I do think the ‘Addicks Charter’ proposal did get somewhat convoluted, especially as people had joined to speak about the current ownership and issues.
The Addicks Charter is clearly a long term proposal, that is there as a reminder to any ownership of what Charlton fans want and what they need in order to fall full behind supporting an ownership!
It did come across as a weapon against TS, especially with the FF coming up, but it’s more of : 1) an advertising piece to potential owners looking In- this is what the fans love/need/desire, if you can provide this then the synergies are untold
2) a reminder of what Charlton fans ,specifically, value and need in order to full support and invest (emotionally and financially) into a club
3) a school-like OFSTED inspection tick sheet - has the ownership achieved all of the things on the charter, is there need for ‘further improvement’ or are we at an outstanding stages
A question that didn't seem to be addressed (or, I have to say, from my view, didn't seem to have been thought about at all) was how would an "Addicks Charter" (which is a good idea) work with Charlton Fan Ownership (which may also be a good idea)?
There's a fundamental conflict between these two things. If an "Addicks Charter" were adopted in full, there would be absolutely no need whatsoever for any fan ownership of the club. We would know it's being well run, for the right purposes, heafing in the right direction and with a sustainable, stable future. Why then would an element of fan ownership be an improvement?
On the other hand, if a group of fans were able to secure a substantial - even full - stake in the club, how could they possibly adhere to the "Addicks Charter", which required the club and the ground to be held, together? It would put the price of fan ownership up by at least £50m - the amount to buy the "property" from the Belgian.
Fan ownership and the "Addicks Charter" are fundamentally good ideas, in principle. The problem is that they're in conflict.
Agree that it’s conflicting at times, specific times at that.
however, listening last night - it was clear that fans ownership is something that is incredibly unlikely to happen - with a partial fans ownership (probably no more than max 10-15%) somewhat more likely.
However, a full fans ownership is really only ever going to happen in an ‘administration’ type scenario, to which a ‘charter’ goes out the window in any sense anyway!
I do think the ‘Addicks Charter’ proposal did get somewhat convoluted, especially as people had joined to speak about the current ownership and issues.
The Addicks Charter is clearly a long term proposal, that is there as a reminder to any ownership of what Charlton fans want and what they need in order to fall full behind supporting an ownership!
It did come across as a weapon against TS, especially with the FF coming up, but it’s more of : 1) an advertising piece to potential owners looking In- this is what the fans love/need/desire, if you can provide this then the synergies are untold
2) a reminder of what Charlton fans ,specifically, value and need in order to full support and invest (emotionally and financially) into a club
3) a school-like OFSTED inspection tick sheet - has the ownership achieved all of the things on the charter, is there need for ‘further improvement’ or are we at an outstanding stages
A question that didn't seem to be addressed (or, I have to say, from my view, didn't seem to have been thought about at all) was how would an "Addicks Charter" (which is a good idea) work with Charlton Fan Ownership (which may also be a good idea)?
There's a fundamental conflict between these two things. If an "Addicks Charter" were adopted in full, there would be absolutely no need whatsoever for any fan ownership of the club. We would know it's being well run, for the right purposes, heafing in the right direction and with a sustainable, stable future. Why then would an element of fan ownership be an improvement?
On the other hand, if a group of fans were able to secure a substantial - even full - stake in the club, how could they possibly adhere to the "Addicks Charter", which required the club and the ground to be held, together? It would put the price of fan ownership up by at least £50m - the amount to buy the "property" from the Belgian.
Fan ownership and the "Addicks Charter" are fundamentally good ideas, in principle. The problem is that they're in conflict.
Agree that it’s conflicting at times, specific times at that.
however, listening last night - it was clear that fans ownership is something that is incredibly unlikely to happen - with a partial fans ownership (probably no more than max 10-15%) somewhat more likely.
However, a full fans ownership is really only ever going to happen in an ‘administration’ type scenario, to which a ‘charter’ goes out the window in any sense anyway!
Isn't the charter supposed to be about how the club's run? In which case it should surely remain in place whoever the owner is and whether or not it's been in receivership or administration.
Partial fan ownership got votes because of the dire state we're in now! If we were blowing the league out of the water, it wouldn't have had as much traction.
The white knight model hasn't served us we'll though and I think sharing of ownership is essential as having all ones eggs in the same basket means that the Club's fortunes fluctuate with those of the owner as the two are inexorably linked if it isn't shared.
