I have seen the comment and appreciate it. I still feel 99% could have been written the same and still agreed to meet and that would have helped. The "buyer" is wealthy, is interested in sport (turned down buying a rugby team last week), but don't get wrong idea. This was an off the cuff comment I made at a meeting about something completely different, that was received with far more interest than I imagined. I have said I will follow up with him more but it's a long shot of a fan talking to a rich person, no more at this stage. As for my wife / son, the reaction of "she's wrong there is no risk etc." Misses the point. The fact she thinks anything could happen means so do others - e.g. The Kent football parents. PR is not about right or wrong, it's about perception. Relates to the fact I think CARD should have agreed - the perception from the public is what would have mattered, not a likely pointless meeting.
I have seen the comment and appreciate it. I still feel 99% could have been written the same and still agreed to meet and that would have helped. The "buyer" is wealthy, is interested in sport (turned down buying a rugby team last week), but don't get wrong idea. This was an off the cuff comment I made at a meeting about something completely different, that was received with far more interest than I imagined. I have said I will follow up with him more but it's a long shot of a fan talking to a rich person, no more at this stage. As for my wife / son, the reaction of "she's wrong there is no risk etc." Misses the point. The fact she thinks anything could happen means so do others - e.g. The Kent football parents. PR is not about right or wrong, it's about perception. Relates to the fact I think CARD should have agreed - the perception from the public is what would have mattered, not a likely pointless meeting.
I think that the point was that rather than deterring potential buyers, as you claimed, avoiding the PR trap badly set by Meire would actually encourage them.
I'm not holding my breath on this person buying the club. It is a very long shot and there will be millions of reasons why it may not happen but it must be worth a try. Of all fans you have a real opportunity to make a difference.
I agree that while your wife and the Kent parents are wrong that is their perception.
However, meeting with KM wouldn't have changed that perception either way. The protests would still mostly likely have gone ahead and nothing amiss would have happened. The people you mention aren't closely following every step in this saga and a private meeting between a CEO and some CARD activists would not have changed their view either way IMO.
This is no different to the club gaving free tickets to local children. I was contacted by a local black parent who was worried that her son would be subject to racial abuse. That was her perception of football not just Charlton. I was able to re-assure her that this would be very unlikely, that we were leaders on anti-racism work and the Valley was a safe and friendly place to come. She decided to allow her son to attend. As far as I know nothing happened to him as nearly all of us would have hoped and expected.
I've also read that a lot of younger fans enjoy the noise and activity of the protests. I know my son does!
He's actually called Rufus, it gets abbreviated, I think you met him for the second badge hand out maybe?
Two of the families are Charlton supporters, one of the kids is a Junior Red and won a ballot last year and was a mascot during a protest game, which was unfortunate, I think they normally sit in the family section but the mascot seats are at the bottom of west lower so he got a bit more exposed to the anger than normal, it was his mum's first game and she left early.
The other Charlton supporting family have been going for years, the dad used to have season tickets as long ago as premiership days and they have been two or three home games this season but won't be going tomorrow because of the protests.
The third family are not Charlton fans, the mum is Italian and the dad is not really a football guy. The kid is though and wants to go to Charlton games, they live in Woolwich.
Whether any could be described as Charlton fans, I'm not sure....Depends on your definition.
I also have no issue with the protests and actively participate with Rufus, I think he gets a lot from it and he understands more about the issues with the club and about the football and non-football issues as a result.
I am not saying the protests should stop, totally not. I have also assured the parents that the protests are not violent and can be enjoyable in their own right.
I am merely pointing out that the protests do stop a certain section of the support and potential support from attending.
So after Meire and RD do one, there is a decent number of people that will come that do not at present.
He's actually called Rufus, it gets abbreviated, I think you met him for the second badge hand out maybe?
Two of the families are Charlton supporters, one of the kids is a Junior Red and won a ballot last year and was a mascot during a protest game, which was unfortunate, I think they normally sit in the family section but the mascot seats are at the bottom of west lower so he got a bit more exposed to the anger than normal, it was his mum's first game and she left early.
