I just can't see an end, utter manaic in charge, non understandable objectives, happy to do his absolute best to kill a club based on some obscure motive no one understands.
He is unworkable with, and these poor Aussies have no idea how to wrestle the club free bar pay 50 million quid.
Getting all bills down to zero is his new strategy, utter nightmare.
No movement, no hope, league 2 here we come, it'll be worth it though to get rid of him.
Nailed it! His intransigence and arrogance is nothing to do with boycotts, not buying match day pies, and avoiding the club shop! He's way above and beyond that and any such thoughts that a boycott etc have caused him to sell are literally pie in the sky!
The fella is minted. Whilst boycotts and not purchasing anything associated with CAFC may well give the protagonist a sense of satisfaction (and rightly so by the way), it sure ain't gonna make a difference when it comes to his finances and him selling the club!
The wallonian buffoon is utterly unaffected by protests, boycotts and purchasing abstinence; history has shown that! Said it for over a year now; his stubbornness is his payback and he couldn't give a channel's tunnel as to whether or not we boycott etc! The more we have caused him grief, the more refractory he's become!
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.
Worth beating in mind that CAST is set up to represent all supporters: ...’being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of CAFC and strengthening the bonds between CAFC and the communities it serves’, and if I’m honest, quite a lot of the supporters attending matches are, unfortunately in my opinion, not interested in the political machinations of the club.
What undermines a coalition is when one partner does not get his way, and then publicly slags off the other partner who did not quite see things the way he did.
Unfortunately, statements like this from Prague - which is complete tosh - give a wholly false impression of the discussion over the boycott.
Consider, for example, who did “not get his way”. CARD’s position is the one supported by every other member of the coalition except CAST.
Nobody expected CAST to support it, for all the reasons set out by @pico - no pressure was ever put on CAST to do so, because it was always obvious they wouldn’t. All discussions about it were perfectly amicable.
CAST did not seek and were not offered a veto. So who didn’t “get their way”. Do you have an answer, Prague? If not, perhaps you’d withdraw the comment?
CAST’s own explanation of their position was about their board members not being prepared to boycott. I pre-empted that, but it does not amount to “slagging off”. It is what their own agreed statement says.
It’s worth remembering that if CAST had been able to lead opposition to Duchatelet then there would have been no need for CARD in the first place.
It didn’t do that and its board members would argue there are solid constitutional reasons for that. Given that it’s hardly surprising if situations arise where CAST stands back from some things CARD support.
Finally, Prague might want to consider why no one else in CARD shares the trust’s position. Have they all been bullied into line and if so by whom, because as @pico can tell him, it certainly wasn’t me?
I'm a Trust member and a CARD supporter, and given the opportunity I would have recommended the Trust support the boycott. Whilst I think the timing of CARD's statement is odd, and probably too late to have any meaningful effect, I believe that when you are in a coalition you sometimes have to back policies that you might not necessarily agree with. The boycott should have been called 12-18 months ago, and I feel if a serious call was made, people would have stepped up and supported it in numbers. Now it seems too little too late. Many people have already bought their season tickets on the back of a take-over going through sometime back in February, and others are just worn out with the entire situation and are fed up to the back teeth with all of it. But backing the majority position would still have been the right decision, in my opinion.
I've been a member of this forum for almost 7 years exactly. Before the fans were at war with Duchatelet, there were sections of the fanbase that were at war with themselves, and some of it was played out in various posts and threads on Charlton Life. Whilst there has been division amongst the fans over the best way to get Duchatelet to go, the fact that the overwhelming majority of fans want him out means that we still have a common goal, and everybody should still be striving to make it happen. Both parties here have cocked up in my view and having a public argument on this forum isn't going make anything better, it's just going to open up those old wounds so that when Duchatelet does finally go, people can get back to fighting with each other again.
It would be very sad if things went back to how they were.
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'm curious as to what lead you to believe I thought you were leading the militant faction ?
Was it because I said, "It will be interesting to see Rick boycotting, I have to say" ?
I said that, because as far as I'm aware you very rarely miss a home game.
I would have said similar if Seb or Ollie had said they were boycotting.
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.
Fwiw I think you have taken the correct and only course of action you could, having been put in that situation.
I think I'm a cast member and they should never of been involved with CARD
Just to back up this, I made the decision to NOT join CAST, as if it is a member of CARD, it was not totally inclusive.