However, consortium ownership as a model might slow decision making as too many cooks spoil the broth, but on balance I prefer that idea with a fan share element in it.
I thought a lot of the charter stuff was good, but quite frankly comprised statements that ought to be bleedin' obvious to any half decent owner and shouldn't need spelling out.
Edit - I assume I'm right in thinking it's been put together because we have a current owner who doesn't adhere to such principles.
I tend to disagree with this point!
Giving the fans a small ownership of the clubs/property both gives the fanbase a voice, but also a bit of security when things do change - and they will!
A stake in the club would be beneficial to all parties, but wouldn’t necessarily even mean funding from fans but just an agreement with the ownership that it’s a security blanket and almost a ‘not for profit’ stake ownership
@sammy391, I agree with your arguments 👍 but was giving my opinion as to why I think the voting went as it did. I failed my own test as I usually state IMO when posting opinions rather than fact. Apologies for that.
As previously mentioned, I don't think CAST are naive enough to expect TS to accept this charter. We're too far gone for that (or he is anyway). For me, it feels like a bit of a political play.
A charter puts it all out there in black and white (and red?) what is expected from TS as an owner. If he rejects it (which we all expect him to), it tells everyone loud and clear that he has rejected the fans and will give us clear reasoning to make our next move, which will be to get him out. Something like that.
Firstly, thanks for CAST for coordinating something and also for providing a diverse set of speakers from outside their committee and for managing a call with such numbers so seamlessly and professionally. Shouldn’t be taken as given the number of impressive, professional people amongst our ranks.
Being 100% honest, I came away slightly disappointed. The statement put out last week was bold, as was the rallying cry for the meeting. I can’t speak for others but I was expecting the thrust of the evening to be a lot more punchy. I think @Redmidland did a good job in trying to get that viewpoint across.
Charters, mission statements etc are fine, but that could have been a work shopped exercise done at any time with a smaller set of individuals. And the generic conversation on fan ownership has been a much repeated conversation topic since CAST introduction 10 years ago without ever being more than a generic conversation.
That pair of topics took up the majority of the meeting and I suspect was not the reason CAST were so successful in getting 600 people to engage on a Monday night.
References had been made in the build up to the Woolwich night, but the bulk of the call didn’t seem to pitch near that. Rick might not think protests are a good idea, but, who knows, there could have been 500 people on the call who did? It never really got to explore ‘what do we do? What next?’ What are peoples appetites for x? Are we at that point now or not? If not now, when do you envisage that point arriving? This was just funnelled in the charter point (which had a loaded poll) and Thursday’s FF meeting.
I appreciate its very easy to be critical so I do apologise if it comes across that way. I’m possibly being unrealistic given it was an online session that by default has to be handled carefully.
I think everyone involved is doing so for the right reasons and I respect anyone prepared to put their head above the parapet and give them my 100% support. So good luck to all those attending the meeting with Sandgaard on Thursday and I just hope the gravity of the situation is made clear and absorbed by him.
The vast majority of fans gave him their gratitude and trust when taking the club away from those wrong uns. But despite our willing, he has steadily lost all that trust in being the custodian of our club in the period since. In all honesty, that’s pretty much irreversible now and it gives us no pleasure at all in saying that.
All we ask is for the good of our club and our community he finds safe hands to try and restore what he has been unsuccessful in wishing to achieve and we end this with no real lasting hard feelings.
It will save everyone, most notably himself and his family, enduring what is likely to become an increasingly hostile environment. If that can be avoided it will be for the benefit of everyone.
That’s the key point I hope is made clear on Thursday.
As previously mentioned, I don't think CAST are naive enough to expect TS to accept this charter. We're too far gone for that (or he is anyway). For me, it feels like a bit of a political play.
A charter puts it all out there in black and white (and red?) what is expected from TS as an owner. If he rejects it (which we all expect him to), it tells everyone loud and clear that he has rejected the fans and will give us clear reasoning to make our next move, which will be to get him out. Something like that.
Focusing on "getting him out" solves nothing though. He's a third of the problem as it can't happen without an alternative to come in, and then they have to be a damn sight better than what precedes them to see us moving in the right direction.
The most successful fans campaign I can remember was Back to the Valley, which was a positive one. The most recent protests against RD had mixed results, only partially achieving the objective of getting him out, well run though it was. To be clear, I supported those protests, but we've not found ourselves in a better position since then IMO.