The other Charlton supporting family have been going for years, the dad used to have season tickets as long ago as premiership days and they have been two or three home games this season but won't be going tomorrow because of the protests.
The third family are not Charlton fans, the mum is Italian and the dad is not really a football guy. The kid is though and wants to go to Charlton games, they live in Woolwich.
Whether any could be described as Charlton fans, I'm not sure....Depends on your definition.
Fair enough, sound like fans to me.
Seems odd to me that they've been to protest games where nothing nasty happened to them or anyone else but don't want to go but that is there choice.
But if the regime ran the club properly their would be no protests.
There have been no protests so far this season either and atmosphere has been dead at the home games I've been too and the football worse.
I took both of my sons to The Valley for the first time back in March, for the Middlesbrough match (2-0). We were going to be introduced to the crowd at half time but it was changed, on the day, to before the match. The ground was pretty empty at that time, as the mock funeral was going on outside the ground. But even so, It was good of the club to organise that for us - 'Jimmy Seed's great grandsons first visit etc'. I think Olly Groome was behind it. I'm not quite sure why it was changed to before the match. I was wondering if it had anything to do with the protests? Anyway, we sat in the family stand with some friends we'd brought along to the match, and the boys loved the protests. The atmosphere was incredible, and there was never a moment when we felt the protests had become threatening in any way. We actually felt quite moved, and very lucky to witness the passion of the fans. It certainly cemented Tommy's support for the Addicks. An incredible day, all in all. We also played really well!
Thank you jdmotion the protests are only because Charlton are a very important part of our lives. The moral investment by many thousands is not measurable. RD and KM are ruining it, we protest because we care.
Spent a memorable half hour or so with my son on my shoulders kicking the metal barriers in time to 'hey hey Roland, ooh ahh, I wanna know oh oh why you're such a naughty man.'
Muttleys' one depressing line speaks to the Shakespearean tragedy our club has become under this regime.
Is not one of the most telling aspects the involvement of a PR firm? A professional football club to speak to it supporters, a largely captive audience (who else really cares) needs to pay a PR company.
So bankrupt are the full time Senior Management Team to protect their image from the actions of groups of spirited club enthusiasts, who all have their own livelihoods to earn, they need the professional crutch of a mass market spin organisation.
There have been challenges to the CARD response. We should welcome those who express a different view. CARD has no need to be defensive. The higher ground is about embracing the broadest cathedral of opinion.
Remain confident of the campaign to remove the club executive but recognise there will always be challenging decisions. Statistics suggest thousands of absent friends are relying on the outcome.
There is a reasoned argument to be won.
Communication is not just about reaffirming your position. It is about winning hearts & minds. There is an argument for talking, tactical or otherwise. Dialogue is a constructive option. Cambridge and others have challenged the CARD response. I chose to do so myself. Refusing talks prompts a natural reaction. At times everybody needs to listen to the "naysayer" in the room.
There is however an overriding prerequisite for entering into any dialogue.
It is the evidence of good faith.
By all means challenge the CARD statement to determine an alternative action/response but to do so you have to look beyond the "it is always good to talk" maxim and put the response in context. For every alternative I found the CARD response exceeded that alternative. The response is clear. It is concise. It references the collective determination of a range of representative groups. It clarifies the context of the decision made.
To have accepted the invitation will have blurred the edges of the debate to be "spun" in a different direction. Indeed until it was declined some already had.
The compelling issue, as alluded to and the one which needs to be made every day is, was this offer for talks made in "good faith". Was the invitation a genuine attempt to engage in serious debate? If so, Why now? What was the catalyst? If so why the immediate release to the media?
Even if you accept the possible prompting of a Charlton stalwart - the PR decision to go to the media completely undermines the initiative. PR games or corporate incompetence you decide. The PR slant can only position this as yet another meaningless, manipulative Meire missive just days after the owners' tick box exercise with T20k representatives.
It is no isolated PR message. After the Duchatelet interaction, the season ticket holders meet with Slade, the SMT meetings with 2 regional groups and a 3rd with Bromley prior to the Coventry game. The PR message is we are meeting fans just CARD will not talk. We have listened & responded recruiting a British Manager & players yet some supporters still attack us
Yet there is history here. Meetings with Meire do not engage to deliver a new direction for the club. The November Fans meeting, Fan Forums, the CAST dialogue all bear witness. They were corporate tick box exercises. There is a difference between meeting and engaging in talks.
