There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
You forgot to mention the regime supporteers in your list although admittedly they are very small in number.
I found that the few who sit around me who obviously don't support the protests, don't support the team vocally either, I do both so I suppose they dare not say anything to me, it's a funny old world !!
Whilst helping to hand out some protest items today, I noticed that the anti-protest brigade have become very vitrolic. IMHO, of those that attend, about 70% seem to be in favour and very upbeat, 20% just refuse with a smile but around 10% are very vocal in their dissent. Has anyone else noticed that the naysayers seem to be losing their cool? (With apologies to oohahh for the percentages)
Previously when handing out things before protests I found that people that didn't want to take whatever we were handing said no, or walked past, politely. Noticable difference today. Oh the joy of being called a prick by someone! Others swearing under their breath and the odd few shouting and arguing. No one had a stress ball forced down their trousers - we were all polite and friendly.
My little party were very polite in refusing, even though my grandson wanted a taxi to add to his pig collection!
I did warn you this week that the tide was turning in support of the protests, and I think that situation will only get worse!
Shame I didn't see you yesterday little Al, I might have let you force a stress ball (taxi) down my trousers, only for my grandson of course!
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
I doubt anybody really likes the regime, Katrien's probably put paid to that, but I suspect that when it comes down to it most fans don't really give a shit who owns their club if the team is winnIng and it doesn't cost them a fortune to watch the match. If that's the case then we all really do fall into one category or another.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
Another club that falls into decline and loses its support isn't news and, basically, nobody outside a few die-hard fans of those clubs that have fallen through the trap door gives a shit about them either.
Fill the ground and get behind the team and my guess is the regime and media really would take notice. It would also make the club more attractive to potential buyers.
I have been to two home games (protests) this season and otherwise continue my boycott as a former season ticket holder. What I have seen on the pitch hasn't persuaded me to return and what I see off the pitch in the form of the destruction of a community club that had standards of which I was justly proud, leaves me with no alternative to boycott.
The regime may make the team perform better (it can hardly be difficult to improve on the rubbish of the last three years) but they have destroyed the reputation and spirit of the club which can only be restored when they have gone.
I have to question the ethics of anyone who supports the regime as well as the team. By being an apologist for the regime and attacking those of us with moral fibre enough to boycott and protest, they side with the regime, are against the community that was fostered in the club over the last 40 years and deserve no repect on my sides.
If asked I agree it is a political stance with a small p. My politics have always been Benthamite and the perverted dogmatic and unlistening approach taken by the Belgian who accepts no criticism and cannot recognise his own failings continues to appal me.
Not sure 'the tide was turning' @Essex_Al I think there is a degree of protest fatigue and a feeling of optimisim given recent results and appoinents but certainly no turning tide.
I am still to hear a single pro-regime chant, banner or in fact any vocal support for them at all, when a pro regime group emerges then that would signify a turning tide not irrational isolated snipes and snaps on the streets or via social media.
I spoke to a couple of supporters who were anti protest yesterday, both were reasonable and was happy to chat to them and would have liked longer. Neither could get beyond the myth that RD is investing millions and we all know the finances are not that simple.
Inside the ground, somewhat poetically, the small group who were staring menacingly at anyone wearing black and white and claiming to be Charlton through and through limited thier vocal support to Jimmy Saville chants and then left before the equaliser leaving us CARD supporting losers to celebrate like lunatics when 'our club' scored.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
In what world can you go into a shop a buy somwthing with 'debt' of course it requires fresh money, money that is then listed as a debt.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
In what world can you go into a shop a buy somwthing with 'debt' of course it requires fresh money, money that is then listed as a debt.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
I suspect this may be a real problem. I for one don't particularly feel for The Valley right now, and I was saddened to hear @Arsenetatters recount her own experience today - which concluded with her leaving early because the place seemed unfamiliar.
As apathy sets in amongst some who are beginning to feel resigned to fate, and others lose interest, who remains? I'll give you a clue, if our attendances are now smaller than ever - does that suggest those who continue to attend are happier with the situation? Of course it does. So as a percentage those present at The Valley who are pro-regime will continue to rise. This is actually one of the only downsides I see to boycotting, although I'm doing that myself admittedly.
I'd also like to add that Twitter usage has been interesting today: I've noticed a lot of anti-CARD tweets, albeit with accounts that are either new or have under 30 followers. I suspect there may well be an underlying force that is multiplying the anti-CARD sentiments online.
