Have to love the fact the current owners are the devil in disguise and the old ones are still gods. Have people really forgotten some of the ridiculous decisions that ended with us in league 1 ? People see Dowie as the downfall of our club spunking all that cash, but he didnt employ himself or write his own cheques !
I think the difference, certainly for me if not for others, is that with the old board I always felt that they were genuine fans and that any decisions were made with the club at heart. Whereas the current board are just interested in cash and are more concerned with various blue-shirted prem teams than Charlton; if they get things right that's grand by me. But if they don't, I don't have the "they're Charlton" excuse to cut them any slack.
Reading this thread is hugely dispiriting. Not only divisive on a CL level but damaging to the fledgling Trust. It seems to me that certain posters have now decided that the club has a veto over and editorial rights to what The Trust writes despite comprehensive answers to the contrary by razil, Prague and Seriously Red. I am not about to join the slanging match but am obliged to say that the words "veto and editorial" are totally wrong in the context of the article in question and I cannot accept that they were not carefully selected to achieve I know not what.
To reassure Trust members shocked by this thread please let me state that the aim of the trust is to be a friend to the club where it can and to offer criticism where it feels it is necessary. It has and will continue to do both set against a backdrop of forging a working relationship with a Board that itself admits doesn't communicate well. Stay with us. It's important that you do.
God help me, there was me thinking that this was about Slater and co....... not being at the Valley?
As someone who has designed every line of the trust news, to this point in time, no one from CAFC, or anyone else from the management has ever sent me an email to change anything. I have written the odd thing or two, and besides my bad grammar, never been asked to change anything, except my headlines.( which I put in because I rarely get them) I am glad that there is a communication consultant, he has a big job to do, especially with internal communication!
Perhaps he might like to sort out the communication at CAFC and it's messaging service, or when they do pick up the phone. ( are your ears burning Mr Kensell) I await the phone call from whoever this person is, and hopefully we can get off to a good working relationship, hopefully they will contact me as the liason officer of the trust, as the first person to bang on the door of CAFC about the trust, just over a year ago, my knuckles are still sore from that period!
I have only met Slater once, and I have only been in the same room as the errant 'Tony' so I am sure I would have remembered any conversation, even with my bad memory.
Back to the 'designing'..... I will post again, got one or two things to do....
"...here is our club rudderless and gently moving on the tide of owners indifference towards oblivion..."
This is the sort of hysterical comment based on nothing but rumour and prejudice that lead to the the Trust being formed in the first place, and look at the results...
"...here is our club rudderless and gently moving on the tide of owners indifference towards oblivion..."
This is the sort of hysterical comment based on nothing but rumour and prejudice that lead to the the Trust being formed in the first place, and look at the results...
Nearly 1,000 paid up members in less than a year and an ACV application on the go.
Yes I agree the Trust has done very well from a standing start.
I think some people are confusing what the Trust are trying to do/achieve and how that differs from something like VOTV.
My view of the Trust is that it has been established to build communication links with the management of the Club, providing a voice for supporters concerned about lack of dialogue, uncertainty of ownership or direction and worried about the future of OUR club.
This has to be done in a way that draws the club in and builds an element of trust on all sides, so that we can then build back those bridges that many feel we used to have. That in itself is a moot point. Communication was much better previously, but I sometimes get the impression that many people feel that they used to know everything that was happening within Charlton, which was certainly never the case.
Prague has stated that he has seen the full set of drafts of "the article" and, having respect for his work on our behalf over the years, I have no doubt that he is sincere in what he has said.
It has also been mentioned that any journalistic body reporting a story like this would seek confirmation from the entity being investigated. If we are trying to build dialogue with the club, this was absolutely the right thing for the Trust to do as well. Unless the club made changes without reasonable explanation, I would expect the Trust to do this.
Only time will tell if it (the Trust) develops as we hope it will, but it is way too early to start criticising the work of people who have only the best interests of the club at heart.
I have attended a few of the City Addicks events in the past, but have always steered clear of joining any of the branches. Unfortunately my view has always been, rightly or wrongly, that these develop into cliques and I have enough of internal politics in my own workplace and really don't need it when it comes to my team.
I did, eventually, join the Trust and I hope that (despite my cynicism sometimes) between it, the Fans Forum and the Supporters Club branches that we rebuild a good dialogue with our current and future owners.
Hopefully, we've seen the last of the pointless posts winding up/antagonising each other on here as well!! All parties have done great work on our behalf over the years and now going forward. You really are doing yourselves no favours at the moment and you deserve to be regarded better that where you are pushing people at the moment.
We wont and havent. And we have tried consistently to respond to genuine enquiry and criticism, and will continue to do so while I have any influence on that.
We wont and havent. And in my view we have tried consistently to respond to genuine enquiry and criticism, and will continue to do so while I have any influence on that.
Would the ceo or chairman of a company that wishes credibilty be able to do so arguing on twitter of shitface
No you must either take the arguing to a pm and allow the comments here razil it is the key fundemental of the trust for people to value the question of why?