The response to the invitation was a well constructed and very pertinent piece of prose.
The refusal to talk and resultant protests will be spun. Expect draconian security for the Coventry game. Their message "How else are we to respond to the protests?" PR games will continue. This latest interaction merely draws a few more lines in the sand.
The one plus is even after a disastrous period for the club, there is still the passion to generate noise across social media. People still care enough to take a view on the future of their club. The challenge is of course there are two sides to the debate though it is a distorted debate.
It is argued CARD can only be viewed as a negative campaign. It is against and aimed at removing the club executive. The balance is of course it is the removal of a negative ideology and the related destructive executive performance.
Yet look beyond the bluster and Anti CARD proponents offer no comfort to the regime. Their argument is solely negative. No coherent defence of the regime merely subjective projections and endless attacks on CARD "personalities". It is the barren approach of all too many political debates
As CARD continues reflect opponents offer no regime endorsement, most dislike confrontation and want to watch a game; others just accept the club will always fail; while others believe the regime will only depart if we return to the Championship.
The few who offer any support are locked into the cognitive dissonance of there is no one else, of positioning any failings as in the past, as the "club" being unlucky. At one level it is hard not to have some sympathy because;
I defy anyone to point to the vision the executive is trying to deliver, to identify the performance successes they have delivered, to offer any evidence of any playing progression and or success on the field of play. Indeed I implore anyone to tell me why they have confidence in the owner of the club and his executive to deliver to the clubs' best interests.
The results seen over 33 months of this regime indicate the professional capabilities of the club in terms of its personnel, its ideology and its infrastructure are simply not fit for purpose.
No PR strategy on the planet will alter that unfortunate truth.
My son is 10 likes football although for some f**ked up reason supports Man City anyway he comes Charlton with me occasionally and loves the protests when I ask him if he wants to come it's the first thing he asks me and when I say no he says he doesnt want to.
For every alternative I found the CARD response exceeded that alternative. The response is clear. It is concise. It references the collective determination of a range of representative groups. It clarifies the context of the decision made.
@Grapevine49 I bloody love your posts mate, but only you could portray CARD's excellent response as "concise"! All things are relative eh?
Purchased ticket for Coventry. On my own as wife won't let my son come along as she's worried - maybe shows how outsiders are viewing matters? CARD have said they are too busy to meet me, understand but disappointed. If any of you do fancy a beer let me know which pub to go to - expecting Timbuktu top of the list so at least be original if not funny.
Rose of Denmark, if you're buying. I've always been prepared to listen to anyone if they supply the beer.
Will they put up a net in front of the North Lower? This is an area with a high concentration of season ticket holders so in principle, a higher % of sympathetic supporters. To put a net up in front of them would be offensive and it could be counter productive. Will they be silly enough to insult them? Probably.
I believe the club claimed last time that supporters could have asked to move their seats and were offered some sort of compensation for having a restricted view. I wonder if they have changed their rules to now make this OK? If we know what the rules are it may help to publicise them?
If they have changed the rules, maybe give out leaflets saying if you have a restricted view because of netting just sit where you like. That will take some sorting!
I'm 100 per cent behind the protests again - the regime have proved once again that they will not fund the squad properly - the midfield is completely inadequate and from the point Russell slander said ' we r miles away ' in pre season, we signed 2 players - magennis abd ulvestad - when at least 6 were needed - plus distracted was let go. A complete repeat of what happened with Luzon last year and a continuation from the year before. I was prepared to see what happened this year given the non network English manager and didn't want to see protests - that is now over and be happy to see a storming of the directors box - enough so enough - these clowns have to be turfed out.
I'm 100 per cent behind the protests again - the regime have proved once again that they will not fund the squad properly - the midfield is completely inadequate and from the point Russell slander said ' we r miles away ' in pre season, we signed 2 players - magennis abd ulvestad - when at least 6 were needed - plus distracted was let go. A complete repeat of what happened with Luzon last year and a continuation from the year before. I was prepared to see what happened this year given the non network English manager and didn't want to see protests - that is now over and be happy to see a storming of the directors box - enough so enough - these clowns have to be turfed out.