👏 to CAST. That went to extra time so cheers to the two Heathers, Lauren and Rebecca and the Guys who spoke. Not sure why John who was passionate isn't a member of CAST and pays £5 but he has his reasons no doubt ?
Are there any fan owned clubs above League 1? In Germany I believe it was Red bull at Leipzig who moved the Goalposts from the 50% ownership by shithousery.
Other than Richard Murray Part 1 with Peter Varney as CEO and the Directors who got Cafc back to the valley, we have always been a basket case of a club. Good people working at cafc and some good players but weird owners going all the way back to the days of the great manager Jimmy Seed.
If Sandgaard has no support now according to Rick anywhere, maybe the questions put to him should be, 'do you want any help with your exit plan '?
All the German clubs except for plastic Leipzig and Hoffenheim are still fan owned. That includes Bayern.
But much as I’m a fan of it, its difficult to see how you could retrofit 50+1in English leagues.
So who finances the German clubs? Are the fans richer out there or are 'businessmen' happy to cough up for a lower share?
This discussion thread highlights the difficulties of the present situation. I appreciate the thanks and understanding of how much work goes in to prepping and staging these meetings - and believe me there is a lot.
We opened things up as much as possible last night and if there had been a big groundswell for more vehement protest right now then we were prepared to hear such argument. The reality is, there wasn’t. I’ll admit that personally I do tend to agree with @Airman Brown that now is not the time - let’s show we are fans who can support the team in a difficult time whatever we may think of the ownership.
I try not to get frustrated by the dual criticisms that ‘it wasn’t strident enough’ or ‘let’s not be too rude to Thomas in case he walks away’ as they are valid opinions and they don’t reflect the mainstream.
The charter is there as a constructive one page document both for the short term in putting it to Sandgaard to highlight our differences v expectations but also as a statement for the longer term of our values as a fanbase. Some of the points are closely aligned with the Fan Led Review. By the way, we know that our present owner likes the proposals re fairer distribution of PL wealth but is by no means a fan of the more democratic proposals eg shadow board.
The discussion re fan ownership was very important and enlightening imo. Lots of food for thought there.
In the meantime let’s see if Sandgaard turns up on Thursday at the Fans’ Forum.
I think we should bear in mind when considering fan ownership/part ownership, it appears to me (I may be wrong), that approximately half of the CL posters, who some may say are more committed, aren't willing to pay £15 to watch Brighton next week.
The noises around a potential sale of the club have undermined the need for protests for the time being, and rightly. What's the point protesting against an owner who is possibly going anyway? But it's good to get matters aired now so that we are prepared for the next stage if it's needed and the potential buyers vanish as so many before them have done. Thursday will be enlightening whatever happens.
Thanks to CAST for organising and opening the discussion to all.
Firstly, thanks for CAST for coordinating something and also for providing a diverse set of speakers from outside their committee and for managing a call with such numbers so seamlessly and professionally. Shouldn’t be taken as given the number of impressive, professional people amongst our ranks.
Being 100% honest, I came away slightly disappointed. The statement put out last week was bold, as was the rallying cry for the meeting. I can’t speak for others but I was expecting the thrust of the evening to be a lot more punchy. I think @Redmidland did a good job in trying to get that viewpoint across.
Charters, mission statements etc are fine, but that could have been a work shopped exercise done at any time with a smaller set of individuals. And the generic conversation on fan ownership has been a much repeated conversation topic since CAST introduction 10 years ago without ever being more than a generic conversation.
That pair of topics took up the majority of the meeting and I suspect was not the reason CAST were so successful in getting 600 people to engage on a Monday night.
References had been made in the build up to the Woolwich night, but the bulk of the call didn’t seem to pitch near that. Rick might not think protests are a good idea, but, who knows, there could have been 500 people on the call who did? It never really got to explore ‘what do we do? What next?’ What are peoples appetites for x? Are we at that point now or not? If not now, when do you envisage that point arriving? This was just funnelled in the charter point (which had a loaded poll) and Thursday’s FF meeting.
I appreciate its very easy to be critical so I do apologise if it comes across that way. I’m possibly being unrealistic given it was an online session that by default has to be handled carefully.