When I was Chair of the Union branch of my employers, I couldn't turn around and say "we'll only accept members if they vote Labour." That's denying a group of people access to the benefits of Union membership.
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'm curious as to what lead you to believe I thought you were leading the militant faction ?
Was it because I said, "It will be interesting to see Rick boycotting, I have to say" ?
I said that, because as far as I'm aware you very rarely miss a home game.
I would have said similar if Seb or Ollie had said they were boycotting.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a view from the outside would be that Rick's input in CARD meetings held more weight than others and that he was leading.
First hand, I know that isn't the case.
On one hand I can see how a comment like "presumably led by me" sounds presumptuive, but in reality it can be understood by the narrative on here and other social platforms - Rick is well within his rights to defend that IMO.
If I'm honest, I'm not really replying to your post as such, because after the first paragraph I do understand.
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.
Worth beating in mind that CAST is set up to represent all supporters: ...’being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of CAFC and strengthening the bonds between CAFC and the communities it serves’, and if I’m honest, quite a lot of the supporters attending matches are, unfortunately in my opinion, not interested in the political machinations of the club.
Boooo
It's what makes it such a tricky role on the board.
Nonetheless, surveys suggest their members are much more engaged with the 'political machinations', as you put it, than you might imagine.
That's what makes the decision to issue the statement distancing themselves from CARD's statement all the more baffling to me, especially the reasons given for it within, which for me have nothing to do with the role you describe nor any of their other objectives.
I'm a Trust member and a CARD supporter, and given the opportunity I would have recommended the Trust support the boycott. Whilst I think the timing of CARD's statement is odd, and probably too late to have any meaningful effect, I believe that when you are in a coalition you sometimes have to back policies that you might not necessarily agree with. The boycott should have been called 12-18 months ago, and I feel if a serious call was made, people would have stepped up and supported it in numbers. Now it seems too little too late. Many people have already bought their season tickets on the back of a take-over going through sometime back in February, and others are just worn out with the entire situation and are fed up to the back teeth with all of it. But backing the majority position would still have been the right decision, in my opinion.
I've been a member of this forum for almost 7 years exactly. Before the fans were at war with Duchatelet, there were sections of the fanbase that were at war with themselves, and some of it was played out in various posts and threads on Charlton Life. Whilst there has been division amongst the fans over the best way to get Duchatelet to go, the fact that the overwhelming majority of fans want him out means that we still have a common goal, and everybody should still be striving to make it happen. Both parties here have cocked up in my view and having a public argument on this forum isn't going make anything better, it's just going to open up those old wounds so that when Duchatelet does finally go, people can get back to fighting with each other again.
It would be very sad if things went back to how they were.
I see it a bit differently. The discussion isn't evidence of a civil war. I think it has been healthy and useful for it to be aired and examined. It has been done in a civilised manner. There has been no name calling or personal abuse - just attempts by people to clarify what they think. I don't think there is much lasting animosity between the individuals involved. In fact there is a lot of mutual respect.
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.
Worth beating in mind that CAST is set up to represent all supporters: ...’being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of CAFC and strengthening the bonds between CAFC and the communities it serves’, and if I’m honest, quite a lot of the supporters attending matches are, unfortunately in my opinion, not interested in the political machinations of the club.
Boooo
It's what makes it such a tricky role on the board.
Nonetheless, surveys suggest their members are much more engaged with the 'political machinations', as you put it, than you might imagine.
That's what makes the decision to issue the statement distancing themselves from CARD's statement all the more baffling to me, especially the reasons given for it within, which for me have nothing to do with the role you describe nor any of their other objectives.
Isnt it a question of whether you believe CAST should represent all supporters, or only their members? As I said in my post I believe it’s meant to be the former.
The numbers attending the first home match will be down I'm sure, but probably not by much. That's not to say the call to boycott was wrong, just to say many fans won't even get to hear about it, and many other won't care unfortunately. Apathy never sleeps.
I'm a Trust member and a CARD supporter, and given the opportunity I would have recommended the Trust support the boycott. Whilst I think the timing of CARD's statement is odd, and probably too late to have any meaningful effect, I believe that when you are in a coalition you sometimes have to back policies that you might not necessarily agree with. The boycott should have been called 12-18 months ago, and I feel if a serious call was made, people would have stepped up and supported it in numbers. Now it seems too little too late. Many people have already bought their season tickets on the back of a take-over going through sometime back in February, and others are just worn out with the entire situation and are fed up to the back teeth with all of it. But backing the majority position would still have been the right decision, in my opinion.
