support, they're asking what their members support. Again, CARD & CAST are different organisations with differing objectives and remits. A CARD statement isn't binding on the Trust, it couldn't be really.

All_Thaid_Up

Unless the dialogue is with RD, it is pointless anyway.

CAST should seek dialogue with him only (and ask him to sell) all communication with KM and RM is pointless.

Stu_of_Kunming

se9addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

se9addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

LargeAddick said:

Have rethought my viewpoint. I'd vote 'no' because there is nothing to say to them except sell up and go which they already know we want. Issue a statement acknowledging the offer to meet but say it's too little too late and the stance is now get out of our Club. Anything less is dividing the support and the Trust effectively distancing itself from the aim of CARD although a number of the Trust Board are involved in CARD. How does that work? Surely one or other position would become untenable for them?

I thought this straight away, the CARD statement was clear and to the point, any meeting with the puppets would totally undermine the statement put out by CARD.

Good old fashioned divide and rule, it'll work too, sadly.

Interesting how board members have posted since WSS asked his question, yet no answer has been given...

But CAST aren't CARD and CARD aren't CAST. One of the reasons they aren't the same is because the Trust are governed along democratic, representative grounds. Previously Trust members have said that CAST should support the protests whilst continuing to pursue dialogue, which I believe is what they've been doing. Now the opportunity for some sort of (imperfect) dialogue appears to be here the survey will show if Trust members still support that approach.

I don't quite understand how this undermines CARD as this has pretty much been the Trust position as I understand it throughout.

I assume you read the CARD statement, to support that and a meeting with RM and KM would be impossible, surely?

But the Trust aren't asking what CARD support, they're asking what their members support. Again, CARD & CAST are different organisations with differing objectives and remits. A CARD statement isn't binding on the Trust, it couldn't be really.

Go back to Large's post, which is what I was originally agreeing with.

I understand CAST are asking their members, I believe that is probably the right thing to, however my concern in, if members vote for a meeting, surely it would put some members of the CAST board in a difficult position, how would they be able to support a meeting as a member of one group, yet maintain the current CARD position?

There isn't an easy answer, which is why they've done, possibly the smartest thing they've done in a while, PR wise.

The answer should be a meeting with RD, or nothing, sadly that's not an option on the survey.

Cardinal Sin

Their words are cheap and meaningless. If the Trust meets them they will dole out the platitudes, claim it's been another useful dialogue and hope they sell another 100 season tickets on the back of it. Do something first, then we will listen. Mere should resign for starters. My money's on the Trust meeting them whatever, because Steve Clarke asked for a meeting months ago and was ignored - he will see this as an opportunity to put the Trust more centre stage.

WestCountryAddick

cfgs said:

WestCountryAddick said:

cfgs said:

The Trust should say that will meet with representatives of the club only if Roly is present and other members of CARD are there. Although personally I think the time for talking is in the past, the club only want to lecture and berate, they never listen or follow through on their promises so what is the bloody point?

Other members of CARD are unlikely to be there. They recently issued a statement saying they will never collaborate with the current regime.

But they should be invited. Any meeting should encompass all elements of our support. Those refusing to collaborate are right if you ask me.

I can understand both viewpoints to be honest. Ultimately, both CARD and the Trust want what's best for the club though they may want to take slightly different paths to get there. I'm certainly interested to see the results of this latest poll from both members and the wider fan-base. The poll is now closed so I guess we should get an idea of what people think pretty soon.

lancashire lad

In any protest group there is never complete agreement on tactics and so it is with CAST and CARD, but that is no reason for us to fall out but to accept we have different views on the same objective of ridding our club of this owner and his acolytes.
If CAST meet with KM I wish them luck and hope that they record the meeting for public transmission soon after talks.

kentred2

lancashire lad said:

In any protest group there is never complete agreement on tactics and so it is with CAST and CARD, but that is no reason for us to fall out but to accept we have different views on the same objective of ridding our club of this owner and his acolytes.
If CAST meet with KM I wish them luck and hope that they record the meeting for public transmission soon after talks.

But CAST has never said that is their aim sadly

razil

I think it's perfectly correct to consult and even more so if the TB is divided, (they are Charlton fans like all of us with different views and opinions) and or there is major policy juncture or shift. It's a tough job as anyone who has done it will tell you. There are considerable dilemmas here.

In my view the consultation is very welcome and democratic, going way beyond elections etc. And rightly so because this way there is the most chance they will represent fans and members.

We can only be divided if we allow such attempts to push us back into sniping or infighting, it just requires a bit of thought and maybe a little less public airing, and yes maybe even standing for the TB - or if not then cutting them a bit of slack.

My own view of this is that we are now beyond Business as Usual, and it is innappropriate to have a discussion on those terms hence I voted no. If this is a crisis meeting and called such, and if there are indications there is a change of approach beforehand, there is scope for a meeting.

Personally I can't see how we can move forward with KM running the football side of the club at the very least. My preference however is that they get lost.

shirty5

I would say the trust should have a meeting but only on the condition that they speak to the organ grinder not the monkey. Then tell them to do one and sell up.

If the trust say no, then that woman will come out and say we tried to speak to the trust but they declined the offer. What more can we do. All bull I know, but that's they way they will spin it.

charltonnick

No we want to talk to the engineer not the oily rag. Meire and Murray are finished and should be ignored.

InspectorSands

Survey currently closed. (I didn't get an email despite being a trust member.) Did I miss it?

WestCountryAddick

InspectorSands said:

Survey currently closed. (I didn't get an email despite being a trust member.) Did I miss it?

I didn't get an e-mail either, I saw this thread whilst waiting outside for the post match protests to start yesterday, otherwise I may have missed it completely.

stonemuse

razil said:

I think it's perfectly correct to consult and even more so if the TB is divided, (they are Charlton fans like all of us with different views and opinions) and or there is major policy juncture or shift. It's a tough job as anyone who has done it will tell you. There are considerable dilemmas here.

In my view the consultation is very welcome and democratic, going way beyond elections etc. And rightly so because this way there is the most chance they will represent fans and members.

We can only be divided if we allow such attempts to push us back into sniping or infighting, it just requires a bit of thought and maybe a little less public airing, and yes maybe even standing for the TB - or if not then cutting them a bit of slack.

My own view of this is that we are now beyond Business as Usual, and it is innappropriate to have a discussion on those terms hence I voted no. If this is a crisis meeting and called such, and if there are indications there is a change of approach beforehand, there is scope for a meeting.

Personally I can't see how we can move forward with KM running the football side of the club at the very least. My preference however is that they get lost.

Well summed up

Pico

Inspector Sands and West Country Addick

Sorry you didn't get the e mail. Can you PM me your e mail addresses please ? Maybe the ones on the Trust database are out of date ? Do you receive the Friday digest of news ? Or could it have gone into a spam box at your end ?

WestCountryAddick

Done.

Not in my spam folder either. I'm sure if we didn't receive it, there will likely be more that didn't.

I've never received a Friday news update either, didn't realise there was one. I get my info from the website directly.

Rothko

Nothing short of collaboration with a group of people killing this club, if the trust meet with them.