By the way, when individuals like me and Richard post to message boards we're often participating as just fans with personal opinions. Whilst we need to be careful our own views aren't mistaken for the views of the Supporters' Trust, equally it would be helpful for people not to assume we always speak on behalf of others. One thing I want to pick up. Barnie was a founding member of the Trust and at the inaugural meeting it was agreed he would act as interim chair. Since then he has submitted to at least two AGMs who have - through a published democratic process that is essentially the same as that used by Supporters Direct - asked him to continue in the role. Therefore it's not really correct to imply Barnie is unelected and has taken it by force. The rules don't allow that to happen, and if the members thought he wasn't representing them well they dont need to ratify his role. Barnie has his ways, but I believe I'm correct in saying we're now the 2nd largest Supporters' Trust in terms of paid members. That's very much to his credit, and let's not forget two previous attempts to found one failed. I tend to agree re spats on forums, though. Unhelpful, gives a bad impression. I have sympathy at times that said - some go out of their way to target Barnie / the Trust.
Im sorry but I think that's bollocks. Particularly when the trusts role was initially to facilitate a public meeting only. Now the trust wants to control who speaks and have already through one of its prominent members Richard Hunt set out a 'nothing more nothing less' mandate from the trust. That's job done then is it? We are not Needed? You seem to have a lot of Chiefs and no indians. Apparently you have no idea who wants to speak outside of the trust and have made no effort to contact anyone else from any forums that are not trust biased as far as I know . That seems a very clumsy way to conduct a public meeting.
It's all going a bit People's Front Of Judeah... But it kind of has to at this stage to get to a point where a consensus can be agreed. If anything this situation of disparate opinions and distrust could have been avoided had the formation of the Trust or G21 been managed more inclusively. For example I still know nothing of G21 other than what I've read through here. The average Charlton fan doesn't read Internet forums or read Voice of the Valley; as Super keeps saying what is being done to reach the masses? Is anything happening at Boro today? Even if it's just handing out badges or flyers...
The real truth is that the trust are whipping their members into a frenzy and like the judean's people's front are looking for a cause. "We will fight for your right to have babies, brother, I mean sister" they need reeling in before they start giving out bibles. There is something very wrong with the trust , and the individuals involved at the top end are manipulative arseholes. That is why this public meeting is a sham. It is delibrately constructed to recruit rather than improve the club and the real Intention is to satisfy the masterbatory fantasies of a few that missed the boat of the valley party or want their pictures in the papers.
Well you're entitled to your opinion. You couldn't be more wrong, but I guess you're saying you won't be there, which is a shame. Your insults won't change the truth. Just to pick up one point re speakers. We're kind of damned if we do, damned if we don't aren't we? If we present a list of speakers we have an agenda. If we reserve judgement and wait to see who wants to contribute we're disorganised. If we limit the number of speakers because of time constraints we're massaging the message. I think we're doing the right thing by waiting to see who wants to speak so we can ensure we get a full picture of people's views and not just the usual faces. I came on here to get our face seen so you know we recognise you're part of the spectrum of Charlton supporters. We're not intending to influence people,we're trying to facilitate getting to the common view because unified action based on what we all feel will be much more effective than if we're divided. I joined the Trust board last year because I believe in what it's trying to do and believe I can contribute. I knew virtually no-one else on the board and have no links with any of the old Charlton personalities. I'm not in it for profile, trust me, nothing I want less. I do however think, like a lot of people seem to agree, that trying to get the fans together and united behind something is what's needed right now. Will we get it all right? Probably not. Will we please everyone? Not a chance. But doing nothing isn't an option for us, so we'll risk the usual criticism to try make a difference. Up to you if you want to be part of that or not. Whether you believe me is up to you as well, of course. I can only say it as I see it.
I agree with the G21 thing - I think part of the reason it wasn't well received was that it was a bit of a closed meeting talking about things the great unwashed weren't privy to. Well, that was the perception, the truth was a little different actually, but "more inclusively" is exactly why this meeting has been called. We will be trying to reach fans in ways other than online, by the way.