I think everyone involved is doing so for the right reasons and I respect anyone prepared to put their head above the parapet and give them my 100% support. So good luck to all those attending the meeting with Sandgaard on Thursday and I just hope the gravity of the situation is made clear and absorbed by him.
The vast majority of fans gave him their gratitude and trust when taking the club away from those wrong uns. But despite our willing, he has steadily lost all that trust in being the custodian of our club in the period since. In all honesty, that’s pretty much irreversible now and it gives us no pleasure at all in saying that.
All we ask is for the good of our club and our community he finds safe hands to try and restore what he has been unsuccessful in wishing to achieve and we end this with no real lasting hard feelings.
It will save everyone, most notably himself and his family, enduring what is likely to become an increasingly hostile environment. If that can be avoided it will be for the benefit of everyone.
That’s the key point I hope is made clear on Thursday.
Firstly, thanks for CAST for coordinating something and also for providing a diverse set of speakers from outside their committee and for managing a call with such numbers so seamlessly and professionally. Shouldn’t be taken as given the number of impressive, professional people amongst our ranks.
Being 100% honest, I came away slightly disappointed. The statement put out last week was bold, as was the rallying cry for the meeting. I can’t speak for others but I was expecting the thrust of the evening to be a lot more punchy. I think @Redmidland did a good job in trying to get that viewpoint across.
Charters, mission statements etc are fine, but that could have been a work shopped exercise done at any time with a smaller set of individuals. And the generic conversation on fan ownership has been a much repeated conversation topic since CAST introduction 10 years ago without ever being more than a generic conversation.
That pair of topics took up the majority of the meeting and I suspect was not the reason CAST were so successful in getting 600 people to engage on a Monday night.
References had been made in the build up to the Woolwich night, but the bulk of the call didn’t seem to pitch near that. Rick might not think protests are a good idea, but, who knows, there could have been 500 people on the call who did? It never really got to explore ‘what do we do? What next?’ What are peoples appetites for x? Are we at that point now or not? If not now, when do you envisage that point arriving? This was just funnelled in the charter point (which had a loaded poll) and Thursday’s FF meeting.
I appreciate its very easy to be critical so I do apologise if it comes across that way. I’m possibly being unrealistic given it was an online session that by default has to be handled carefully.
I think everyone involved is doing so for the right reasons and I respect anyone prepared to put their head above the parapet and give them my 100% support. So good luck to all those attending the meeting with Sandgaard on Thursday and I just hope the gravity of the situation is made clear and absorbed by him.
The vast majority of fans gave him their gratitude and trust when taking the club away from those wrong uns. But despite our willing, he has steadily lost all that trust in being the custodian of our club in the period since. In all honesty, that’s pretty much irreversible now and it gives us no pleasure at all in saying that.
All we ask is for the good of our club and our community he finds safe hands to try and restore what he has been unsuccessful in wishing to achieve and we end this with no real lasting hard feelings.
It will save everyone, most notably himself and his family, enduring what is likely to become an increasingly hostile environment. If that can be avoided it will be for the benefit of everyone.
That’s the key point I hope is made clear on Thursday.
I've just read through the c.200 comments made via the Q&A function. I found 12 on the subject of protests. 10 against protests; 2 in favour.
I’m sorry you felt the need to undertake that Pico, but you’ve drilled down and highlighted on what was probably my least pertinent point (and I’ve no clear thought of my own yet with regard protest).
I’m sorry you felt the need to undertake that Pico, but you’ve drilled down and highlighted on what was probably my least pertinent point (and I’ve no clear thought of my own yet with regard protest).
Like your good self I am undecided regarding protests. But Sandgaard does need to be told that the vast majority of Charlton fan's are most definitely not happy at the way he is running the club. Behind the scenes seems a real mess and as for the way the team is performing well what can I say. I think his ownership is coming to an end and I think the sooner the better before the atmosphere at games turns ugly.
The fan based does not agree on anything (maybe TS out) and so I wonder how a decision would be made as to what the fans actually wanted. The two sides of the debate on the importance of a successful women's team to the Charlton family is an example.
The fan based does not agree on anything (maybe TS out) and so I wonder how a decision would be made as to what the fans actually wanted. The two sides of the debate on the importance of a successful women's team to the Charlton family is an example.
It’s a non starter. You only have to look at the reaction to Monday evening to know there is a split in the fanbase.
This is not a new thing. It’s been going on for decades.
