Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
What matters most to Addicks?
castrust
Posts: 527
Results from CAST's recent survey here, looking at what's important to fans, what is really, really important and how the club is currently doing on these points.
No surprise - there is plenty of room for improvement.
https://www.castrust.org/2023/06/what-do-addicks-care-about-most/
These red lines form the basis of the Addicks' Charter. CAST has already had a brief initial discussion with Jim Rodwell on this subject a few weeks back and would aim to cover in more depth if/when change of ownership takes place.
No surprise - there is plenty of room for improvement.
https://www.castrust.org/2023/06/what-do-addicks-care-about-most/
These red lines form the basis of the Addicks' Charter. CAST has already had a brief initial discussion with Jim Rodwell on this subject a few weeks back and would aim to cover in more depth if/when change of ownership takes place.
0
Comments
-
This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.15
-
Good piece of analysis, that. It's pleasing, but not surprising, that there's a high level of consistency in the fan's views. Thank you.1
-
Vegan food?0
-
Ethically sourced £Billions and trains1
-
Thanks for this and noted. CAST do indeed need to tread a fine line. On the one hand some wanted us to hound Sandgaard out / organise protests while others are up in arms if we dare to say we will scrutinise the new ownership (if and when we find out who they all are). I’ve said before we are several times bitten so now very shy - we will judge on actions not just words. We have said this directly to Jim Rodwell.Sillybilly said:This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.If you check the December Fans’ Forum minutes these do show that the presentation of the charter to TS was pretty fundamental. This was done by not only CAST (represented by HA) but several other fan reps present.Dean Holden mentioned the charter unprompted in his first club interview. CAST have already had a brief discussion with Jim Rodwell about it. I would be concerned if club ownership aren’t serious about committing to the charter - Holden himself said why on earth would they not? Obviously the point re The Valley and training ground is a more gnarly one but as the survey shows, it’s high on the list of importance for fans.This really is a time for us all to pull together as fans and to support CAST’s position as a “critical friend”. It will take time to build trust between our fanbase and new ownership after all we’ve been through - I sincerely hope we can get there. CAST have no desire and certainly no agenda to create division. I’m not sure that is the case everywhere unfortunately.6 -
think i clicked "Important" to most of the questions from memory. apart from feeling proud of supporting Charlton.
4 people saying that having a competent and experienced CEO with a board of directors that follow legal and best practise believe that is not important at all. got tax avoidance written all over it.
0 -
Sillybilly said:This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.Charlton fans: 'why do we keep getting shit owners who have absolutely no respect for us or our club?'Also Charlton fans: 'Shhh, hide all the stuff about what we expect from owners, don't look them in the eye, we don't want them to think we might take them to task! What if they get scared and go somewhere else?!'It's weird that we keep getting shit owners isn't it.2
-
Tell the owners to provide winning football on the pitch and for the vast majority of fans every other problem diminishes.6
-
1/. How many chips you get.
2/. Addicts to Victory binned.
3/. How tall the new signings are.
4/. How often Scarfy is used close season.
5/. How many chips you get.1 -
And how does a comment like that help?Weegie Addick said:
Thanks for this and noted. CAST do indeed need to tread a fine line. On the one hand some wanted us to hound Sandgaard out / organise protests while others are up in arms if we dare to say we will scrutinise the new ownership (if and when we find out who they all are). I’ve said before we are several times bitten so now very shy - we will judge on actions not just words. We have said this directly to Jim Rodwell.Sillybilly said:This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.If you check the December Fans’ Forum minutes these do show that the presentation of the charter to TS was pretty fundamental. This was done by not only CAST (represented by HA) but several other fan reps present.Dean Holden mentioned the charter unprompted in his first club interview. CAST have already had a brief discussion with Jim Rodwell about it. I would be concerned if club ownership aren’t serious about committing to the charter - Holden himself said why on earth would they not? Obviously the point re The Valley and training ground is a more gnarly one but as the survey shows, it’s high on the list of importance for fans.This really is a time for us all to pull together as fans and to support CAST’s position as a “critical friend”. It will take time to build trust between our fanbase and new ownership after all we’ve been through - I sincerely hope we can get there. CAST have no desire and certainly no agenda to create division. I’m not sure that is the case everywhere unfortunately.