Not that I disagree but we made several signings after Slade said we were miles away. Botaka, Pearce, Rudd, Foley and Chicksen also came in.
We know he also wanted Henry and Thompson - two midfielders that might have made a huge difference. Henry chose Bolton and Norwich didn't loan Thompson out. That may have been down to Slade himself for not having any other options.
Have no doubt that CARD considered all their options before issuing the response to the invitation but my only thought is did they consider saying they would accept on the proviso that RD attended the meeting?
The Regime.They underestimated the Championship. Now they have underestimated League One. They have learnt nothing because Liar is thick and 2shits couldn't Care Less about Charlton. Next season they will underestimate League Two.
I'll admit I wanted CARD to meet them when it first became public, but sat back after and thought what can they offer? More spin (bullshite) more we've made mistakes, more we need the fans they are the club, more arrogance and lies. Do we need to hear it again? I don't think we do, while they may not be running scared,their backs are against the wall and they don't know what else to do they have no answers, so they offer the olive branch and hope CARD come forward with a solution. CARD has told them what the problem is and how to solve it, so just go.
I'm 100 per cent behind the protests again - the regime have proved once again that they will not fund the squad properly - the midfield is completely inadequate and from the point Russell slander said ' we r miles away ' in pre season, we signed 2 players - magennis abd ulvestad - when at least 6 were needed - plus distracted was let go. A complete repeat of what happened with Luzon last year and a continuation from the year before. I was prepared to see what happened this year given the non network English manager and didn't want to see protests - that is now over and be happy to see a storming of the directors box - enough so enough - these clowns have to be turfed out.
Not that I disagree but we made several signings after Slade said we were miles away. Botaka, Pearce, Rudd, Foley and Chicksen also came in.
We know he also wanted Henry and Thompson - two midfielders that might have made a huge difference. Henry chose Bolton and Norwich didn't loan Thompson out. That may have been down to Slade himself for not having any other options.
Fair enough but I'd only class one of those (Pearce) as signed for the starting 11and keeper a given / replacement - the rest are squad fillers / cast offs so although factually incorrect, i'm happy with my sentiment / reasoning. Coventry Protest - I'm fully with it.
Have no doubt that CARD considered all their options before issuing the response to the invitation but my only thought is did they consider saying they would accept on the proviso that RD attended the meeting?
I think the Trust have tried and exhausted that route already.
I'm 100 per cent behind the protests again - the regime have proved once again that they will not fund the squad properly - the midfield is completely inadequate and from the point Russell slander said ' we r miles away ' in pre season, we signed 2 players - magennis abd ulvestad - when at least 6 were needed - plus distracted was let go. A complete repeat of what happened with Luzon last year and a continuation from the year before. I was prepared to see what happened this year given the non network English manager and didn't want to see protests - that is now over and be happy to see a storming of the directors box - enough so enough - these clowns have to be turfed out.
Not that I disagree but we made several signings after Slade said we were miles away. Botaka, Pearce, Rudd, Foley and Chicksen also came in.
We know he also wanted Henry and Thompson - two midfielders that might have made a huge difference. Henry chose Bolton and Norwich didn't loan Thompson out. That may have been down to Slade himself for not having any other options.
Don't hold me to the exact chronology - but I'm fairly sure that each time Slade made comments about the squad being 'x players short', two or three would leave before a single one came in. By the end of the window it certainly felt that our already short squad was in a net deficit.
All football managers get away with saying stuff like that and never being followed up. If memory serves Louis did ask the question of Slade and got a flea in his ear about it - hence the "patience" comment. I asked a youth coach before the season and he had been told 8 of the academy was going to get first team chances this season to fill the holes left by sales! It is frustrating that managers don't have the balls to tell it straight. eg. We needed 5 new players and got 2. We therefore will need to blood 3 youngsters and look again in January. I don't think anyone would complain about that. The avoidance and BS actually causes more problems than needed - yet more PR over substance!
p.s. for once a post that I don't think is controversial. Lol. (told by kids that should be "haha" nowadays, but I like lol).
