I'm a card carrying Trust member and disagree with their stance. They should be talking for the membership NOT the position of those on the Trust Board.
But this statement was issued by CARD, and long after season tickets for next year had been on sale. Therefore it’s not unreasonable that some of the CAST board members would have already bought them and (unless you think they should write off their own hard earned) will therefore be attending matches. They could have just kept it quiet and hope that no-one finds out but I think it’s far more professional to front up and say “this is a difficult call for all Charlton fans, each to their own”. Remember CARD is a “coalition”, not every member of a coalition agrees with the others all the time.
As Chair of CAST perhaps I could make a few of points which might help.
I have been involved in CARD from the outset. I was there representing CAST. Everyone else was there as an individual. Yes, I know that in theory those early people represented "organisations" (eg Spell-it-Out) but they weren't organisations in the same way as CAST (with constitutions, paid membership etc). Right from the start when attending meetings I had to be mindful of both my colleagues on the CAST board and our wider membership - others were speaking for themselves.
I admire people who have boycotted games over the last few years. I haven't been able to bring myself to do it although I did give up my season ticket. I think it has been impressive that, in the main, boycotters and non-boycotters have respected each other. There seems to have been general agreement that it is a very individual thing - often dependent on family concerns. (CARD has until now never called for a boycott of season tickets or match tickets - it has merely called on people to delay buying season tickets.)
Going to home games is something I have done for 55 years. Like many others I can't explain why it means so much to me, but it does. When CARD started discussing promoting a boycott of The Valley I knew that I had a dilemma. I knew it would take a lot for me to stop attending games and, at this stage in the process with a joint statement of intent issued by CAFC and AFC, I really couldn't see that a boycott would in any way speed the sale.
I clearly can't be part of a group advocating a boycott and then not observe the boycott myself so, if I had been involved in CARD as an individual, I would have resigned. It wouldn't have been a big deal to anyone. Some might have been disappointed in me that I wasn't prepared to make the sacrifice but the principle of it being an individual decision would have prevailed.
The other members of the CAST board feel the same way as I do. They are not convinced of the argument that a boycott speeds the sale. We may be wrong, of course, but we are yet to be convinced.
So we all intend to continue to attend games next season because it is our individual decision to do so. But we know that we can't do that at the same time as advocating a boycott. One obvious solution would be for CAST formally to resign from CARD, but after discussions with CARD it was felt that this did not need to be a resignation issue - it was a difference about tactics rather than a matter of principle. That is why our statement said : "Any coalition has a spectrum of views and, although we understand and respect the majority CARD position, in this particular instance it would be hypocritical given the above for the CAST board to support the call for boycott."
To avoid any undermining of the CARD position we were discussing within CAST and CARD the timing of our statement and we were looking at possibly delaying it until the start of the season. It was therefore very disappointing to read the dismissive and divisive comment: "The only people who dissented from it were CAST, because some of their board members have bought season tickets." Once that had been said we had no alternative but to clarify our position straight away.
That brings us on to the issue of whether we should then have resigned en-masse as CASTrust board members and the issue of consultation with members. I'd like to try to do that in a separate post later this evening.
But the CAST board can support the boycott on behalf of its membership if that is what the membership wants. I don't see how an individual board members stance has any bearing as its each to their own and stay away or attend its your own choice but if the membership as a whole support a boycott then CAST should respect that and back it.
As Chair of CAST perhaps I could make a few of points which might help.
I have been involved in CARD from the outset. I was there representing CAST. Everyone else was there as an individual. Yes, I know that in theory those early people represented "organisations" (eg Spell-it-Out) but they weren't organisations in the same way as CAST (with constitutions, paid membership etc). Right from the start when attending meetings I had to be mindful of both my colleagues on the CAST board and our wider membership - others were speaking for themselves.
I admire people who have boycotted games over the last few years. I haven't been able to bring myself to do it although I did give up my season ticket. I think it has been impressive that, in the main, boycotters and non-boycotters have respected each other. There seems to have been general agreement that it is a very individual thing - often dependent on family concerns. (CARD has until now never called for a boycott of season tickets or match tickets - it has merely called on people to delay buying season tickets.)
Going to home games is something I have done for 55 years. Like many others I can't explain why it means so much to me, but it does. When CARD started discussing promoting a boycott of The Valley I knew that I had a dilemma. I knew it would take a lot for me to stop attending games and, at this stage in the process with a joint statement of intent issued by CAFC and AFC, I really couldn't see that a boycott would in any way speed the sale.