I've been a member of this forum for almost 7 years exactly. Before the fans were at war with Duchatelet, there were sections of the fanbase that were at war with themselves, and some of it was played out in various posts and threads on Charlton Life. Whilst there has been division amongst the fans over the best way to get Duchatelet to go, the fact that the overwhelming majority of fans want him out means that we still have a common goal, and everybody should still be striving to make it happen. Both parties here have cocked up in my view and having a public argument on this forum isn't going make anything better, it's just going to open up those old wounds so that when Duchatelet does finally go, people can get back to fighting with each other again.
It would be very sad if things went back to how they were.
I see it a bit differently. The discussion isn't evidence of a civil war. I think it has been healthy and useful for it to be aired and examined. It has been done in a civilised manner. There has been no name calling or personal abuse - just attempts by people to clarify what they think. I don't think there is much lasting animosity between the individuals involved. In fact there is a lot of mutual respect.
@Airman Brown As you know, I am able to withdraw statements I make on here if on reflection, and based on others comments, I got it wrong. On this occasion I am afraid I dont find any reason to withdraw the comment you refer to. IMO if you respected your "coalition partners" you would have not made the comment you made, and you certainly wouldnt have presented the Trust position as all about a couple of them having bought their season tickets.
Like I said, IMO. IMO it is you who should be issuing a withdrawal or certainly a clear revision of your remark.
@Airman Brown As you know, I am able to withdraw statements I make on here if on reflection, and based on others comments, I got it wrong. On this occasion I am afraid I dont find any reason to withdraw the comment you refer to. IMO if you respected your "coalition partners" you would have not made the comment you made, and you certainly wouldnt have presented the Trust position as all about a couple of them having bought their season tickets.
Like I said, IMO. IMO it is you who should be issuing a withdrawal or certainly a clear revision of your remark.
No answer to the questions I put then, just a restatement of your own framing of the position, which as everyone in CARD knows is a false one.
Probably best just to drop it now gents - the statements have been made and the only person that wins from us going further down this road is the Belgian.
OK. Let me try to draw a line under this. I certainly did not suggest nor do I believe that @Airman Brown bullied other members of CARD into a position on a boycott. If that is the perception people took from my comment, I regret that. I understand his upset that he was being pilloried unfairly by others on this thread, along those lines. At various times in the past on here and elsewhere (including when talking to Richard Murray in the past, some people might be surprised to learn) I have defended AB rigorously, and I would do so again today were it to be necessary. I just wish that in seeking to respond to the twats, he had simply written something like
" As usual within CARD there was a lively and frank discussion about the pros and cons of various courses of action but in the end the vote was 18-2 ((or whatever the actual numbers were)) in favour of the boycott call."
The Trust would then have put out its statement a little later, everyone would have made their own mind up on what they felt comfortable doing right now, and none of this shit would be flying around here.
I have been going to Charlton for 43 years, it is hard not going. I have tried not to go but always get drawn back. This year I am determined not to get drawn back. But I do respect how difficult it is for CAST members who have been going for 50 years plus to suddenly stop, and they would be subject to criticism if they aligned themselves with a call to do something they couldn't do. I think CARD is right to provide the suggestion, but there is no sanction on anybody who doesn't do it, it is advisory.
One thing I was taught by my dad was that protest shouldn't be a comfortable thing. It involves sacrifice. You have people like Sue Parkes who has made her views clear that she doesn't agree with any sort of protest for whatever. Well sadly, if everybody took that stance, they would still be sending children up chimneys and women wouldn't be able to vote. I would urge people who find it hard because it is a big part of their life, to consider that. But that is all I ask, I do not judge them or think I am right, that is just my view. CARD has given its view and it really shouldn't be a big deal. Yes, if they beat fans who decided to go to games with sticks to stop them fair enough, but that isn't happening here.
We have the people who think like Sue Parkes trying to undermine protesters. Protesters shouldn't seek to undermine those that choose not to, but it works both ways. If you want to go, go. But it is incredibly churlish to complain about CARD's position on a boycott. That is all it is and it is a case of trying to divide and conquer. Let's all focus on the enemy, Roland Duchatelet!!!!