Comments
I think that the point was that rather than deterring potential buyers, as you claimed, avoiding the PR trap badly set by Meire would actually encourage them.
I'm not holding my breath on this person buying the club. It is a very long shot and there will be millions of reasons why it may not happen but it must be worth a try. Of all fans you have a real opportunity to make a difference.
I agree that while your wife and the Kent parents are wrong that is their perception.
However, meeting with KM wouldn't have changed that perception either way. The protests would still mostly likely have gone ahead and nothing amiss would have happened. The people you mention aren't closely following every step in this saga and a private meeting between a CEO and some CARD activists would not have changed their view either way IMO.
This is no different to the club gaving free tickets to local children. I was contacted by a local black parent who was worried that her son would be subject to racial abuse. That was her perception of football not just Charlton. I was able to re-assure her that this would be very unlikely, that we were leaders on anti-racism work and the Valley was a safe and friendly place to come. She decided to allow her son to attend. As far as I know nothing happened to him as nearly all of us would have hoped and expected.
I've also read that a lot of younger fans enjoy the noise and activity of the protests. I know my son does!
Two of the families are Charlton supporters, one of the kids is a Junior Red and won a ballot last year and was a mascot during a protest game, which was unfortunate, I think they normally sit in the family section but the mascot seats are at the bottom of west lower so he got a bit more exposed to the anger than normal, it was his mum's first game and she left early.
The other Charlton supporting family have been going for years, the dad used to have season tickets as long ago as premiership days and they have been two or three home games this season but won't be going tomorrow because of the protests.
The third family are not Charlton fans, the mum is Italian and the dad is not really a football guy. The kid is though and wants to go to Charlton games, they live in Woolwich.
Whether any could be described as Charlton fans, I'm not sure....Depends on your definition.
I am not saying the protests should stop, totally not. I have also assured the parents that the protests are not violent and can be enjoyable in their own right.
I am merely pointing out that the protests do stop a certain section of the support and potential support from attending.
So after Meire and RD do one, there is a decent number of people that will come that do not at present.
Seems odd to me that they've been to protest games where nothing nasty happened to them or anyone else but don't want to go but that is there choice.
But if the regime ran the club properly their would be no protests.
There have been no protests so far this season either and atmosphere has been dead at the home games I've been too and the football worse.
We were going to be introduced to the crowd at half time but it was changed, on the day, to before the match.
The ground was pretty empty at that time, as the mock funeral was going on outside the ground. But even so, It was good of the club to organise that for us - 'Jimmy Seed's great grandsons first visit etc'. I think Olly Groome was behind it.
I'm not quite sure why it was changed to before the match. I was wondering if it had anything to do with the protests?
Anyway, we sat in the family stand with some friends we'd brought along to the match, and the boys loved the protests. The atmosphere was incredible, and there was never a moment when we felt the protests had become threatening in any way.
We actually felt quite moved, and very lucky to witness the passion of the fans. It certainly cemented Tommy's support for the Addicks. An incredible day, all in all.
We also played really well!
He loved it.
Is not one of the most telling aspects the involvement of a PR firm? A professional football club to speak to it supporters, a largely captive audience (who else really cares) needs to pay a PR company.
So bankrupt are the full time Senior Management Team to protect their image from the actions of groups of spirited club enthusiasts, who all have their own livelihoods to earn, they need the professional crutch of a mass market spin organisation.
There have been challenges to the CARD response. We should welcome those who express a different view. CARD has no need to be defensive. The higher ground is about embracing the broadest cathedral of opinion.
Remain confident of the campaign to remove the club executive but recognise there will always be challenging decisions. Statistics suggest thousands of absent friends are relying on the outcome.
There is a reasoned argument to be won.
Communication is not just about reaffirming your position. It is about winning hearts & minds. There is an argument for talking, tactical or otherwise. Dialogue is a constructive option. Cambridge and others have challenged the CARD response. I chose to do so myself. Refusing talks prompts a natural reaction. At times everybody needs to listen to the "naysayer" in the room.