I clearly can't be part of a group advocating a boycott and then not observe the boycott myself so, if I had been involved in CARD as an individual, I would have resigned. It wouldn't have been a big deal to anyone. Some might have been disappointed in me that I wasn't prepared to make the sacrifice but the principle of it being an individual decision would have prevailed.
The other members of the CAST board feel the same way as I do. They are not convinced of the argument that a boycott speeds the sale. We may be wrong, of course, but we are yet to be convinced.
So we all intend to continue to attend games next season because it is our individual decision to do so. But we know that we can't do that at the same time as advocating a boycott. One obvious solution would be for CAST formally to resign from CARD, but after discussions with CARD it was felt that this did not need to be a resignation issue - it was a difference about tactics rather than a matter of principle. That is why our statement said : "Any coalition has a spectrum of views and, although we understand and respect the majority CARD position, in this particular instance it would be hypocritical given the above for the CAST board to support the call for boycott."
To avoid any undermining of the CARD position we were discussing within CAST and CARD the timing of our statement and we were looking at possibly delaying it until the start of the season. It was therefore very disappointing to read the dismissive and divisive comment: "The only people who dissented from it were CAST, because some of their board members have bought season tickets." Once that had been said we had no alternative but to clarify our position straight away.
That brings us on to the issue of whether we should then have resigned en-masse as CASTrust board members and the issue of consultation with members. I'd like to try to do that in a separate post later this evening.
The comment was neither dismissive nor divisive because it was in response to a specific suggestion that the more “militant” members of CARD had somehow seized the agenda and which in particular questioned my position.
As you know, it is accurate that the CAST reps, who have played a full and valuable part in CARD over two and a half years, were the only dissenters within the group. In fact I was the person who argued over several weeks to delay and defer the announcement pending events precisely because I knew the story would become about CARD and CAST, and wanted to avoid that.
I hoped we could avoid it because the takeover would happen first. I accept that it was a mistake to pre-empt the CAST statement, but I was responding to the suggestion there was a dispute within CARD with a militant faction presumably led by me - although as you know that isn’t and never has been how it works - forcing the issue.
The point about the boycott is that it deals with Duchatelet still being there - if there is a deal there is no boycott. But I think five months and an entire wasted summer after the club itself said that the price and terms were agreed, we have - like the government and the EU - to plan for no deal. If not now, when?
I blame the Aussie propaganda - I'm sure a lot that would have been willing to boycott, won't because they bought season tickets believing it was all done - myself included. Having said that, I do still think it will happen soon.
How many members of the trust are involved in CARD and are there around 20 members in CARD.
Two current trust board members and yes - there are about 20 in the decision-making group, which for example have input to and sign off on the statements.
Would be great if we could disagree without some of the undertones above
In balance I am a huge fan of what CARD have done, how we could have used all that creativity and energy when we started the Trust but I do of course appreciate that those were different times and perhaps the need wasn’t as urgent.
“The Day the Sofa died” is up there with some of my greatest memories as a Charlton fan, with the destruction of that symbol of Meire’s ambivalence, commercial petty bullshit and gross misunderstanding of things CAFC - better words needed but you know what I mean. CARD (and others) gave us a reason to be proud again.
Don't think CARD killed the sofa but it was a brave and hugely symbolic act that should be marked in some way. : - )
A National Bank Holiday.
That might be going too far. I was thinking a statue.
Once you’ve got yours, can we have one for Seed please? Thanks.
He's got a bust and a stand already : - )
It’s never enough. I won’t rest until there’s a kiosk named after him!
I'm a card carrying Trust member and disagree with their stance. They should be talking for the membership NOT the position of those on the Trust Board.
But this statement was issued by CARD, and long after season tickets for next year had been on sale. Therefore it’s not unreasonable that some of the CAST board members would have already bought them and (unless you think they should write off their own hard earned) will therefore be attending matches. They could have just kept it quiet and hope that no-one finds out but I think it’s far more professional to front up and say “this is a difficult call for all Charlton fans, each to their own”. Remember CARD is a “coalition”, not every member of a coalition agrees with the others all the time.
The first statement from CARD was on the 12th April
How many members of the trust are involved in CARD and are there around 20 members in CARD.
Two current trust board members and yes - there are about 20 in the decision-making group, which for example have input to and sign off on the statements.
