Half of the fan representatives at the forum were women - they do love a committee do women - my wife is a serial committee person - bit of a busy body - aiming to be mayoress of sidcup i reckon
Can people stop trying to rewrite the terms of reference of the Fans Forum?
People are giving up their own time to make representations to the club on as broad a range of issues as supporters raise.
What each Forum Representative should run an edit programme? They are there to voice supporters concerns and matters of interest. It is thus by definition broad ranging of which the Chair has to be mindful. It is not for the Fans Advisor to shut down any dialogue.
It is not a vehicle for entertainment or broadcast. It is a functional exchange of views, opinions and information. This is the 2nd meeting under the new administration and the level of engagement by the club is to be welcomed.
The minutes provided whilst not my preferred lay out are absolutely fine. Can we please for once just let people grow into the job?
Can’t believe so much time was spent on the renaming of the female team.
You can’t believe so much time was spent discussing the women’s team because it’s something you don’t care about but quite a few others do. That annoys you, oh well.
Sounds like HA gave it a good shot, He may not change it but at least it was raised in some detail. We are lucky to have such successful women like HA and H Mac speaking up.
I have no problem with the opinions expressed and the time used but as the minutes suggest and Picos’ earlier comments indicate there is a considerably greater and potentially damaging issue in play.
There is a stinging rebuke elsewhere labelling our CEO as entitled. His entitlement arises from the investing stakeholder tag which sort of poses the question as to the entitlement of others to make any demands at all.
Let us be clear there is no legacy here. We ripped that up in 2007. Just because CACT came to the rescue doesn’t mean CAFC gets the brownie points. In terms of reputation damage I am not sure anyone involved in the 2007 debacle has any business commenting on the role of CAFC in Women’s professional football.
Richard Reddens 2007 comments position it so very well.
The above addition of Twitter validation is almost defining. Is this is how you envisage the club should be run? What is the next business decision people would like to be put to the popular vote?
TS need do nothing. Indeed I would recommend he defer any decision. The commitment to engage and listen does not constitute automatic acquiescence to the arguments presented.
Just as with the changes implemented in the area of football management the structure of the organisation and its culture were not strong enough to handle change.
I would argue the professional infrastructure of the Women’s Team is actually worse. As of now there is a season to be played out. A season 2021/22 review and 2022/ 2023 planning will determine the new investment decisions to be made.
The Charltons Women Professional project being less than a year old is the definition of an emerging business and at this stage commercially peripheral to the growth and development of core trading.
At the same time people need to recognise there is only so much bandwidth to the entire project.
Sometimes frustratingly businesses need to be allowed to grow at their own pace and strategic & investment policies aligned accordingly.
I imagine since the pandemic the Reminiscence group have struggled to have meetings. Does anybody know their meeting calendar, location, time and how many people turn up? I think it was certainly a thing during the back to the Valley campaign, it might have been organised back then by the club chaplain, and was part of a nascent movement that I am pretty sure helped to inspire fantastic locals like Pam Schweitzer.
@Grapevine49 Richard Redden got hold of the wrong end of the stick about the women’s team in 2000 and refused to let go. He could not understand that a team which was not affiliated to Charlton Athletic, not managed by Charlton Athletic, not part of the trust’s women and girl’s football development structure and not even called Charlton Athletic was not part of the club. When it ran into reputational issues over disciplinary issues, Charlton Athletic learned about them through the media like everyone else. He regarded it as a supporters’ team, a bit like the supporters’ club team, but despite his claims to the contrary many involved were not Charlton fans. Anything he wrote in 2007 was a typically RR attempt to justify his original muddle-headed argument.
Not sure what people involved in 2007 (I certainly wasn’t) have to do with anything, but you could ask the manager Keith Boanas his view. He was involved again in 2021 - until he advised against the team being renamed “Ladies”.
As an aside, at least the right people from the club were at this meeting. It was ridiculous that Keohane wasn't at the September meeting, when the main issues which should be discussed come under his jurisdiction.
Can people stop trying to rewrite the terms of reference of the Fans Forum?
People are giving up their own time to make representations to the club on as broad a range of issues as supporters raise.
What each Forum Representative should run an edit programme? They are there to voice supporters concerns and matters of interest. It is thus by definition broad ranging of which the Chair has to be mindful. It is not for the Fans Advisor to shut down any dialogue.
It is not a vehicle for entertainment or broadcast. It is a functional exchange of views, opinions and information. This is the 2nd meeting under the new administration and the level of engagement by the club is to be welcomed.
The minutes provided whilst not my preferred lay out are absolutely fine. Can we please for once just let people grow into the job?
Can’t believe so much time was spent on the renaming of the female team.
