Boardroom Watch

seth plum said:

cafc999 said:

Can I ask barnie that if anyone else dared to critise the trust that they would not be subject to a personal attack? I am saying this as HI has made a comment about an article written by the trust in which he believes has been edited by the club. The answer given by the trust was deemed unsatifactory by HI and he raised another point. This in my opinion is acceptable. What I do not find acceptable is a board member of the trust getting personal to people who have raised a valid argument. I, as a paid member of the trust thinks that this sort of behavour from a board member is unprofessional and could deter future people from not only joining the trust but also from engaging in it.

Don't you think there is a kind of snide personalisation when HI says the Trust activists 'suffer' from 'groupthink'?

I do.

I have been active trying to help out with bits and pieces of the Trust, but the suggestion by HI is that I don't know my own mind, and am not able to hold individual views.

For HI to lump us all together as some kind of mindless automatons controlled in some sinister way by Dr Evil is a pretty personal attack in my view, and it is graceless and snide to do so.

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.

The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.

And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?

EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.

Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director.
Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality.
Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters?
The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course.
I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.

I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.

The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.

PeanutsMolloy said:

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.

The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.

And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?

EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.

Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director.
Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality.
Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters?
The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course.
I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.

I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.

The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.

Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!).
In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.

PeanutsMolloy said:

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.

The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.

And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?

EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.

Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director.
Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality.
Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters?
The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course.
I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.

I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.

The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.

I was not defending the decision and never doubted the symbolic importance of the position. I think Ben pointed out above, he was not alone in arguing strongly (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully) for the continuation of the role. The fact that, with that argument unwinnable (for whatever reason), he was able to gain board agreement to a Fans Forum as a means of future supporters' representation should be a cause (then and now) for congratulation, whatever the perceived deficiencies of the FF in operation (now in the context of a new regime of course).
Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!).
In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.

PeanutsMolloy said:

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.

The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.

And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?

EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.

Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director.
Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality.
Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters?
The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course.
I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.

I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.

The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.

I was not defending the decision and never doubted the symbolic importance of the position. I think Ben pointed out above, he was not alone in arguing strongly (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully) for the continuation of the role. The fact that, with that argument unwinnable (for whatever reason), he was able to gain board agreement to a Fans Forum as a means of future supporters' representation should be a cause (then and now) for congratulation, whatever the perceived deficiencies of the FF in operation (now in the context of a new regime of course).
Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!).
In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.

Addickted said:

red_murph said:

It's like a Charlton version of Millwall at Wembley. Bloody noses all over the place.

How incredibly sad. I thought we prided ourselves on being better than that.

Far from it.

A grown up debate about OUR Club, from passionate people who really care.

Not one "you woudn't say that to my face" or "I'll be at The Oak 1pm Saturday with a pink carnation in my buttonhole if you want to discuss this further".

DRF said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

rikofold said:

However I have to say that it has long irked me how easily the Supporters' Director role was surrendered and that it seemed to me to be presented to the wider fan base as a fait accompli. We should all have had the opportunity to oppose this before any decision was taken, because - let's be honest - the Fans' Forum was always a watering down at best of supporters' participation at board level. I've often winced, therefore, at Ben's criticism of others who are trying to make a difference given his apparent acquiescence of the SD role. That's my perception, incidentally, it may even be incorrect.

The fact that approx. only 3% of the electorate bothered to vote in the later SD elections may have had some influence on the board coming to the conclusion that the supporters didn't really give a monkeys.

And if that's accurate, it may indeed be an indictment of the individuals who served, might it not? And doesn't that put the Trust's achievements already into some context?

EDIT: I think it's very possible that a degree of complacency had set in. Richard Murray had presided over a very open period in the board's history and he always seemed less comfortable with the idea that there wouldn't be supporter representation on the board than that there would be. It seemed to be the uncertainty in the post Premiership years and the ascent of Mssrs Chappell and Whitehand that prompted the change of heart. Perhaps we were caught napping, but for me the one person who was in pole position to see what was happening was the incumbent Supporters' Director. But then he now seems to be imagining the Fans Forum offers a greater voice. I respectfully disagree.

Even so, it's still just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I respect your opinion but I think you underestimate the limitations on the capabilities of a Supporters Director.
Each SD in turn needed to establish the trust of other members of the board in order to be taken seriously (ironically, precisely what the Trust is arguing in defence of the decision to seek the Club's review of the article in question and of its current strategy) and, inter alia, to respect boardroom duty of confidentiality.
Similarly, I think you overestimate the power of any single CAFC board member. What precisely do you suppose that the "incumbent SD" could or should have done to avert the termination of the SD role, which appeared to the rest of the board to mean so little to 97 in 100 supporters?
The fact is that, as the board grew in size over the years (14 at its peak), somewhat inevitably the board's "view" came to be primarily shaped and the most momentous board decisions taken by the sub-group of largest shareholders, comprising the majority of the CA PLC board. That is entirely understandable. They, after all were writing the cheques but, as a consequence, no single member of the CAFC board (supporters' representative or not) had much sway if the largest shareholders collectively were set on a particular course.
I'm not referring to your comments specifically rikofold but, in my opinion, the disparaging of Ben's performance as Supporters Director (he did an outstanding job in the context of what was possible, in my view) and, moreover, the personal attacks on him by members of the Trust in this thread are unfounded, unproductive and unwise.