But the CAST board can support the boycott on behalf of its membership if that is what the membership wants. I don't see how an individual board members stance has any bearing as its each to their own and stay away or attend its your own choice but if the membership as a whole support a boycott then CAST should respect that and back it.
Do me a favour, Large. Read through the posts on this thread from the first page up to the point where @Airman Brown makes his remark about the Trust's position.
Then tell me why you think (or why we should have thought) the Trust "membership as a whole support a boycott".
But the CAST board can support the boycott on behalf of its membership if that is what the membership wants. I don't see how an individual board members stance has any bearing as its each to their own and stay away or attend its your own choice but if the membership as a whole support a boycott then CAST should respect that and back it.
Do me a favour, Large. Read through the posts on this thread from the first page up to the point where @Airman Brown makes his remark about the Trust's position.
Then tell me why you think (or why we should have thought) the Trust "membership as a whole support a boycott".
I didn’t say that “the membership as a whole support a boycott” because if you notice there is an ‘if’ in front of that comment which makes a whole lot of difference to what I was saying so don’t make out I’m suggesting that it does.
What a bloody mess. It's a shame a compromise couldn't have been reached between CAST and the rest of CARD before both respective statements were made, both of which appear to have backfired to at least a certain extent, certainly from a PR standpoint - if this had been the club and RD making contradictory statements seperately like this we would all be on here giving them pelters...
As I said before, if the strategy was divisive for CARD themselves, then what on earth did you think it would do to the rest of the fan base? Again I say this as somebody who is very pro CARD and with the greatest of respect and appreciation to all involved in the past few years.
But the CAST board can support the boycott on behalf of its membership if that is what the membership wants. I don't see how an individual board members stance has any bearing as its each to their own and stay away or attend its your own choice but if the membership as a whole support a boycott then CAST should respect that and back it.
Fair point. If we had evidence that "the membership as a whole support a boycott" the only honourable course for us as a board would have been to either support the boycott or resign, as we would clearly not be the appropriate people to represent our members.
We have never in our surveys asked the question whether people would boycott The Valley. It might have been useful if we had, but it is actually a complex question because the decision to boycott is dependent on so many factors. I have sat in CARD meetings when promoting a boycott of individual matches has been discussed and the view has always been that it depends on the current situation (eg do we still have a chance of the play-offs?). So the number of people saying they would boycott in April (our last attitudes survey) does not necessarily help us in July.
In the absence of that information we have to take a view (sometimes very quickly) based on our knowledge of our membership. This is what I used:
1. Our April 2018 survey showed a reduction against 2017 from 77% of members in favour of protests if Duchatelet is in charge to 60%. I don't know why and protests do not equal boycott but it is not an indication that our members support a ramping up of protests.
2. I speak to members before every home game at our stall. They are nearly all anti Duchatelet but many are not comfortable with overt protest and see supporting the team as what they do. (yes, I realise that existing boycotters do not come to the stall but the CARD call was to existing non-boycotters)
3. When people do not renew their membership of CAST we don't usually know why. They simply don't respond to our reminders. But when people do reply to say why they are not renewing 90% of the time they say it is because CAST is part of CARD. Not all CAST members are protesters.
A lot of CAST members are not readers of CL but I think the initial response on CL to the CARD call for boycott tells us a lot. The response was mixed to say the very least and I really don't think anyone would claim the boycott proposal met with majority approval. If the majority of CL posters are not approving the call for boycott then there is just no way that the majority of CAST members would do so.
Could we last week have surveyed our members on the subject of boycott? Well. there are practical difficulties about that but, for me, there is a more important issue. We have been elected to the board of CAST to devise and implement policy. It is important that we keep abreast of what our members think but we should have the confidence in our own ability to interpret that without going back to them all the time before making decisions. Governing by referendum is weak.
CAST is a democratic organisation, Anyone can become a member and stand for election to the board. We will have an AGM in the autumn and, if we have misread our membership, we would expect to be voted out or at least vigorously shouted at.
But the most important thing is that what we all care about most is the future of CAFC. I think that the demoralisation of CAFC fans is at its highest at present as we seem to be so near yet so far. I think this has been evidenced by some of the hysteria last week about the FF meeting but I reckon it all stems from our mutual dismay and alarm. I look forward greatly to the RD leaving celebration party at which we can salute the big picture and accept that our differences are minor in the grand scheme of things.