For what it is worth - probably not much - this is the google translation:-
The billionaire and entrepreneur Roland Duchâtelet raises the capital of his company Stayen with 80 million euros. 20 million of them are immediately paid up. That is almost as much as the transferred loss of Stayven, being 19 million euros at the end of June 2017. Stayen included the stadium of the soccer team Sint-Truiden as well as the hotel Stayen and the football team itself. The latter was, however, sold to Keishi Kameyama, the entrepreneur who, with his company DMM, is the market leader of the Japanese porn industry. Duchâtelet had to pay for the loss of Stayen as he wanted to set up new real estate investments on the site of the football team.
Duchâtelet routinely rid himself of his football interests. He recently sold the British team Charlton. Sint-Truiden came in Japanese hands last year. But he kept the real estate of the Limburg team. His life partner Marieke Höfte is managing director of Stayen, a construction that dates back to when Duchâtelet became owner of the Liège team Standard and Sint-Truiden had to let go. In Sint-Truiden he wants to build a new grandstand, among other things, as well as the renovation into a hotel of a protected farmstead. The work on the stadium is already necessary if Sint-Truiden wants to complete European competitions in-house. Duchâtelet gets the fresh money of 80 million euros from its central holding company Elex. This shows an equity of 420 million euros on the latest available balance sheet.
A lot of noise and semantics on this thread from groups who have done absolutely nothing during the past 12 months to try and rid Charlton of Duchâtelet. Unlike the likes of ROT/B20.
A lot of noise and semantics on this thread from groups who have done absolutely nothing during the past 12 months to try and rid Charlton of Duchâtelet. Unlike the likes of ROT/B20.
Actions speak louder than words.
They certainly do. That's why I have joined ROT as soon as it became a formal group, contributed financially, and am working on some practical support which if it becomes available could turbocharge the ROT election campaign.
Comments
The fella is minted. Whilst boycotts and not purchasing anything associated with CAFC may well give the protagonist a sense of satisfaction (and rightly so by the way), it sure ain't gonna make a difference when it comes to his finances and him selling the club!
The wallonian buffoon is utterly unaffected by protests, boycotts and purchasing abstinence; history has shown that! Said it for over a year now; his stubbornness is his payback and he couldn't give a channel's tunnel as to whether or not we boycott etc! The more we have caused him grief, the more refractory he's become!
...’being the democratic and representative voice of the supporters of CAFC and strengthening the bonds between CAFC and the communities it serves’, and if I’m honest, quite a lot of the supporters attending matches are, unfortunately in my opinion, not interested in the political machinations of the club.
Boooo
Unfortunately, statements like this from Prague - which is complete tosh - give a wholly false impression of the discussion over the boycott.
Consider, for example, who did “not get his way”. CARD’s position is the one supported by every other member of the coalition except CAST.
Nobody expected CAST to support it, for all the reasons set out by @pico - no pressure was ever put on CAST to do so, because it was always obvious they wouldn’t. All discussions about it were perfectly amicable.
CAST did not seek and were not offered a veto. So who didn’t “get their way”. Do you have an answer, Prague? If not, perhaps you’d withdraw the comment?
CAST’s own explanation of their position was about their board members not being prepared to boycott. I pre-empted that, but it does not amount to “slagging off”. It is what their own agreed statement says.
It’s worth remembering that if CAST had been able to lead opposition to Duchatelet then there would have been no need for CARD in the first place.
It didn’t do that and its board members would argue there are solid constitutional reasons for that. Given that it’s hardly surprising if situations arise where CAST stands back from some things CARD support.
Finally, Prague might want to consider why no one else in CARD shares the trust’s position. Have they all been bullied into line and if so by whom, because as @pico can tell him, it certainly wasn’t me?
I've been a member of this forum for almost 7 years exactly. Before the fans were at war with Duchatelet, there were sections of the fanbase that were at war with themselves, and some of it was played out in various posts and threads on Charlton Life. Whilst there has been division amongst the fans over the best way to get Duchatelet to go, the fact that the overwhelming majority of fans want him out means that we still have a common goal, and everybody should still be striving to make it happen. Both parties here have cocked up in my view and having a public argument on this forum isn't going make anything better, it's just going to open up those old wounds so that when Duchatelet does finally go, people can get back to fighting with each other again.
It would be very sad if things went back to how they were.
Was it because I said, "It will be interesting to see Rick boycotting, I have to say" ?
I said that, because as far as I'm aware you very rarely miss a home game.
I would have said similar if Seb or Ollie had said they were boycotting.
When I was Chair of the Union branch of my employers, I couldn't turn around and say "we'll only accept members if they vote Labour." That's denying a group of people access to the benefits of Union membership.