I've noticed this. Seems like a bit of astroturfing is being attempted. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence that the club now employ a PR consultancy:
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
I doubt anybody really likes the regime, Katrien's probably put paid to that, but I suspect that when it comes down to it most fans don't really give a shit who owns their club if the team is winnIng and it doesn't cost them a fortune to watch the match. If that's the case then we all really do fall into one category or another.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
Another club that falls into decline and loses its support isn't news and, basically, nobody outside a few die-hard fans of those clubs that have fallen through the trap door gives a shit about them either.
Fill the ground and get behind the team and my guess is the regime and media really would take notice. It would also make the club more attractive to potential buyers.
Like when we were fourth in the Premier league, and were still an afterthought on the football highlights programme and shown on Sky once every six weeks, or like when we won this league at a canter and were on tele three times in a season, not once after New Year's Eve?
If a potential buyer cannot see beyond the last three years then he/she has as much idea about football as the Belgian.
Charlton has been in the news more in the past few months than in the past fifteen years put together.
You carry on going and carry on protesting, that's your prerogative.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
In what world can you go into a shop a buy somwthing with 'debt' of course it requires fresh money, money that is then listed as a debt.
Earth
What the fuck are you talking about? Calling something 'debt' doesn't remove the requirement for actual money, of course RD has to pump money into the club, where else would it be coming from?
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
In what world can you go into a shop a buy somwthing with 'debt' of course it requires fresh money, money that is then listed as a debt.
Earth
What the fuck are you talking about? Calling something 'debt' doesn't remove the requirement for actual money, of course RD has to pump money into the club, where else would it be coming from?
I haven't looked at charlton's finances but in theory you or I could buy charlton and not have a pot to piss in to fund it. We'd borrow money against charlton's assets and future revenues, wed sell some players to generate some cashflow, we'd sign players on the never never, not play them if we can't afford to trigger next payment clauses etc etc.
Re buying things in a shop with debt, I do that for most things these days when I pay for more or less everything with my credit card for convenience and air miles. If at the end of the month I ever decide not to pay the card balance then no doubt the bank will be more than happy to let me run the debt or lend me more more to refinance it and basically I could keep doing this without actually paying over any of my own money for quite some time.
The danger of it all of course is that I and any business/club that keeps doing the same will eventually reach a point where the debt can't be increased or serviced and then everything unravels/we go bust.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
In what world can you go into a shop a buy somwthing with 'debt' of course it requires fresh money, money that is then listed as a debt.
Earth
What the fuck are you talking about? Calling something 'debt' doesn't remove the requirement for actual money, of course RD has to pump money into the club, where else would it be coming from?
I haven't looked at charlton's finances but in theory you or I could buy charlton and not have a pot to piss in to fund it. We'd borrow money against charlton's assets and future revenues, wed sell some players to generate some cashflow, we'd sign players on the never never, not play them if we can't afford to trigger next payment clauses etc etc.
Re buying things in a shop with debt, I do that for most things these days when I pay for more or less everything with my credit card for convenience and air miles. If at the end of the month I ever decide not to pay the card balance then no doubt the bank will be more than happy to let me run the debt or lend me more more to refinance it and basically I could keep doing this without actually paying over any of my own money for quite some time.
The danger of it all of course is that I and any business/club that keeps doing the same will eventually reach a point where the debt can't be increased or serviced and then everything unravels/we go bust.
I think, after the disaster of Portsmouth having 3 owners in a season while in the Premier League, the FA may have tightened the Fit and Proper Persons test to prevent you doing this now.
Not a problem, we could open an offshore co in the BVI, have its ownership in Panama and a sister co in the Seychelles, maybe even open up a holding co at companies house, we won't have to file any accounts for ages. We'd run up some management accounts and forecasts to show it's potential, create a website, facebook account, run off loads of tweets and generally put a few stories on the web about us and the co and how successful we are, maybe even create a Wikipedia page (some people still look at those and think its gospel).
I've noticed this. Seems like a bit of astroturfing is being attempted. I'm sure it's merely a coincidence that the club now employ a PR consultancy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Bang on the mark. I have noticed that the same kind of rhetoric has been appearing on forums and social media, overtly anti the protests and endlessly hammering home the point it's a hundred or so militants with a lot of sheep, not representative of the club etc and that the 'real' fans have had enough. This has been gleefully seized on by those who have their own issues with CARD etc. That this has suddenly happened this season at the same time a new PR company has been employed is not remotely coincidental.