The problem, as I see it, is that despite being part of CARD, who democratically decided to call for a boycott if the sale hasn't gone through, the board members of CAST made their announcement to cover their own positions as individuals rather than as spokespeople for members of the Trust. Irrespective of whether the call for a boycott is right or wrong I don't think that CAST's statement that they could not support the call was in any way helpful. If a statement at all was necessary then surely it should just have said that they believe that it should just be down to each individual to choose for themself.
What a bloody mess. It's a shame a compromise couldn't have been reached between CAST and the rest of CARD before both respective statements were made, both of which appear to have backfired to at least a certain extent, certainly from a PR standpoint - if this had been the club and RD making contradictory statements seperately like this we would all be on here giving them pelters...
As I said before, if the strategy was divisive for CARD themselves, then what on earth did you think it would do to the rest of the fan base? Again I say this as somebody who is very pro CARD and with the greatest of respect and appreciation to all involved in the past few years.
I reckon the statements have only really backfired in Charlton Life, where we seem to be looking for a reason to dig one another out at the moment.
But the CAST board can support the boycott on behalf of its membership if that is what the membership wants. I don't see how an individual board members stance has any bearing as its each to their own and stay away or attend its your own choice but if the membership as a whole support a boycott then CAST should respect that and back it.
Fair point. If we had evidence that "the membership as a whole support a boycott" the only honourable course for us as a board would have been to either support the boycott or resign, as we would clearly not be the appropriate people to represent our members.
We have never in our surveys asked the question whether people would boycott The Valley. It might have been useful if we had, but it is actually a complex question because the decision to boycott is dependent on so many factors. I have sat in CARD meetings when promoting a boycott of individual matches has been discussed and the view has always been that it depends on the current situation (eg do we still have a chance of the play-offs?). So the number of people saying they would boycott in April (our last attitudes survey) does not necessarily help us in July.
In the absence of that information we have to take a view (sometimes very quickly) based on our knowledge of our membership. This is what I used:
1. Our April 2018 survey showed a reduction against 2017 from 77% of members in favour of protests if Duchatelet is in charge to 60%. I don't know why and protests do not equal boycott but it is not an indication that our members support a ramping up of protests.
2. I speak to members before every home game at our stall. They are nearly all anti Duchatelet but many are not comfortable with overt protest and see supporting the team as what they do. (yes, I realise that existing boycotters do not come to the stall but the CARD call was to existing non-boycotters)
3. When people do not renew their membership of CAST we don't usually know why. They simply don't respond to our reminders. But when people do reply to say why they are not renewing 90% of the time they say it is because CAST is part of CARD. Not all CAST members are protesters.
A lot of CAST members are not readers of CL but I think the initial response on CL to the CARD call for boycott tells us a lot. The response was mixed to say the very least and I really don't think anyone would claim the boycott proposal met with majority approval. If the majority of CL posters are not approving the call for boycott then there is just no way that the majority of CAST members would do so.
Could we last week have surveyed our members on the subject of boycott? Well. there are practical difficulties about that but, for me, there is a more important issue. We have been elected to the board of CAST to devise and implement policy. It is important that we keep abreast of what our members think but we should have the confidence in our own ability to interpret that without going back to them all the time before making decisions. Governing by referendum is weak.
CAST is a democratic organisation, Anyone can become a member and stand for election to the board. We will have an AGM in the autumn and, if we have misread our membership, we would expect to be voted out or at least vigorously shouted at.
But the most important thing is that what we all care about most is the future of CAFC. I think that the demoralisation of CAFC fans is at its highest at present as we seem to be so near yet so far. I think this has been evidenced by some of the hysteria last week about the FF meeting but I reckon it all stems from our mutual dismay and alarm. I look forward greatly to the RD leaving celebration party at which we can salute the big picture and accept that our differences are minor in the grand scheme of things.
And I have booked the first dance with clb74.
Pico, reading all of that almost sounds more like you are arguing a reason to no longer be a part of CARD than your choice not to boycott. I don't know if that was the intent but that is how it is coming across. Hope I'm just reading it wrong...
How many members does CAST currently have @Pico? And how does it compare to previous years?
We have just over 1100 members. The number has been pretty static for the last three years although there is a turn over of about 200 new members and 200 leavers each year.
The problem, as I see it, is that despite being part of CARD, who democratically decided to call for a boycott if the sale hasn't gone through, the board members of CAST made their announcement to cover their own positions as individuals rather than as spokespeople for members of the Trust. Irrespective of whether the call for a boycott is right or wrong I don't think that CAST's statement that they could not support the call was in any way helpful. If a statement at all was necessary then surely it should just have said that they believe that it should just be down to each individual to choose for themself.