First hand, I know that isn't the case.
On one hand I can see how a comment like "presumably led by me" sounds presumptuive, but in reality it can be understood by the narrative on here and other social platforms - Rick is well within his rights to defend that IMO.
If I'm honest, I'm not really replying to your post as such, because after the first paragraph I do understand.
Some of the nicest people I've ever met coming to disagreements about stuff that ought to have been sorted months ago - why won't he just sell?
Anyway, I lose my phone and can't participate with CARD and then suddenly it all goes to shit......... :-)
Nonetheless, surveys suggest their members are much more engaged with the 'political machinations', as you put it, than you might imagine.
That's what makes the decision to issue the statement distancing themselves from CARD's statement all the more baffling to me, especially the reasons given for it within, which for me have nothing to do with the role you describe nor any of their other objectives.
I see it a bit differently. The discussion isn't evidence of a civil war. I think it has been healthy and useful for it to be aired and examined. It has been done in a civilised manner. There has been no name calling or personal abuse - just attempts by people to clarify what they think. I don't think there is much lasting animosity between the individuals involved. In fact there is a lot of mutual respect.
Anyway, I've said enough.
The numbers attending the first home match will be down I'm sure, but probably not by much. That's not to say the call to boycott was wrong, just to say many fans won't even get to hear about it, and many other won't care unfortunately.
Apathy never sleeps.
https://derijkstebelgen.be/nieuws/nieuw-roland-duchatelet-pompt-80-miljoen-verlieslatend-vastgoed-stayen/
On this occasion I am afraid I dont find any reason to withdraw the comment you refer to. IMO if you respected your "coalition partners" you would have not made the comment you made, and you certainly wouldnt have presented the Trust position as all about a couple of them having bought their season tickets.
Like I said, IMO. IMO it is you who should be issuing a withdrawal or certainly a clear revision of your remark.
" As usual within CARD there was a lively and frank discussion about the pros and cons of various courses of action but in the end the vote was 18-2 ((or whatever the actual numbers were)) in favour of the boycott call."
The Trust would then have put out its statement a little later, everyone would have made their own mind up on what they felt comfortable doing right now, and none of this shit would be flying around here.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing of course.
One thing I was taught by my dad was that protest shouldn't be a comfortable thing. It involves sacrifice. You have people like Sue Parkes who has made her views clear that she doesn't agree with any sort of protest for whatever. Well sadly, if everybody took that stance, they would still be sending children up chimneys and women wouldn't be able to vote. I would urge people who find it hard because it is a big part of their life, to consider that. But that is all I ask, I do not judge them or think I am right, that is just my view. CARD has given its view and it really shouldn't be a big deal. Yes, if they beat fans who decided to go to games with sticks to stop them fair enough, but that isn't happening here.
We have the people who think like Sue Parkes trying to undermine protesters. Protesters shouldn't seek to undermine those that choose not to, but it works both ways. If you want to go, go. But it is incredibly churlish to complain about CARD's position on a boycott. That is all it is and it is a case of trying to divide and conquer. Let's all focus on the enemy, Roland Duchatelet!!!!
The billionaire and entrepreneur Roland Duchâtelet raises the capital of his company Stayen with 80 million euros. 20 million of them are immediately paid up. That is almost as much as the transferred loss of Stayven, being 19 million euros at the end of June 2017. Stayen included the stadium of the soccer team Sint-Truiden as well as the hotel Stayen and the football team itself. The latter was, however, sold to Keishi Kameyama, the entrepreneur who, with his company DMM, is the market leader of the Japanese porn industry. Duchâtelet had to pay for the loss of Stayen as he wanted to set up new real estate investments on the site of the football team.
Duchâtelet routinely rid himself of his football interests. He recently sold the British team Charlton. Sint-Truiden came in Japanese hands last year. But he kept the real estate of the Limburg team. His life partner Marieke Höfte is managing director of Stayen, a construction that dates back to when Duchâtelet became owner of the Liège team Standard and Sint-Truiden had to let go. In Sint-Truiden he wants to build a new grandstand, among other things, as well as the renovation into a hotel of a protected farmstead. The work on the stadium is already necessary if Sint-Truiden wants to complete European competitions in-house. Duchâtelet gets the fresh money of 80 million euros from its central holding company Elex. This shows an equity of 420 million euros on the latest available balance sheet.
Actions speak louder than words.
But I thought you already knew that...