You can’t believe so much time was spent discussing the women’s team because it’s something you don’t care about but quite a few others do. That annoys you, oh well.
Sounds like HA gave it a good shot, He may not change it but at least it was raised in some detail. We are lucky to have such successful women like HA and H Mac speaking up.
I have no problem with the opinions expressed and the time used but as the minutes suggest and Picos’ earlier comments indicate there is a considerably greater and potentially damaging issue in play.
There is a stinging rebuke elsewhere labelling our CEO as entitled. His entitlement arises from the investing stakeholder tag which sort of poses the question as to the entitlement of others to make any demands at all.
Let us be clear there is no legacy here. We ripped that up in 2007. Just because CACT came to the rescue doesn’t mean CAFC gets the brownie points. In terms of reputation damage I am not sure anyone involved in the 2007 debacle has any business commenting on the role of CAFC in Women’s professional football.
Richard Reddens 2007 comments position it so very well.
The above addition of Twitter validation is almost defining. Is this is how you envisage the club should be run? What is the next business decision people would like to be put to the popular vote?
TS need do nothing. Indeed I would recommend he defer any decision. The commitment to engage and listen does not constitute automatic acquiescence to the arguments presented.
Just as with the changes implemented in the area of football management the structure of the organisation and its culture were not strong enough to handle change.
I would argue the professional infrastructure of the Women’s Team is actually worse. As of now there is a season to be played out. A season 2021/22 review and 2022/ 2023 planning will determine the new investment decisions to be made.
The Charltons Women Professional project being less than a year old is the definition of an emerging business and at this stage commercially peripheral to the growth and development of core trading.
At the same time people need to recognise there is only so much bandwidth to the entire project.
Sometimes frustratingly businesses need to be allowed to grow at their own pace and strategic & investment policies aligned accordingly.
Fuck me, @Grapevine. Your minutes must be a sight to behold.
I think we need a fans forum group who can meet regularly to decide on what topics to focus on on the actual fans forum. Basically the Fans Forum Fan Forum.
Can people stop trying to rewrite the terms of reference of the Fans Forum?
Fuck me, @Grapevine. Your minutes must be a sight to behold.
More like 'hours' at a guess.
Well I really can’t help you if want to live in the world of 280bytes. That’s your choice. It’s not mine. This forum as with most « Message Boards » caters for considerably greater debate. Have something to contribute to the debate do we? Or is that too difficult? Read it, don’t read it your choice. The clue is in the number of lines on the page.
Comments
People are giving up their own time to make representations to the club on as broad a range of issues as supporters raise.
What each Forum Representative should run an edit programme? They are there to voice supporters concerns and matters of interest. It is thus by definition broad ranging of which the Chair has to be mindful. It is not for the Fans Advisor to shut down any dialogue.
It is not a vehicle for entertainment or broadcast. It is a functional exchange of views, opinions and information. This is the 2nd meeting under the new administration and the level of engagement by the club is to be welcomed.
The minutes provided whilst not my preferred lay out are absolutely fine. Can we please for once just let people grow into the job?
I have no problem with the opinions expressed and the time used but as the minutes suggest and Picos’ earlier comments indicate there is a considerably greater and potentially damaging issue in play.
There is a stinging rebuke elsewhere labelling our CEO as entitled. His entitlement arises from the investing stakeholder tag which sort of poses the question as to the entitlement of others to make any demands at all.
Let us be clear there is no legacy here. We ripped that up in 2007. Just because CACT came to the rescue doesn’t mean CAFC gets the brownie points. In terms of reputation damage I am not sure anyone involved in the 2007 debacle has any business commenting on the role of CAFC in Women’s professional football.
Richard Reddens 2007 comments position it so very well.
The above addition of Twitter validation is almost defining. Is this is how you envisage the club should be run? What is the next business decision people would like to be put to the popular vote?
TS need do nothing. Indeed I would recommend he defer any decision. The commitment to engage and listen does not constitute automatic acquiescence to the arguments presented.
Just as with the changes implemented in the area of football management the structure of the organisation and its culture were not strong enough to handle change.
I would argue the professional infrastructure of the Women’s Team is actually worse. As of now there is a season to be played out. A season 2021/22 review and 2022/ 2023 planning will determine the new investment decisions to be made.
The Charltons Women Professional project being less than a year old is the definition of an emerging business and at this stage commercially peripheral to the growth and development of core trading.
At the same time people need to recognise there is only so much bandwidth to the entire project.
Does anybody know their meeting calendar, location, time and how many people turn up?
I think it was certainly a thing during the back to the Valley campaign, it might have been organised back then by the club chaplain, and was part of a nascent movement that I am pretty sure helped to inspire fantastic locals like Pam Schweitzer.
More like 'hours' at a guess.
Happy Christmas