You've articulated very well my own view.
Actually I'd go a step further. Given their personal discomfort and everything the two Richards have said about their ability to read a majority view either way, the CAST statement could have acknowledged the fact that many members had purchased season tickets and so taken a supportive 'not a penny more' stance.
Instead the board - as their own statement said - departed entirely from even the spirit of CARD's call to boycott on the express basis that the board didn't want to be criticised for hypocrisy. Of course the board are elected and thus empowered to make decisions, but the members rightly expect that to be on the basis of representation and on their behalf, not to avoid individuals' personal embarrassment.
I've personally wrestled with the likely impact of a boycott, even discussed those doubts with @Pico, but ultimately back the call because RD didn't sell as we expected. It might well be a yet, but I don't intend to spend a penny more of my hard earned until that becomes reality.
By the way, it pains me to say all this because I have good friends on the board, Ive been a member from the start and even did a spell on the board myself. I know how hard they all work and how committed they are to the club. But I'm sorely disappointed on this occasion - the statement and the position from which it arose were poorly judged in my view.
I blame the Aussie propaganda - I'm sure a lot that would have been willing to boycott, won't because they bought season tickets believing it was all done - myself included. Having said that, I do still think it will happen soon.
Aussie propaganda lol
All the Aussies have said since May 18th is ‘we haven’t pulled out’.
Comments
I have been involved in CARD from the outset. I was there representing CAST. Everyone else was there as an individual. Yes, I know that in theory those early people represented "organisations" (eg Spell-it-Out) but they weren't organisations in the same way as CAST (with constitutions, paid membership etc). Right from the start when attending meetings I had to be mindful of both my colleagues on the CAST board and our wider membership - others were speaking for themselves.
I admire people who have boycotted games over the last few years. I haven't been able to bring myself to do it although I did give up my season ticket. I think it has been impressive that, in the main, boycotters and non-boycotters have respected each other. There seems to have been general agreement that it is a very individual thing - often dependent on family concerns. (CARD has until now never called for a boycott of season tickets or match tickets - it has merely called on people to delay buying season tickets.)
Going to home games is something I have done for 55 years. Like many others I can't explain why it means so much to me, but it does. When CARD started discussing promoting a boycott of The Valley I knew that I had a dilemma. I knew it would take a lot for me to stop attending games and, at this stage in the process with a joint statement of intent issued by CAFC and AFC, I really couldn't see that a boycott would in any way speed the sale.
I clearly can't be part of a group advocating a boycott and then not observe the boycott myself so, if I had been involved in CARD as an individual, I would have resigned. It wouldn't have been a big deal to anyone. Some might have been disappointed in me that I wasn't prepared to make the sacrifice but the principle of it being an individual decision would have prevailed.
The other members of the CAST board feel the same way as I do. They are not convinced of the argument that a boycott speeds the sale. We may be wrong, of course, but we are yet to be convinced.
So we all intend to continue to attend games next season because it is our individual decision to do so. But we know that we can't do that at the same time as advocating a boycott. One obvious solution would be for CAST formally to resign from CARD, but after discussions with CARD it was felt that this did not need to be a resignation issue - it was a difference about tactics rather than a matter of principle. That is why our statement said : "Any coalition has a spectrum of views and, although we understand and respect the majority CARD position, in this particular instance it would be hypocritical given the above for the CAST board to support the call for boycott."
To avoid any undermining of the CARD position we were discussing within CAST and CARD the timing of our statement and we were looking at possibly delaying it until the start of the season. It was therefore very disappointing to read the dismissive and divisive comment: "The only people who dissented from it were CAST, because some of their board members have bought season tickets." Once that had been said we had no alternative but to clarify our position straight away.
That brings us on to the issue of whether we should then have resigned en-masse as CASTrust board members and the issue of consultation with members. I'd like to try to do that in a separate post later this evening.
As you know, it is accurate that the CAST reps, who have played a full and valuable part in CARD over two and a half years, were the only dissenters within the group. In fact I was the person who argued over several weeks to delay and defer the announcement pending events precisely because I knew the story would become about CARD and CAST, and wanted to avoid that.
I hoped we could avoid it because the takeover would happen first. I accept that it was a mistake to pre-empt the CAST statement, but I was responding to the suggestion there was a dispute within CARD with a militant faction presumably led by me - although as you know that isn’t and never has been how it works - forcing the issue.