There is however an overriding prerequisite for entering into any dialogue.
It is the evidence of good faith.
By all means challenge the CARD statement to determine an alternative action/response but to do so you have to look beyond the "it is always good to talk" maxim and put the response in context. For every alternative I found the CARD response exceeded that alternative. The response is clear. It is concise. It references the collective determination of a range of representative groups. It clarifies the context of the decision made.
To have accepted the invitation will have blurred the edges of the debate to be "spun" in a different direction. Indeed until it was declined some already had.
The compelling issue, as alluded to and the one which needs to be made every day is, was this offer for talks made in "good faith". Was the invitation a genuine attempt to engage in serious debate? If so, Why now? What was the catalyst? If so why the immediate release to the media?
Even if you accept the possible prompting of a Charlton stalwart - the PR decision to go to the media completely undermines the initiative. PR games or corporate incompetence you decide. The PR slant can only position this as yet another meaningless, manipulative Meire missive just days after the owners' tick box exercise with T20k representatives.
It is no isolated PR message. After the Duchatelet interaction, the season ticket holders meet with Slade, the SMT meetings with 2 regional groups and a 3rd with Bromley prior to the Coventry game. The PR message is we are meeting fans just CARD will not talk. We have listened & responded recruiting a British Manager & players yet some supporters still attack us
Yet there is history here. Meetings with Meire do not engage to deliver a new direction for the club. The November Fans meeting, Fan Forums, the CAST dialogue all bear witness. They were corporate tick box exercises. There is a difference between meeting and engaging in talks.
The response to the invitation was a well constructed and very pertinent piece of prose.
The refusal to talk and resultant protests will be spun. Expect draconian security for the Coventry game. Their message "How else are we to respond to the protests?" PR games will continue. This latest interaction merely draws a few more lines in the sand.
The one plus is even after a disastrous period for the club, there is still the passion to generate noise across social media. People still care enough to take a view on the future of their club. The challenge is of course there are two sides to the debate though it is a distorted debate.
It is argued CARD can only be viewed as a negative campaign. It is against and aimed at removing the club executive. The balance is of course it is the removal of a negative ideology and the related destructive executive performance.
Yet look beyond the bluster and Anti CARD proponents offer no comfort to the regime. Their argument is solely negative. No coherent defence of the regime merely subjective projections and endless attacks on CARD "personalities". It is the barren approach of all too many political debates
As CARD continues reflect opponents offer no regime endorsement, most dislike confrontation and want to watch a game; others just accept the club will always fail; while others believe the regime will only depart if we return to the Championship.
The few who offer any support are locked into the cognitive dissonance of there is no one else, of positioning any failings as in the past, as the "club" being unlucky. At one level it is hard not to have some sympathy because;
I defy anyone to point to the vision the executive is trying to deliver, to identify the performance successes they have delivered, to offer any evidence of any playing progression and or success on the field of play. Indeed I implore anyone to tell me why they have confidence in the owner of the club and his executive to deliver to the clubs' best interests.
The results seen over 33 months of this regime indicate the professional capabilities of the club in terms of its personnel, its ideology and its infrastructure are simply not fit for purpose.
No PR strategy on the planet will alter that unfortunate truth.
Me and the lad are going up to help on Saturday and then for a week, I have tickets for the Coventry game I bought without realising.
Dip the whole protests and help your mum out from midday or go and help your mum out from 7pm.
I've always been prepared to listen to anyone if they supply the beer.
I believe the club claimed last time that supporters could have asked to move their seats and were offered some sort of compensation for having a restricted view. I wonder if they have changed their rules to now make this OK? If we know what the rules are it may help to publicise them?
If they have changed the rules, maybe give out leaflets saying if you have a restricted view because of netting just sit where you like. That will take some sorting!
We know he also wanted Henry and Thompson - two midfielders that might have made a huge difference. Henry chose Bolton and Norwich didn't loan Thompson out. That may have been down to Slade himself for not having any other options.
p.s. for once a post that I don't think is controversial. Lol. (told by kids that should be "haha" nowadays, but I like lol).