The Trust have made numerous mistakes in the past re our owners, but I can at least understand that and as a member will challenge it.
The Trust need broader shoulders and try and embrace all parts of the supporters base, not make judgement on them1 - Sponsored links:
-
To be honest the charter whilst written with the best of intentions is pretty much meaningless. What are CAST going to do if the new owner(s) ignore it ? I am a member of CAST and contribute my £5 to the cause.Sillybilly said:This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.
I disagree with Weegie Addick that CAST are a "critical friend". CAST (I'm happy to be corrected) only started with the GameOVer stuff once TS sold the club, I don't remember too much 'criticism' prior to him selling the club. A few letters were sent (again happy to be corrected) that were ignored and that was the sum total of the 'criticism' I believe the charter was sent to him, and yep he ignored it.
As far as pulling together WeegieAddick demonstrates why different factions probably won't come together with the attitude she demonstrates in her last sentence.
For the record I'm only a member of CAST and not a member of any other 'faction'1 -
The last sentence is not an attitude. It is a genuine concern. CAST is fully open to co-operation and the charter was developed with both members and non-members.Thank you for being members of CAST and please always feel free to email thoughts / ideas to secretary@castrust.org.1
-
Have a look at the FF minutes of last December and read what was spelled out to him face to facelonman said:
To be honest the charter whilst written with the best of intentions is pretty much meaningless. What are CAST going to do if the new owner(s) ignore it ? I am a member of CAST and contribute my £5 to the cause.Sillybilly said:This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.
I disagree with Weegie Addick that CAST are a "critical friend". CAST (I'm happy to be corrected) only started with the GameOVer stuff once TS sold the club, I don't remember too much 'criticism' prior to him selling the club. A few letters were sent (again happy to be corrected) that were ignored and that was the sum total of the 'criticism' I believe the charter was sent to him, and yep he ignored it.
As far as pulling together WeegieAddick demonstrates why different factions probably won't come together with the attitude she demonstrates in her last sentence.
For the record I'm only a member of CAST and not a member of any other 'faction'
https://www.charltonafc.com/news/fans-forum-notes-december-2022
1 -
Their next fix0
-
Thanks for the survey and for giving us the results CAST.
A question of method: is a ~ 1.2k sample representative?
We seem to have about 7k season ticket holders, me being one of them. Attendances of about 10k+.
Are CAST allowed to contact ST holders via email? I have just checked and I don't think I got the link that way; I probably got it from CL. It would seem like a good way of getting a higher sample size.
Also, I don't remember seeing any information about the survey during home matches. That could have been another way of getting more responses.
For the record, I am not a CAST member (yet).0 -
To me by far the biggest mistake TS made was not appointing a competent and credible CEO, and giving them freedom to run the everyday operations of the club.
If Storrie or someone similar had been appointed 2 years earlier, the TS era would have been significantly more successful.1 -
What difference did it make ?Pico said:
Have a look at the FF minutes of last December and read what was spelled out to him face to facelonman said:
To be honest the charter whilst written with the best of intentions is pretty much meaningless. What are CAST going to do if the new owner(s) ignore it ? I am a member of CAST and contribute my £5 to the cause.Sillybilly said:This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.
I disagree with Weegie Addick that CAST are a "critical friend". CAST (I'm happy to be corrected) only started with the GameOVer stuff once TS sold the club, I don't remember too much 'criticism' prior to him selling the club. A few letters were sent (again happy to be corrected) that were ignored and that was the sum total of the 'criticism' I believe the charter was sent to him, and yep he ignored it.
As far as pulling together WeegieAddick demonstrates why different factions probably won't come together with the attitude she demonstrates in her last sentence.
For the record I'm only a member of CAST and not a member of any other 'faction'
https://www.charltonafc.com/news/fans-forum-notes-december-20220 -
Your point was that you "didn't remember much criticism prior to him selling the club". I was just jogging your memory.