The point about the boycott is that it deals with Duchatelet still being there - if there is a deal there is no boycott. But I think five months and an entire wasted summer after the club itself said that the price and terms were agreed, we have - like the government and the EU - to plan for no deal. If not now, when?
The reasons for the delays will no doubt turn out to be incredibly mundane.
Probably.
Then tell me why you think (or why we should have thought) the Trust "membership as a whole support a boycott".
As I said before, if the strategy was divisive for CARD themselves, then what on earth did you think it would do to the rest of the fan base? Again I say this as somebody who is very pro CARD and with the greatest of respect and appreciation to all involved in the past few years.
We have never in our surveys asked the question whether people would boycott The Valley. It might have been useful if we had, but it is actually a complex question because the decision to boycott is dependent on so many factors. I have sat in CARD meetings when promoting a boycott of individual matches has been discussed and the view has always been that it depends on the current situation (eg do we still have a chance of the play-offs?). So the number of people saying they would boycott in April (our last attitudes survey) does not necessarily help us in July.
In the absence of that information we have to take a view (sometimes very quickly) based on our knowledge of our membership. This is what I used:
1. Our April 2018 survey showed a reduction against 2017 from 77% of members in favour of protests if Duchatelet is in charge to 60%. I don't know why and protests do not equal boycott but it is not an indication that our members support a ramping up of protests.
2. I speak to members before every home game at our stall. They are nearly all anti Duchatelet but many are not comfortable with overt protest and see supporting the team as what they do. (yes, I realise that existing boycotters do not come to the stall but the CARD call was to existing non-boycotters)
3. When people do not renew their membership of CAST we don't usually know why. They simply don't respond to our reminders. But when people do reply to say why they are not renewing 90% of the time they say it is because CAST is part of CARD. Not all CAST members are protesters.
A lot of CAST members are not readers of CL but I think the initial response on CL to the CARD call for boycott tells us a lot. The response was mixed to say the very least and I really don't think anyone would claim the boycott proposal met with majority approval. If the majority of CL posters are not approving the call for boycott then there is just no way that the majority of CAST members would do so.
Could we last week have surveyed our members on the subject of boycott? Well. there are practical difficulties about that but, for me, there is a more important issue. We have been elected to the board of CAST to devise and implement policy. It is important that we keep abreast of what our members think but we should have the confidence in our own ability to interpret that without going back to them all the time before making decisions. Governing by referendum is weak.
CAST is a democratic organisation, Anyone can become a member and stand for election to the board. We will have an AGM in the autumn and, if we have misread our membership, we would expect to be voted out or at least vigorously shouted at.
But the most important thing is that what we all care about most is the future of CAFC. I think that the demoralisation of CAFC fans is at its highest at present as we seem to be so near yet so far. I think this has been evidenced by some of the hysteria last week about the FF meeting but I reckon it all stems from our mutual dismay and alarm. I look forward greatly to the RD leaving celebration party at which we can salute the big picture and accept that our differences are minor in the grand scheme of things.
And I have booked the first dance with clb74.
Irrespective of whether the call for a boycott is right or wrong I don't think that CAST's statement that they could not support the call was in any way helpful. If a statement at all was necessary then surely it should just have said that they believe that it should just be down to each individual to choose for themself.
Actually I'd go a step further. Given their personal discomfort and everything the two Richards have said about their ability to read a majority view either way, the CAST statement could have acknowledged the fact that many members had purchased season tickets and so taken a supportive 'not a penny more' stance.
Instead the board - as their own statement said - departed entirely from even the spirit of CARD's call to boycott on the express basis that the board didn't want to be criticised for hypocrisy. Of course the board are elected and thus empowered to make decisions, but the members rightly expect that to be on the basis of representation and on their behalf, not to avoid individuals' personal embarrassment.
I've personally wrestled with the likely impact of a boycott, even discussed those doubts with @Pico, but ultimately back the call because RD didn't sell as we expected. It might well be a yet, but I don't intend to spend a penny more of my hard earned until that becomes reality.
By the way, it pains me to say all this because I have good friends on the board, Ive been a member from the start and even did a spell on the board myself. I know how hard they all work and how committed they are to the club. But I'm sorely disappointed on this occasion - the statement and the position from which it arose were poorly judged in my view.
All the Aussies have said since May 18th is ‘we haven’t pulled out’.