The club has started fighting back, and perhaps they should have done this a long time ago. That they are looking to silence dissent rather than actually address the problems which have caused it tells you all you need to know about them.
The worry is that if we even have a moderate season - top half, more decent results than howlers - then the momentum of the protests will slowly decline. People are generally all for the easy life, and there will enough who think that things are getting better - without factoring in they could hardly get worse and they are actually getting better in League 1 - so there's no need to rock the boat any more.
It's depressing but the best chance of regime change and strong backing for CARD is for things to continue to get worse. I suspect few think we are now on the road back to the Championship and from there to the bring of promotion to the Premiership, so I fear the worst scenario. Galloping mediocrity in League 1 in front of a core crowd of about 6000 in a ground with all the atmosphere of a non-league club on a wet November evening with few really caring any more.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
I doubt anybody really likes the regime, Katrien's probably put paid to that, but I suspect that when it comes down to it most fans don't really give a shit who owns their club if the team is winnIng and it doesn't cost them a fortune to watch the match. If that's the case then we all really do fall into one category or another.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
Another club that falls into decline and loses its support isn't news and, basically, nobody outside a few die-hard fans of those clubs that have fallen through the trap door gives a shit about them either.
Fill the ground and get behind the team and my guess is the regime and media really would take notice. It would also make the club more attractive to potential buyers.
It's not pointless to decide who you are ok with having your money. I'm not going to validate the current owner by paying him money to watch home games. Ever.
There's five that sit behind me and my son in the East Stand, never stop moaning about the protests and think that we should stop protesting and allow the SMT time.
Needless to say, we are not in agreement.
However, I actually think the pro-regimers are increasing in numbers unfortunately. Many seem to be getting either bemused or annoyed with the protests ...plus we no longer have the impact of something new. Inevitable I guess, but we shouldn't stop.
Not increasing in numbers. Just the anti-regimers that go to the game are decreasing in numbers.
To me, that was always the flaw in the Boycott approach. It ain't rocket science, if those that don't like the regime don't go then all that will be left in the ground on match days will just be those that go to see a game of football or to support the team no matter what and when the boycotters come back occasionally for a protest day they are seen as outsiders and, increasingly, as the enemy.
It's just naive to think most fans fall neatly into one category or another. Just as there are people who have given up going who were not protestors, there are plenty of season tickets holders who are.
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
In what world can you go into a shop a buy somwthing with 'debt' of course it requires fresh money, money that is then listed as a debt.
Earth
What the fuck are you talking about? Calling something 'debt' doesn't remove the requirement for actual money, of course RD has to pump money into the club, where else would it be coming from?
I haven't looked at charlton's finances but in theory you or I could buy charlton and not have a pot to piss in to fund it. We'd borrow money against charlton's assets and future revenues, wed sell some players to generate some cashflow, we'd sign players on the never never, not play them if we can't afford to trigger next payment clauses etc etc.
Re buying things in a shop with debt, I do that for most things these days when I pay for more or less everything with my credit card for convenience and air miles. If at the end of the month I ever decide not to pay the card balance then no doubt the bank will be more than happy to let me run the debt or lend me more more to refinance it and basically I could keep doing this without actually paying over any of my own money for quite some time.
The danger of it all of course is that I and any business/club that keeps doing the same will eventually reach a point where the debt can't be increased or serviced and then everything unravels/we go bust.
What a plum..... you realise when you buy something on your credit card, the bank is giving the money to the shop, on your behalf. Dave down at Curries doesn't keep a stack of IOU's behind his desk, ffs.
No, you couldn't buy Charlton without a piss to piss in, where would the finanace come from?
RD pumps money into Charlton, yes, as debt, but that doesn't mean he waves a wand and this 'debt' just appears from nowhere, he has to use his own money, cold hard cash.
Now, either you know this and are trolling, or you should quit the internet and go back to school.
The worry is that if we even have a moderate season - top half, more decent results than howlers - then the momentum of the protests will slowly decline. People are generally all for the easy life, and there will enough who think that things are getting better - without factoring in they could hardly get worse and they are actually getting better in League 1 - so there's no need to rock the boat any more.