Who knows if the criticism of him at that meeting by the CAST representative and others made any difference ?
But he is now selling the club............3 -
The real problem with all this is no reasonable Charlton supporter would be opposed to any of these things:
Competitive men's football team
Investment in the academy
Investment in the women's team
Better "match day experience"
Affordable tickets
I assume the idea of a "proper" SMT is with the idea of achieving the above, not an actual goal in itself? Ie if we had all the above no one would give a monkeys but you won't get the latter without the former?
Then you get a "costed" plan to buy the Valley and training ground. It can only be costed by someone, a wealthy individual, or two, buying it. What does that really mean? You would rather no one buy the club if they can't, or won't, buy the Valley?
I honestly think we are running out of road here. In the sense we are asking for perfection but there is no practical option than to keep spinning the wheel and hope.
I don't know what the answer is, it obviously isn't do nothing, the fans can't buy the club, and run it in a way that would be acceptable to the fans.
0 -
Close this thread now, this post in spades.ShootersHillGuru said:Tell the owners to provide winning football on the pitch and for the vast majority of fans every other problem diminishes.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Absolutely, which is why it is strange why Sandgaard did not do this.killerandflash said:To me by far the biggest mistake TS made was not appointing a competent and credible CEO, and giving them freedom to run the everyday operations of the club.
If Storrie or someone similar had been appointed 2 years earlier, the TS era would have been significantly more successful.
Sandgaard has not gained his wealth by being a fool, common sense must say employ experience for a job.0 -
Rightly or wrongly, I think a major amount of fans would be more relaxed if the land was bought.Cafc43v3r said:The real problem with all this is no reasonable Charlton supporter would be opposed to any of these things:
Competitive men's football team
Investment in the academy
Investment in the women's team
Better "match day experience"
Affordable tickets
I assume the idea of a "proper" SMT is with the idea of achieving the above, not an actual goal in itself? Ie if we had all the above no one would give a monkeys but you won't get the latter without the former?
Then you get a "costed" plan to buy the Valley and training ground. It can only be costed by someone, a wealthy individual, or two, buying it. What does that really mean? You would rather no one buy the club if they can't, or won't, buy the Valley?
I honestly think we are running out of road here. In the sense we are asking for perfection but there is no practical option than to keep spinning the wheel and hope.
I don't know what the answer is, it obviously isn't do nothing, the fans can't buy the club, and run it in a way that would be acceptable to the fans.
A statement of intentions for the long term would be considered?0 -
Spot on Garry.Garrymanilow said:Sillybilly said:This probably won’t be popular. I’m not knocking CAST per se. I am grateful for the time and effort put in on our collective behalf. But just occasionally it’s choice of language makes me cringe a bit. “Game over Sandgaard”. Really? So it was the Trust’s presentation of a charter to him that forced him out was it? I don’t think so. New owners not even in the door and the charter is being presented to them. I get it. I really do but please folks just tread carefully with this and ensure the language can’t be seen as a little self-entitled. I applaud the intentions and the hard work and the sentiment behind the charter is solid. But I worry a bit about scaring the horses.Charlton fans: 'why do we keep getting shit owners who have absolutely no respect for us or our club?'Also Charlton fans: 'Shhh, hide all the stuff about what we expect from owners, don't look them in the eye, we don't want them to think we might take them to task! What if they get scared and go somewhere else?!'It's weird that we keep getting shit owners isn't it.
Whether the fans charter caused TS to sell up or not we'll never though and quite frankly I don't really care. But I'm certainly very pleased it's in place for the new lot from the outset because what's one of the top priorities for any new owner of a club - get the supporters on board. And what better way than embracing the fans charter. Thanks CAST.2 -
We informed the club about the survey but I don’t believe they did promote this one. It would be up to the club to email it to their database. Occasionally they have done with past CAST surveys and obviously that is helpful in reaching the widest possible sample.Arthur_Trudgill said:Thanks for the survey and for giving us the results CAST.