I think you underestimate the symbolic value of the post and, particularly in the context of 1985, the value in having someone present who could be trusted - because they were not there on their own account - to raise the alarm. The limitations of the role were clear from the beginning and I unfairly criticised Steve Clarke for some of them 20 years ago, but the board was quite happy over many years to use the PR value of having an elected supporter on the board.

The role had a value - even if it was often to be shouted at in meetings by Richard Murray, as several of them reported, which at least shows they put a contrary view - and nobody, including its own most senior management, believed the reason the board gave for dispensing with it.

I was not defending the decision and never doubted the symbolic importance of the position. I think Ben pointed out above, he was not alone in arguing strongly (albeit ultimately unsuccessfully) for the continuation of the role. The fact that, with that argument unwinnable (for whatever reason), he was able to gain board agreement to a Fans Forum as a means of future supporters' representation should be a cause (then and now) for congratulation, whatever the perceived deficiencies of the FF in operation (now in the context of a new regime of course).
Many thanks for the 2006 SD election results. Perhaps I am recalling the results pre the end of the VIP Scheme (I very much doubt that the % turnout for these reached double digits) or perhaps my recollection is simply total bollox (I have a hunch you will demonstrate it is the latter!).
In any event, many apologies to all for the misleading estimate.

As much as I don't wish to dwell on history, I don't really like to see it being re-written either. I don't remember hearing any of this 'strong argument' to keep the role. I remember it being delivered by the Fans Director himself, as a fait accompli. That the role could not be continued because of the legal position and there was now point fighting it. If he had put it to the fans that the board were trying to take it away against his will then surely he would have tried to mobilise the fanbase to fight for it to remain? I know I would have fought to keep it had I had any inkling that it was possible.

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

Airman Brown said:

1993 VIP election

Steve Clarke 9,186
Jill Humphries 3,212
Bill Jenner 2,827

Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)

Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).

Yes, I agree, but more to the point the VIP elections were always going to attract a higher turnout because there was a higher level of commitment involved, it was an integral part of the scheme and a small number of people could cast a lot of votes. There's no real comparison with the 2003 and 2006 elections, which were one fan one vote.

Southendaddick said:

Ive tried to be impartial on this and not get involved but the longer it drags on the more it proves the following

- Why the hell would anyone want to get involved with wotking for a football club
- Why do some people have such an ego that they have to act like a politician
- Why the fook cant people just turn up and watch Charlton, get behind them without making it some sort of political crusade

I have been fairly apathetic with regard to fan involvement over the years.

I voted for Vince on the FD role just because I know him from the pub and that he is a proper fan and goes everywhere supporting us. But basically the number of votes registered would suggest that most people do not give a toss.

Well done Henry winning the vote with 2.5% of our support but it didnt really prove anything to me.

I didnt get behind the trust for 2 reasons.

1) it seemed a general crusade against the club and the senior management and I had no axe to grind
2) The FF didnt seem to work for me and I remember idiots like Dave Rudd punching above their station.

Clearly this has turned into a personal debate and the club must be laughing their bollocks off and whilst I have my own opinions on one of the people in this thread being one of the rudest, antaganostic, hypocritical and condescending posters ever to grace Charlton Life, all I think this shows is that fans should never, ever get involved with running a football club

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

Airman Brown said:

PeanutsMolloy said:

Airman Brown said:

1993 VIP election

Steve Clarke 9,186
Jill Humphries 3,212
Bill Jenner 2,827

Turnout £761,250 or 70 per cent of votes able to be cast (not individuals)

Come on AB, that was the first election. It really would have been a shock to get a paltry turnout for that one.....(I'm not sure that the voting wasn't done at a meeting in the porta-cabins - but that really is stretching my memory).

Yes, I agree, but more to the point the VIP elections were always going to attract a higher turnout because there was a higher level of commitment involved, it was an integral part of the scheme and a small number of people could cast a lot of votes. There's no real comparison with the 2003 and 2006 elections, which were one fan one vote.

AB, if you look out of your window to the south west, you'll see a little white flag being waved on a distant rooftop.......that's me.
Thanks for the info. I stand corrected......now go and have a drink for God's sake.

Are you in the sea, Peanuts?

PragueAddick said:

Hold on before you both go (Peanuts/Airman)

This question-to both of you-may not ignite the thread but I think it would be really important for the Trust:

looking back on the SD's/ VIPs and setting aside the individuals, would you say its true that the Board afforded the VIP director more respect because he/she was representing people who were shareholders (or had put money in as VIPs)? Can a supporter director ever be taken seriously by the rest of the Board if he/she does not represent 'shareholders' ?