Firstly, thanks for CAST for coordinating something and also for providing a diverse set of speakers from outside their committee and for managing a call with such numbers so seamlessly and professionally. Shouldn’t be taken as given the number of impressive, professional people amongst our ranks.
Being 100% honest, I came away slightly disappointed. The statement put out last week was bold, as was the rallying cry for the meeting. I can’t speak for others but I was expecting the thrust of the evening to be a lot more punchy. I think @Redmidland did a good job in trying to get that viewpoint across.
Charters, mission statements etc are fine, but that could have been a work shopped exercise done at any time with a smaller set of individuals. And the generic conversation on fan ownership has been a much repeated conversation topic since CAST introduction 10 years ago without ever being more than a generic conversation.
That pair of topics took up the majority of the meeting and I suspect was not the reason CAST were so successful in getting 600 people to engage on a Monday night.
References had been made in the build up to the Woolwich night, but the bulk of the call didn’t seem to pitch near that. Rick might not think protests are a good idea, but, who knows, there could have been 500 people on the call who did? It never really got to explore ‘what do we do? What next?’ What are peoples appetites for x? Are we at that point now or not? If not now, when do you envisage that point arriving? This was just funnelled in the charter point (which had a loaded poll) and Thursday’s FF meeting.
I appreciate its very easy to be critical so I do apologise if it comes across that way. I’m possibly being unrealistic given it was an online session that by default has to be handled carefully.
I think everyone involved is doing so for the right reasons and I respect anyone prepared to put their head above the parapet and give them my 100% support. So good luck to all those attending the meeting with Sandgaard on Thursday and I just hope the gravity of the situation is made clear and absorbed by him.
The vast majority of fans gave him their gratitude and trust when taking the club away from those wrong uns. But despite our willing, he has steadily lost all that trust in being the custodian of our club in the period since. In all honesty, that’s pretty much irreversible now and it gives us no pleasure at all in saying that.
All we ask is for the good of our club and our community he finds safe hands to try and restore what he has been unsuccessful in wishing to achieve and we end this with no real lasting hard feelings.
It will save everyone, most notably himself and his family, enduring what is likely to become an increasingly hostile environment. If that can be avoided it will be for the benefit of everyone.
That’s the key point I hope is made clear on Thursday.
...presumably there's no reason why another, follow-up meeting can't be arranged quickly if the consensus is that there is more to discuss and more voices wishing to be heard?
Thank you @AFKABartram for articulating something that is akin to my feelings after the zoom meeting. Don’t get me wrong, I applaud CAST for getting something running and the meeting itself was flawless (other than for some hopelessly loaded poll questions). None of what follows is intended as criticism. I have no better ideas. I was not expecting a tub-thumping session resulting in us all reaching for the pitchforks and rubber taxis, but I have to say as soon as talk of a charter emerged I felt the same as I did at work every time talk turned to a new mission statement or set of values. Worthy and just a little entitled. Sorry but that was my reaction. Now that said, I have absolutely nothing to offer at the moment other than hopelessness. Sangaard will probably respond along the lines of “that’s nice” or, if his cage is properly rattled, more likely “who the f… do you think you are”. Either allows us to move to whatever the next stage of engagement is. For me, an earnest line of questioning from the CAST representatives would serve just as good a purpose on the evening as a charter which might just incite him (my apologies if that’s the purpose and I’m just being thick). My real worry is that we are asking a question that doesn’t appear to have an answer at the moment. Yes TS is now a bad thing but there is nothing on the horizon that appears to be a tangible and sensible alternative at the moment. For all Peter V’s noise I’m not hearing anything from those ITK that convinced me that there is an imminent alternative out there that can improve matters. We are truly in the brown stuff and sinking. The fan ownership stuff, brilliantly researched and presented the other night as it was, doesn’t resonate. We’re not Hearts. I’m not all that sure to be honest what we are at the moment but if there are sufficient wealthy Addicks out there willing to come together then that’s great. However we’re not the best (just read stuff on here) at reaching consensus on anything. So we’re between a rock and a hard place. I’m grateful to CAST for getting us thinking and for mustering the effort. But a charter is not for me and I’m scratching my head as to what the tactics are. TS tells us to do one. Without a buyer in the wings what do we realistically do then? Make his life unpleasant la the Roland protests? I’m not sure what that will achieve. By the way, I don’t think it’s going to need a stern talking to from CAST or the handing over of a charter to make him know that we are all peed of with him and his approach. I have a feeling he is very well aware of that already.
wasn't the result of the meeting this week actually stronger than that of the woolwich meeting? Perhaps someone can refresh the collective memory, I dimly recall it (woolwich) was to carry on for now - but I could be wrong?