And to let people say it was wrong or right
For the trust to work you must be in questions and comms with regard to trust issues razil the chairman
Not answer as razil the man angered with the qs regardless of how many and of what content
I was going to leave it but you have to keep twisting the knife didn't you. So other people's questions are genuine but mine aren't, is that it?
What I don't get is that:
Prague says just the phrase "hidden away" was changed
but Razil says it was changed in "content and style". Which was it?
yet another Trust board member said
"I think we are still working out how publically critical we can be without being ex-communicated. There was a bold and frank private exchange of views with the club about the FFP article, but maybe we were a bit too cautious in our article, and there was a certain prickliness to your not unreasonable comment of "disappointing".
So when the article was shown to the club management it was just to get more information but for some reason it lead to a "bold and frank exchange of views". Strange that.
Sounds to me like there was a disagreement about what the article should contain and a bit more than just the two words "hidden away" were changed but don't feel you need to answer.
It's easy to avoid the difficult questions when you have already decided that anything a particular person says isn't genuine. It's classic groupthink to ignore the outsider's view. Prague did the same thing when he decided that after I said the article was "disappointing" that I was "pretending to care about the Club".
So there we go. All because you couldn't just leave it without some more personal attacks.
A response has been given to the questions and as The Trust heirachy were the only ones privy to the Clubs input, I think we need to accept that and move on.
As NLA has pointed out, the questioning has been to Razil 'The Chairman'. There is nothing personal there. Razil I believe should respond to a genuine question without seeing it as a slight on either Razil 'the person' or the Trust.
I think it good that an open debate on these issues can be had. With so many members with so many opinions, there will never be absolute harmony on any actions or reactions.
However, we all have a common interest - and the Club are well aware of the strong characters and abilities of those within the Trust. I would have thought it's more important for them to bring the Trust alongside than not.
Many, many years ago I was (briefly) a member of a Trotskyist sect.
On the editorial board of our weekly newspaper, we used to have arguments over a single sentence in an article that would go on for days and days.
We spent most of the rest of our time critiquing not capitalism but other Trotskyist sects for various thought crimes - their misintepretation of Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; not understanding the true lessons of the 1851 coup d'etat in France for 1970s Britain. All kinds of vital issues like that.
Then when we weren't looking, Margaret Thatcher swept to power.
I have absolutely no idea why reading this thread should remind me of those long forgotten debates of futile sterility from 40 years ago. But it does!
their misintepretation of Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; not understanding the true lessons of the 1851 coup d'etat in France for 1970s Britain.
Quite obviously the proletariat of Paris were at this time too inexperienced to win power and were in no position to even contemplate revolution until after the Franco Prussian War - and by then it was too late.
their misintepretation of Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; not understanding the true lessons of the 1851 coup d'etat in France for 1970s Britain.
Quite obviously the proletariat of Paris were at this time too inexperienced to win power and were in no position to even contemplate revolution until after the Franco Prussian War - and by then it was too late.
their misintepretation of Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; not understanding the true lessons of the 1851 coup d'etat in France for 1970s Britain.
Quite obviously the proletariat of Paris were at this time too inexperienced to win power and were in no position to even contemplate revolution until after the Franco Prussian War - and by then it was too late.
I think that is probably a correct historical analysis. But you haven't explained its potential impact on the revolutionary mobilisation of the British proletariat during the British Leyland strike...that was always the real question.
Like I said I have no problem answering genuine queries and criticisms publicly and have done so numerous times.
Blimey mate, you can't let it go can you? I support Henry's views 100%. His questions are valid & he does not deserve to be attacked in the way you keep doing. FFS give it a rest!!
Comments
On the downside, one is bullturd management talk and I have no idea what the other one means.
http://www.unicef.org.uk/landing-pages/Philippines-Childrens-Appeal/?gclid={SI:gclid}&gclid=CM2mnY-L4roCFZMdtAodRx4A3A
or here:
http://www.redcross.org.uk/typhoonappeal/?gclid=CJrrnqqL4roCFfSWtAodFAwA2g
or here:
https://donate.oxfam.org.uk/emergency/philippines?pscid=ps_ggl_Emergencies_Philippines_Generic
To reassure Trust members shocked by this thread please let me state that the aim of the trust is to be a friend to the club where it can and to offer criticism where it feels it is necessary. It has and will continue to do both set against a backdrop of forging a working relationship with a Board that itself admits doesn't communicate well. Stay with us. It's important that you do.
As someone who has designed every line of the trust news, to this point in time, no one from CAFC, or anyone else from the management has ever sent me an email to change anything.
I have written the odd thing or two, and besides my bad grammar, never been asked to change anything, except my headlines.( which I put in because I rarely get them)
I am glad that there is a communication consultant, he has a big job to do, especially with internal communication!
Perhaps he might like to sort out the communication at CAFC and it's messaging service, or when they do pick up the phone. ( are your ears burning Mr Kensell)
I await the phone call from whoever this person is, and hopefully we can get off to a good working relationship, hopefully they will contact me as the liason officer of the trust,
as the first person to bang on the door of CAFC about the trust, just over a year ago, my knuckles are still sore from that period!
I have only met Slater once, and I have only been in the same room as the errant 'Tony' so I am sure I would have remembered any conversation, even with my bad memory.