A question of method: is a ~ 1.2k sample representative?
We seem to have about 7k season ticket holders, me being one of them. Attendances of about 10k+.
Are CAST allowed to contact ST holders via email? I have just checked and I don't think I got the link that way; I probably got it from CL. It would seem like a good way of getting a higher sample size.
Also, I don't remember seeing any information about the survey during home matches. That could have been another way of getting more responses.
For the record, I am not a CAST member (yet).Over the years CAST surveys, whether promoted by the club as well or not, tend to get between 1K and 1.5K responses. We ask profile questions eg age, gender, location and the sample is large enough to drill down into these, though we find minimal difference when we do. We ask whether or not people are CAST members and again can look at any differences and will highlight if these are significant, which is not usually the case.
The sample size is statistically significant. We share the results with the club too regarding things like season ticket intentions.
Hope this helps.1 -
When I sat in front of sandgaard, maloney and Henderson with two members of his staff along with the wife of one of them, I didn’t do so to win friends. I didn’t want him to feel comfortable nor leave his answers unquestioned, when asked what my part in the discussion was, I told them “I witnessed Nathan being intimidated and supported him for the two months prior to the meeting in the best way I could.I’ve been asked/told several times by fans to “shut up” or “it’s boring” or the one that caused the most interest “ I don’t have the support of staff” For the record one member of staff offered to pay my expenses to the meeting in Mayfair with the owner, it was politely declined.I fully expected to by banned for my part in this and while I don’t use social media for contact I still speak to staff and former staff.Several people now for what ever reason appear to want pretty much nothing to do with me and that’s their decision, I can only assume why but the support is there from those involved and those that matter.
I was recently contacted by the Daily Mail on the matter of bullying, while I despise all papers I was out of my depth, I needed help, all those I affected wanted me to speak to them but I also knew the owners had bigger lawyers than me and I’m not talking about the one on a Maidstone industrial park they used when money got tight.
As lapsed member of the trust I don’t envy the job, I’m too passionate about anything I get involved with and have publicly distanced myself from both trusts although will continue to support the Upbeats.
It’s not the fault of staff former or current, I didn’t ask to get involved like they didn’t ask to be bullied.What I didn’t expect was the lack of respect or support shown to those that were.
When sandgaard answered “it was deliberate” that was disrespectful to those who’s mental heath was affected by the actions of the SMT.6 -
Have you posted this on the right thread?T_C_E said:When I sat in front of sandgaard, maloney and Henderson with two members of his staff along with the wife of one of them, I didn’t do so to win friends. I didn’t want him to feel comfortable nor leave his answers unquestioned, when asked what my part in the discussion was, I told them “I witnessed Nathan being intimidated and supported him for the two months prior to the meeting in the best way I could.I’ve been asked/told several times by fans to “shut up” or “it’s boring” or the one that caused the most interest “ I don’t have the support of staff” For the record one member of staff offered to pay my expenses to the meeting in Mayfair with the owner, it was politely declined.I fully expected to by banned for my part in this and while I don’t use social media for contact I still speak to staff and former staff.Several people now for what ever reason appear to want pretty much nothing to do with me and that’s their decision, I can only assume why but the support is there from those involved and those that matter.
I was recently contacted by the Daily Mail on the matter of bullying, while I despise all papers I was out of my depth, I needed help, all those I affected wanted me to speak to them but I also knew the owners had bigger lawyers than me and I’m not talking about the one on a Maidstone industrial park they used when money got tight.
As lapsed member of the trust I don’t envy the job, I’m too passionate about anything I get involved with and have publicly distanced myself from both trusts although will continue to support the Upbeats.
It’s not the fault of staff former or current, I didn’t ask to get involved like they didn’t ask to be bullied.What I didn’t expect was the lack of respect or support shown to those that were.
