"the meeting would have been an ideal opportunity for Duchatelet to demonstrate a genuine interest in meeting a wide range of supporters to explain first-hand what his vision and plans are for the club"
and therein lies the problem, he has no real interest in us, doesn't care if we win or lose, his vision for us to be a break even football club whilst moving players around his network of clubs has gone pear shaped because we've dropped a division and are losing money and therefore so have his plans.
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Prague - you cannot be serious - comparing the Valley Party with the invitation to RD, the latter was a stunt pure and simple, go on and admit it. It was a stunt that the Trust hoped would give them a bit of publicity which in my opinion was an action unworthy of the Trust.
It was unlikely that Duchatelet would have addressed a Trust AGM. Most supporters would have fallen off their chairs with surprise if Duchatelet had accepted. It was a bit of a stunt but does highlight the fan engagement is selective.
It may have been better to open the invitation to Meire as she is the one going around talking to certain sets of supporters but not ones that are going to ask more critical questions.
Not a stunt at all. Trying to communicate with an owner is pretty mainstream stuff for a Trust isn't it ?
Since he took over Charlton the CAS Trust board has invited Duchatelet to meet with us and explain his vision at least seven times that I can remember. That includes us offering to go to Belgium. This was just another invitation in that series.
Who would voluntarily go somewhere where there us a good chance of meeting a torrent of abuse?
I think such a comment also does a bit of a dis-service to those who would have organised such a meeting if he had accepted. It also simply reinforces Roland's perception of all football fans as thugs and neanderthals...
Absolutely. If the last couple of years has proven anything it's that as a group of supporters we have among us some excellent communicators able to put their message across in a mature, non abusive way. Frankly, compared to most clubs, they have got off very lightly in terms of the levels of personal abuse levelled at them and I'm sure this "grown up" approach is reflected in the overwhelmingly positive media coverage of CARD, etc.
To suggest that CAST would allow any meeting to degenerate into a one sided slanging match, given the difficulty in getting anything out of him at all, is a nonsense imo.
But isn't CAST a signatory to CARD?
Let's be clear that CARD stands for Campaign Against Roland Duchatalet. The key word being "AGAINST". Whatever may be the agenda, if you have That as part of your slogan, he would have to be bonkers to turn up...
If he had bothered to explain his apparently bizarre strategy and implementations, we might not have been against him. As it is, we are reasonable people, always ready to listen. Failing hearing anything that makes sense, and does not appear to set our club on course for oblivion, we are against him. What other sensible position would you expect a Supporters Trust to take?
I have no intention of taking sides, but my view of the Supporters Trust is that they should follow the lead of the majority of their members.
If the majority of these are opposed to RD, then they should sign up to CARD or any LEGAL opposition the members support.
Which raises another question. Shouldn't the board of CAST not have polled their members if they WANTED RD to be invited to their AGM? Because, surely, the AGM MUST be open to all members?
And, if the majority of those members there, wanted to shout at the top of their voices "F*CK OFF!!!!" every time RD was to open his mouth, how could the Board stop that? That would just be going against what a democratic organisation was all about?
There's no need to talk about sides as I'm pretty sure we've all worked out what 'side' you are on. Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't have the nerve to suggest you could not take part in a civilised Q&A despite the fact that you are doing otherwise to me (a paid-up CAST member).
Strange that, as I am on no-one's side, except my family's, and my own.
If anyone tells me what to do, I will give them an earful in no uncertain terms. I don't care whether it's the owner, the board, or CARD. I am my own man, don't tell anyone else what they can and can't do, and will not be told by anyone else.
My life to do what I want, no-one else's within the realm of the law...
Do you think Duchatelet and Meire are doing a good job?
Everything is arranged on their terms (SMT), they have no idea, they have nobody in their team that anybody respects, they have no communication skills, they have no balls.
Prague - you cannot be serious - comparing the Valley Party with the invitation to RD, the latter was a stunt pure and simple, go on and admit it. It was a stunt that the Trust hoped would give them a bit of publicity which in my opinion was an action unworthy of the Trust.
Did you bother to read my reply to East Stand Loopy, quoting the latest guidelines agreed between supporters and the EFL, under government supervision and scrutiny? And BTW the result of 2 years of painstaking work by activist fans, most of them volunteers, in the Expert Working Group?
It is now expectedthat owners communicate with Trusts. Daniel Levy goes to most meetings with the Spurs Trust (not just the AGM). Same story with Bruce Buck at Chelsea.
Now imagine that we complain to Clive Efford MP for Eltham, and the Shadow Sports Minister about Duchatelet failing to adopt the guidelines.
CE: " Have you actually tried to invite Duchatelet to a meeting, e.g. to your AGM?" Trust: "errr, no actually. We just assumed he would refuse..." CE: "So you are complaining about an owner not doing something that you never asked them to do? Right. Next!"
Prague - yes you have a point, I still disagree with the Trust on this point but I have no wish to get into a pissing contest with you on this forum as I think it boring for others to read
Different sector to this but standard procedure when invites come in to attend events. The invited party accepts or delegates the next layer of manager to attend. Sometimes the invite works it's way down even further but if it is deemed important someone from the organisation attends.
After reading @Pico & @PragueAddick response to the stunt suggestion. I understand the reason for the invitation to Duchatelet.
A stunt is isolated. The invitation is part of a strategy to evidence the fake, shallow and window dressing supporter engagement of Meire and Duchatelet. The invitation is fair enough in that setting, as unlikely as Duchatelet was to accept it.
The invitation to RD was both reasonable and correct. It is in the best interest of all supporters for the owners of their club to set out their objectives and aims. Something clearly lacking so far. All attempts to encourage RD to do this must be worthwhile. Some previous suggestions that RD attending would in essence enable disorder if he attended are not correct. At any meeting in the UK it is the responsibility of the chairman to bring order and discipline to the meeting. I have no doubt the CAST board have the collective knowledge and experience to have ensured order if RD had agreed to attend.
Comments
and therein lies the problem, he has no real interest in us, doesn't care if we win or lose, his vision for us to be a break even football club whilst moving players around his network of clubs has gone pear shaped because we've dropped a division and are losing money and therefore so have his plans.
So why would he meet us?
We don't do stunts. Other branches of CARD can do them far better than we can.
It may have been better to open the invitation to Meire as she is the one going around talking to certain sets of supporters but not ones that are going to ask more critical questions.
Since he took over Charlton the CAS Trust board has invited Duchatelet to meet with us and explain his vision at least seven times that I can remember. That includes us offering to go to Belgium. This was just another invitation in that series.
It is now expectedthat owners communicate with Trusts. Daniel Levy goes to most meetings with the Spurs Trust (not just the AGM). Same story with Bruce Buck at Chelsea.
Now imagine that we complain to Clive Efford MP for Eltham, and the Shadow Sports Minister about Duchatelet failing to adopt the guidelines.
CE: " Have you actually tried to invite Duchatelet to a meeting, e.g. to your AGM?"
Trust: "errr, no actually. We just assumed he would refuse..."
CE: "So you are complaining about an owner not doing something that you never asked them to do? Right. Next!"
hmmmm
A stunt is isolated. The invitation is part of a strategy to evidence the fake, shallow and window dressing supporter engagement of Meire and Duchatelet. The invitation is fair enough in that setting, as unlikely as Duchatelet was to accept it.
Some previous suggestions that RD attending would in essence enable disorder if he attended are not correct. At any meeting in the UK it is the responsibility of the chairman to bring order and discipline to the meeting. I have no doubt the CAST board have the collective knowledge and experience to have ensured order if RD had agreed to attend.