Back to the 'designing'..... I will post again, got one or two things to do....
"...here is our club rudderless and gently moving on the tide of owners indifference towards oblivion..."
This is the sort of hysterical comment based on nothing but rumour and prejudice that lead to the the Trust being formed in the first place, and look at the results...
Yes I agree the Trust has done very well from a standing start.
My view of the Trust is that it has been established to build communication links with the management of the Club, providing a voice for supporters concerned about lack of dialogue, uncertainty of ownership or direction and worried about the future of OUR club.
This has to be done in a way that draws the club in and builds an element of trust on all sides, so that we can then build back those bridges that many feel we used to have. That in itself is a moot point. Communication was much better previously, but I sometimes get the impression that many people feel that they used to know everything that was happening within Charlton, which was certainly never the case.
Prague has stated that he has seen the full set of drafts of "the article" and, having respect for his work on our behalf over the years, I have no doubt that he is sincere in what he has said.
It has also been mentioned that any journalistic body reporting a story like this would seek confirmation from the entity being investigated. If we are trying to build dialogue with the club, this was absolutely the right thing for the Trust to do as well. Unless the club made changes without reasonable explanation, I would expect the Trust to do this.
Only time will tell if it (the Trust) develops as we hope it will, but it is way too early to start criticising the work of people who have only the best interests of the club at heart.
I have attended a few of the City Addicks events in the past, but have always steered clear of joining any of the branches. Unfortunately my view has always been, rightly or wrongly, that these develop into cliques and I have enough of internal politics in my own workplace and really don't need it when it comes to my team.
I did, eventually, join the Trust and I hope that (despite my cynicism sometimes) between it, the Fans Forum and the Supporters Club branches that we rebuild a good dialogue with our current and future owners.
Hopefully, we've seen the last of the pointless posts winding up/antagonising each other on here as well!! All parties have done great work on our behalf over the years and now going forward. You really are doing yourselves no favours at the moment and you deserve to be regarded better that where you are pushing people at the moment.
I think if you read back to what I said months ago trust guys
This thread sums it up
You work hard yes
For free yes
Getting pissed of with negativity yes
Rise above it no
Gonna fail yeah I reckon because your taking it too personally
What's the saying if you don't like what I do tell me
If you do tell everyone
You will do good things you will do shit things
But roll with it take the plaudits and the criticism
But never stop being the fans trust and don't let the club change anything you write that is true
Or else like I told you people like me will not see a CAST but a CAFCT
NOTE: if you are not keen on revelers dancing into a bonfire, this isn't for you.
No you must either take the arguing to a pm and allow the comments here razil it is the key fundemental of the trust for people to value the question of why?
And to let people say it was wrong or right
For the trust to work you must be in questions and comms with regard to trust issues razil the chairman
Not answer as razil the man angered with the qs regardless of how many and of what content
What I don't get is that:
Prague says just the phrase "hidden away" was changed
but Razil says it was changed in "content and style". Which was it?
yet another Trust board member said
"I think we are still working out how publically critical we can be without being ex-communicated. There was a bold and frank private exchange of views with the club about the FFP article, but maybe we were a bit too cautious in our article, and there was a certain prickliness to your not unreasonable comment of "disappointing".
So when the article was shown to the club management it was just to get more information but for some reason it lead to a "bold and frank exchange of views". Strange that.
Sounds to me like there was a disagreement about what the article should contain and a bit more than just the two words "hidden away" were changed but don't feel you need to answer.
It's easy to avoid the difficult questions when you have already decided that anything a particular person says isn't genuine. It's classic groupthink to ignore the outsider's view. Prague did the same thing when he decided that after I said the article was "disappointing" that I was "pretending to care about the Club".
So there we go. All because you couldn't just leave it without some more personal attacks.
I said "for example...hidden away". Not that it was the only thing changed.
I don't know about the other phrase you ascribe to me. I am sure you care about the Club. Of course I am.
Speaking for myself I had no intention to launch personal attacks on you, and I am sorry if that it is how it came across.
A response has been given to the questions and as The Trust heirachy were the only ones privy to the Clubs input, I think we need to accept that and move on.
As NLA has pointed out, the questioning has been to Razil 'The Chairman'. There is nothing personal there. Razil I believe should respond to a genuine question without seeing it as a slight on either Razil 'the person' or the Trust.
I think it good that an open debate on these issues can be had. With so many members with so many opinions, there will never be absolute harmony on any actions or reactions.
However, we all have a common interest - and the Club are well aware of the strong characters and abilities of those within the Trust. I would have thought it's more important for them to bring the Trust alongside than not.
On the editorial board of our weekly newspaper, we used to have arguments over a single sentence in an article that would go on for days and days.
We spent most of the rest of our time critiquing not capitalism but other Trotskyist sects for various thought crimes - their misintepretation of Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte; not understanding the true lessons of the 1851 coup d'etat in France for 1970s Britain. All kinds of vital issues like that.
Then when we weren't looking, Margaret Thatcher swept to power.
I have absolutely no idea why reading this thread should remind me of those long forgotten debates of futile sterility from 40 years ago. But it does!