When sandgaard answered “it was deliberate” that was disrespectful to those who’s mental heath was affected by the actions of the SMT.0 -
Why ?Off_it said:
Have you posted this on the right thread?T_C_E said:When I sat in front of sandgaard, maloney and Henderson with two members of his staff along with the wife of one of them, I didn’t do so to win friends. I didn’t want him to feel comfortable nor leave his answers unquestioned, when asked what my part in the discussion was, I told them “I witnessed Nathan being intimidated and supported him for the two months prior to the meeting in the best way I could.I’ve been asked/told several times by fans to “shut up” or “it’s boring” or the one that caused the most interest “ I don’t have the support of staff” For the record one member of staff offered to pay my expenses to the meeting in Mayfair with the owner, it was politely declined.I fully expected to by banned for my part in this and while I don’t use social media for contact I still speak to staff and former staff.Several people now for what ever reason appear to want pretty much nothing to do with me and that’s their decision, I can only assume why but the support is there from those involved and those that matter.
I was recently contacted by the Daily Mail on the matter of bullying, while I despise all papers I was out of my depth, I needed help, all those I affected wanted me to speak to them but I also knew the owners had bigger lawyers than me and I’m not talking about the one on a Maidstone industrial park they used when money got tight.
As lapsed member of the trust I don’t envy the job, I’m too passionate about anything I get involved with and have publicly distanced myself from both trusts although will continue to support the Upbeats.
It’s not the fault of staff former or current, I didn’t ask to get involved like they didn’t ask to be bullied.What I didn’t expect was the lack of respect or support shown to those that were.
When sandgaard answered “it was deliberate” that was disrespectful to those who’s mental heath was affected by the actions of the SMT.
It clearly shows that we, the fans/customers/faithful, call us what you like, should be respected & NOT lied to as in the issue that @T_C_E has documented here on more than one occasion.
Isn't the truth something that matters most to Addicks ?
0 -
The thread is titled "What matters most?", but I wasn't sure this post was meant for the thread as it didn't seem to be addressing that question and was talking about something else. But if the post means "the truth" then fair enough.Fanny Fanackapan said:
Why ?Off_it said:
Have you posted this on the right thread?T_C_E said:When I sat in front of sandgaard, maloney and Henderson with two members of his staff along with the wife of one of them, I didn’t do so to win friends. I didn’t want him to feel comfortable nor leave his answers unquestioned, when asked what my part in the discussion was, I told them “I witnessed Nathan being intimidated and supported him for the two months prior to the meeting in the best way I could.I’ve been asked/told several times by fans to “shut up” or “it’s boring” or the one that caused the most interest “ I don’t have the support of staff” For the record one member of staff offered to pay my expenses to the meeting in Mayfair with the owner, it was politely declined.I fully expected to by banned for my part in this and while I don’t use social media for contact I still speak to staff and former staff.Several people now for what ever reason appear to want pretty much nothing to do with me and that’s their decision, I can only assume why but the support is there from those involved and those that matter.
I was recently contacted by the Daily Mail on the matter of bullying, while I despise all papers I was out of my depth, I needed help, all those I affected wanted me to speak to them but I also knew the owners had bigger lawyers than me and I’m not talking about the one on a Maidstone industrial park they used when money got tight.
As lapsed member of the trust I don’t envy the job, I’m too passionate about anything I get involved with and have publicly distanced myself from both trusts although will continue to support the Upbeats.
It’s not the fault of staff former or current, I didn’t ask to get involved like they didn’t ask to be bullied.What I didn’t expect was the lack of respect or support shown to those that were.
When sandgaard answered “it was deliberate” that was disrespectful to those who’s mental heath was affected by the actions of the SMT.
It clearly shows that we, the fans/customers/faithful, call us what you like, should be respected & NOT lied to as in the issue that @T_C_E has documented here on more than one occasion.
Isn't the truth something that matters most to Addicks ?0 -
“Trust and Respect” everything I went into the meeting with and what they quickly proved they were not worthy of…….They went on to prove time and time again as the lies came out everytime they opened their mouths, if they weren’t going to be honest with their staff do people believe they were going to be honest with the fan base.They paid lip service to the bullying as they did with most things including meeting with the trust.I told them what I thought and despite her offer of arranging another meeting in the response to the attached email she never got back in touch.
0
