Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

KM and Murray to meet with fans

11011121416

Comments

  • It certainly comes across, to some, as belittling.
  • Fair enough
  • As the person who oversees the Elections to the Trust Board I can say that they are conducted according to due process, in accordance with the systems of the wider Trust movement in sport.
    So far there have not been enough people who have come forward to have a contested election, however each Trust board member has to be publically affirmed, out in the open as it were, and in that respect the Trust Board is a perfectly sound body, properly constituted.
  • Look gents and i am guilty of this too, lets not get drawn into argument for its own sake. We all love this club, I am concerned about PR and whitewash thats all, and not really sure the problems are now resolvable by talk. We need actions from this ownership and rapidly.
  • I don't personally believe that the supporters are separate from the club. The club is the supporters and vice versa. Anything that costs the club costs the supporters. That is, by definition what a supporter isn't it?

    I'm not saying you're wrong but I've always been sceptical that the 'donations' provide more money opposed to them just reducing someone else's contribution. If Roland is determined to have a Tier One (or whatever it is called) academy then he might feel the need to make up the shortfall.

    I certainly think this would make a bigger statement than refusing to buy a burger from a company that has leased the outlets or from season ticket holders refusing to attend games they have already paid for.

    I also think the very fact that it is recognised in the way you describe would make it a bigger statement to the board that we are serious.

    Compared to some on here wanting us to be relegated to force his hand I think this is a lot less drastic for the future of the club. I don't think there is any way we can withhold our support (neither financial nor turning up) without the potential that it will cost supporters in the long run. I would argue that another three year spell in the third division would do much more damage than forcing the academy to cancel a few trips, but that is just my view.

    Anyway, I was only floating the idea on the basis that I believe that many will have more stomach to do that than boycott games or remember to make sandwiches to bring along to avoid buying food in the ground.
    It is fair to say the minimum Valley Gold commitment will be in the club's budget. I will say though that two trips for the u17s were organised this year that would not have happened had Valley Gold not been prepared to fund them.

    It's not unreasonable to take a position that the club should fully fund its own Academy - but Valley Gold provides a means of a long term investment from supporters in the club, with long term success. There is some leverage there on that basis, but we have to recognise that due to the owner's wealth that leverage is probably at its lowest since its inception.

    But then what is that leverage supposed to achieve? Every time there's a bit of emotion among the fans we threaten the club to withhold the funds? Unless we direct the funds elsewhere - and I'm not certain we're free to do that - all they'll do is defer the income on their balance sheet and ask the owner to cover the impact of any cash shortfall until we pay it. Or alternatively the kids will lose out, which is why I think it's self-defeating - we're not impacting the owner at all.

    I think the message that members are asking us to consider withholding funds is as strong as us actually doing so, to be frank. But I'll say again, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to consider Valley Gold as a target for protest.
  • So has the coach steward confirmed his attendance yet ?
  • PL54 said:

    So has the coach steward confirmed his attendance yet ?

    To be fair I think the "coach steward" is the representative of Valley Express which has a fairly large number and quite a broad demographic amongst it's user base.
  • rikofold said:

    It is fair to say the minimum Valley Gold commitment will be in the club's budget. I will say though that two trips for the u17s were organised this year that would not have happened had Valley Gold not been prepared to fund them.

    It's not unreasonable to take a position that the club should fully fund its own Academy - but Valley Gold provides a means of a long term investment from supporters in the club, with long term success. There is some leverage there on that basis, but we have to recognise that due to the owner's wealth that leverage is probably at its lowest since its inception.

    But then what is that leverage supposed to achieve? Every time there's a bit of emotion among the fans we threaten the club to withhold the funds? Unless we direct the funds elsewhere - and I'm not certain we're free to do that - all they'll do is defer the income on their balance sheet and ask the owner to cover the impact of any cash shortfall until we pay it. Or alternatively the kids will lose out, which is why I think it's self-defeating - we're not impacting the owner at all.

    I think the message that members are asking us to consider withholding funds is as strong as us actually doing so, to be frank. But I'll say again, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to consider Valley Gold as a target for protest.
    Valley Gold is money in the Belgians pocket. The only thing addicks should be giving him Murray and Cruella is grief. Retutn funds already collected to the members
  • It certainly comes across, to some, as belittling.

    The Trust elections were held as usual at the AGM, and subject to the same rules as most other Supporters' Trusts and rules that have a lot in common with many membership organisations. It is a democratic organisation.

    The point is that every single member of the board has stood for election. There's an innuendo that it's all jobs for the boys, but we don't know when we stand whether we will be in a contest or not. In many ways it would be good if more stood and gave members a choice of more, different talents. If it helps, at the AGM I did appeal for others to get involved and consider standing for that very reason.

    There is perhaps though also a sense that the members are content with how the board have managed this year, and that too has to be respected in a democratic organisation.

    All that said, I think the key thing about the names on this particular list is reach as well as representation. If we are able to glean a consensus from the supporters we can reach, then the club cannot run away from the fact that there is broad representation of a small number of important messages - because the reach was broad.

    As for John the coach steward, he will have another opportunity to gauge opinion tonight but is actively participating in feeding back to the fans' group. Let's not belittle him too, eh.
  • Slightly depressing the way this thread has gone. Even if the system is less than ideal, we need to present a united front for the meeting. We all know we will get nothing out of KM or Murray. If that is because the questions from the floor are unrepresentative of the feeling of a large number of hardcore supporters, then that's the time to start asking questions of those attending. For now, keep united. KM will be laughing out loud if she thinks this is splitting the opposition to her and her puppetmaster.
  • Sponsored links:


  • mogodon said:

    Slightly depressing the way this thread has gone. Even if the system is less than ideal, we need to present a united front for the meeting. We all know we will get nothing out of KM or Murray. If that is because the questions from the floor are unrepresentative of the feeling of a large number of hardcore supporters, then that's the time to start asking questions of those attending. For now, keep united. KM will be laughing out loud if she thinks this is splitting the opposition to her and her puppetmaster.

    Exactly, we need to stand together, not try to force other groups away.
  • As always Grapevine, excellent.
  • seth plum said:

    Breathtaking and brilliant post. I don't know who you are Viewfinder but my God I wish you were going to that meeting. You certainly represent me and I would trust you Carte Blanche.
    Classic ; - )

  • Sponsored links:


  • Classic ; - )

    On shit.

    GRAPEVINE.

    I absolutely don't know what came over me.

    Bollocks, my pathetic excuse is that Mrs Plum was sitting beside me wittering on about swimming goggles (!), and I was distracted.

    Not going to live this one down.
  • I urge anyone selected to attend the meeting to read Grapevines post and basically just use that.
  • Just send Grapevine.
    You do yourself a disservice


  • in case one of KM's people are monitoring this - I'm happy to travel down from Lancashire at my own expense if I am randomly picked

    ditto from Chesterfield.
  • It seems the invitations to random supporters has commenced. Can I ask anyone invited to inbox me please.
  • I'm cut and pasting the key questions from Grapevines post and sending them to all the announced attendees

    Henry, already done that.
  • How many are being selected ? - and when is it?

    Whilst Grapevines q's are magnificent, the main protagonists will be aware that they will be forthcoming and no doubt have scripted responses. Maybe it might be worthwhile someone having some 'alternative' questions, essentially giving the same cutting examination, however from a different angle?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!