I happen to think demos are inevitable, whether they will have a positive effect right now I'm not sure. I do think its a shame more than anything that the owner has decided to effectively shut down comms to an extent.
I’m sorry you felt the need to undertake that Pico, but you’ve drilled down and highlighted on what was probably my least pertinent point (and I’ve no clear thought of my own yet with regard protest).
No worries ! I was doing it anyway as part of the written summary of the meeting which is on its way
I am reading this thread, the Varney/Brighton thread, and the takeover thread. All have expressions of various degrees of hope, but this time round I’m not getting it. Not believing it either. In some ways continuing to be rubbish has been easier to deal with than all this. @Cardinal Sin wrote a couple of weeks ago, TS (unrealistically very probably) is probably going for close to break even, and as a direction of travel, horrible though it may be, it is easier to come to terms with that than the roller coaster of hope and disappointment. Speaking purely personally I am now at the stage of preferring to know nothing until there is something to know.
Comments
however, listening last night - it was clear that fans ownership is something that is incredibly unlikely to happen - with a partial fans ownership (probably no more than max 10-15%) somewhat more likely.
Agree with all you other points though.
So, we now have two egotistical and clueless idiots at the helm of our club and that's without including Martin, not me, the other one!
Bloody frightening and worrying.
A charter puts it all out there in black and white (and red?) what is expected from TS as an owner. If he rejects it (which we all expect him to), it tells everyone loud and clear that he has rejected the fans and will give us clear reasoning to make our next move, which will be to get him out. Something like that.
Being 100% honest, I came away slightly disappointed. The statement put out last week was bold, as was the rallying cry for the meeting. I can’t speak for others but I was expecting the thrust of the evening to be a lot more punchy. I think @Redmidland did a good job in trying to get that viewpoint across.
I appreciate its very easy to be critical so I do apologise if it comes across that way. I’m possibly being unrealistic given it was an online session that by default has to be handled carefully.
The most successful fans campaign I can remember was Back to the Valley, which was a positive one. The most recent protests against RD had mixed results, only partially achieving the objective of getting him out, well run though it was. To be clear, I supported those protests, but we've not found ourselves in a better position since then IMO.
The charter is there as a constructive one page document both for the short term in putting it to Sandgaard to highlight our differences v expectations but also as a statement for the longer term of our values as a fanbase. Some of the points are closely aligned with the Fan Led Review. By the way, we know that our present owner likes the proposals re fairer distribution of PL wealth but is by no means a fan of the more democratic proposals eg shadow board.
In the meantime let’s see if Sandgaard turns up on Thursday at the Fans’ Forum.
But it's good to get matters aired now so that we are prepared for the next stage if it's needed and the potential buyers vanish as so many before them have done. Thursday will be enlightening whatever happens.
Thanks to CAST for organising and opening the discussion to all.
But Sandgaard does need to be told that the vast majority of Charlton fan's are most definitely not happy at the way he is running the club.
Behind the scenes seems a real mess and as for the way the team is performing well what can I say.
I think his ownership is coming to an end and I think the sooner the better before the atmosphere at games turns ugly.
The fan based does not agree on anything (maybe TS out) and so I wonder how a decision would be made as to what the fans actually wanted. The two sides of the debate on the importance of a successful women's team to the Charlton family is an example.
This is not a new thing. It’s been going on for decades.
I happen to think demos are inevitable, whether they will have a positive effect right now I'm not sure. I do think its a shame more than anything that the owner has decided to effectively shut down comms to an extent.
Little one was in Hospital overnight Monday/Tuesday. Doing better now though and back home.
All have expressions of various degrees of hope, but this time round I’m not getting it. Not believing it either.
In some ways continuing to be rubbish has been easier to deal with than all this. @Cardinal Sin wrote a couple of weeks ago, TS (unrealistically very probably) is probably going for close to break even, and as a direction of travel, horrible though it may be, it is easier to come to terms with that than the roller coaster of hope and disappointment.
Speaking purely personally I am now at the stage of preferring to know nothing until there is something to know.