It's depressing but the best chance of regime change and strong backing for CARD is for things to continue to get worse. I suspect few think we are now on the road back to the Championship and from there to the bring of promotion to the Premiership, so I fear the worst scenario. Galloping mediocrity in League 1 in front of a core crowd of about 6000 in a ground with all the atmosphere of a non-league club on a wet November evening with few really caring any more.
Comments
If the crowds are reduced to those who "like the regime" they won't meet the definition of the word.
Here you go
I did warn you this week that the tide was turning in support of the protests, and I think that situation will only get worse!
Shame I didn't see you yesterday little Al, I might have let you force a stress ball (taxi) down my trousers, only for my grandson of course!
Not going 'to avoid funding the regime' is pointless in my view. I haven't looked closely at the finances but posts on this forum seem to be united in the view that it's debt that's funding the club, not fresh money from Roland (correct me if that's wrong).
Another club that falls into decline and loses its support isn't news and, basically, nobody outside a few die-hard fans of those clubs that have fallen through the trap door gives a shit about them either.
Fill the ground and get behind the team and my guess is the regime and media really would take notice. It would also make the club more attractive to potential buyers.
The regime may make the team perform better (it can hardly be difficult to improve on the rubbish of the last three years) but they have destroyed the reputation and spirit of the club which can only be restored when they have gone.
I have to question the ethics of anyone who supports the regime as well as the team. By being an apologist for the regime and attacking those of us with moral fibre enough to boycott and protest, they side with the regime, are against the community that was fostered in the club over the last 40 years and deserve no repect on my sides.
If asked I agree it is a political stance with a small p. My politics have always been Benthamite and the perverted dogmatic and unlistening approach taken by the Belgian who accepts no criticism and cannot recognise his own failings continues to appal me.
If this is a schism then recognise it as such
I am still to hear a single pro-regime chant, banner or in fact any vocal support for them at all, when a pro regime group emerges then that would signify a turning tide not irrational isolated snipes and snaps on the streets or via social media.
I spoke to a couple of supporters who were anti protest yesterday, both were reasonable and was happy to chat to them and would have liked longer. Neither could get beyond the myth that RD is investing millions and we all know the finances are not that simple.
Inside the ground, somewhat poetically, the small group who were staring menacingly at anyone wearing black and white and claiming to be Charlton through and through limited thier vocal support to Jimmy Saville chants and then left before the equaliser leaving us CARD supporting losers to celebrate like lunatics when 'our club' scored.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
If a potential buyer cannot see beyond the last three years then he/she has as much idea about football as the Belgian.
Charlton has been in the news more in the past few months than in the past fifteen years put together.
You carry on going and carry on protesting, that's your prerogative.
Re buying things in a shop with debt, I do that for most things these days when I pay for more or less everything with my credit card for convenience and air miles. If at the end of the month I ever decide not to pay the card balance then no doubt the bank will be more than happy to let me run the debt or lend me more more to refinance it and basically I could keep doing this without actually paying over any of my own money for quite some time.
The danger of it all of course is that I and any business/club that keeps doing the same will eventually reach a point where the debt can't be increased or serviced and then everything unravels/we go bust.
The club has started fighting back, and perhaps they should have done this a long time ago. That they are looking to silence dissent rather than actually address the problems which have caused it tells you all you need to know about them.
It's depressing but the best chance of regime change and strong backing for CARD is for things to continue to get worse. I suspect few think we are now on the road back to the Championship and from there to the bring of promotion to the Premiership, so I fear the worst scenario. Galloping mediocrity in League 1 in front of a core crowd of about 6000 in a ground with all the atmosphere of a non-league club on a wet November evening with few really caring any more.
http://www.charlton.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=469655
Apparently we're fickle fans and this is not what Charlton is about.
What a plum..... you realise when you buy something on your credit card, the bank is giving the money to the shop, on your behalf. Dave down at Curries doesn't keep a stack of IOU's behind his desk, ffs.
No, you couldn't buy Charlton without a piss to piss in, where would the finanace come from?
RD pumps money into Charlton, yes, as debt, but that doesn't mean he waves a wand and this 'debt' just appears from nowhere, he has to use his own money, cold hard cash.
Now, either you know this and are trolling, or you should quit the internet and go back to school.