I don't believe you, but you believe what your saying so that's us done. The contradictions in your post to the ones on ITTV and CL (admittedly from other trust members) clearly indicate the trust want numbers to attend but will not be allowing participation from anyone outside the 'Bovril circle' it might work on the dimwits and egotist on ITTV but if you can't even offer a place to this forum - you are being purposefully selective? what is your criteria? Is that democracy? Is that the broad horizon of fans views your looking for? The meeting is a sham. It's already a gear up for Raz to show off numbers. I understand a chair and a code of conduct has already been put in place. Ffs where is the free flow of ideas then? or do we have to suffer the same old faces?. Why not call it what it is, a trust meeting? Hopefully bolstered by fans who will have no influence in the meeting whatsoever? I can understand being lied too and taken for a mug by the board but that's what the rich and powerful do, when it's your own kind - it stinks
Well Rich you've eloquently appeased me I must say. And whilst I'm still understandably sceptical you're right in as far as your you never know until you try approach. I can't attend on the night anyway. How will the outcomes of the meeting be officially presented? Are there any planned timescales? I'm sure I'll see feedback on here from any posters who attend but I mean the 'party line'. I assume the clubs token football for a fiver day is going to be very significant in this campaign in terms of unveiling the dissent officially. I still think that it will be optimistic to have a unified approach agreed by then but that that game is a huge opportunity to strike back and declare intent. I wanted to see an agenda beforehand as I want to know what immediate actions are proposed. To my mind at the Huddersfield game, in lieu of a formal 'manifesto' and whilst our masses align we need to make things difficult; we need to agitate passively. The casual fans should be hit with flyers, Derek Hales badges etc to raise awareness, season ticket holders should wear black to signify the numbers who have the power to not renew. The club shop should be boycotted as far as possible as should the food kiosks. At 3.07 there should be a minute silence to mourn the loss of our club. Chants for bygone players who actually played FOR the club should be heard. I'm just brainstorming but you see my point. How are we going to piss people off and make people take notice? These aren't direct questions but require urgent consideration if we're to use the golden opportunity of the Huddersfield game. However it must not, I repeat not, turn into a Chris Powell rave!
Typical- no-one else has made the first step, I don't know anyone on CAST so all this stuff about ego's agendas etc goes right over my head. I hope the meeting is well attended.
I have no problems with the trust making the first step after all you can rely on them to seek airtime over the most trivial of matters (bovrilgate) but can you trust them to be fair and democratic? They are desperate to get in the boardroom but I want to be certain their motives are genuine. Be careful what you wish for a Pompey fan told me. They can really muck things up if they make the wrong move and given that I am the silent (sort of) majority I don't want idiots up front. And now I hear that they have recruited Reams....
@typical, why would I sign up and come on here if I wanted to exclude you? There's so little logic in what you're saying - your preconceptions have taken over. You don't even know me but I'm a liar and an ego. Ah well, I tried. @The Kish, there are no immediate actions drafted because the meeting's about hearing what people feel and trying to get a consensus on that and any action we all want to take. A personal view is that we need to avoid action that will damage the club and in particular damage the prospects of someone wanting to buy the club, if the consensus is that we want RD out. But I'm not going to second guess that consensus, it will become clear on the night. Agree about agenda, but there's a smaller working party working through the logistics and we've only just secured the venue. Please bear with us. We will of course seek to communicate the outcomes, the most obvious place for that is our site - that's expediency, not Machiavellian plotting.
Because he is self centered and egotistical too. Or are you cynically exploiting his site for members? After all you invited him? Or was that him lying?they even started a collection...
I won't be there, as a geographical problema prevents me, but I hope as many people as posible attend. I can sort of see Typical's point. The idea that Airman Brown, for example, has an agenda based on his 'unfair' dismissal, is a fairly widely held one, and if this is just ging to be a listening meeting, this new mobilisation will son disintegrate. If there is a genuine attempt to unite the fans against a hatefull regime however, not just to manoevre a crony into RD's office, it has to be a good thing, and until the meeting, I reckon it's too early to judge. Let's try and drop the predjudices, and get some new names involved with this (Nick and Dick!)
Last time. No one has yet been invited to speak. The working party doesn't even meet until tomorrow. What he actually said was ambiguous but I read it as meaning he intended to get on the top table (assuming such a thing exists). This conversation is why we need this meeting.
Rik - no that's not right. Here is what happened. Reams said "they have invited me to sit on the top table" in reply to the announcement of the trust oops public meeting. That's all he said. That is not ambiguous. Then ITTV they started a collection!!! I mean honestly. Then reams mysteriously was visited by a hacker who deleted his post. I can recall clearly word for word as I found it hilarious! So you can see my concern..... If the trust are assembling a dream team of Rick Everett, dicky hunt, Barnie Razil and Paul May I definately want someone from this forum at the meeting! Incidentally can I see the minutes of the working party?
I recall Reams posted "I'm going to be on the top table" - he definitely didn't say he'd been invited because I would have posted something. I was on the thread that disappeared. I also recall Reams taking full responsibility to deleting the thread, which is still there for all to read. Any meetings for which minutes are published are available to Trust members, but this is a working party to get the meeting up and running. Its work will be somewhat evident, I'd say. There really isn't a conspiracy under every stone you know.
It said I've been asked ... An implication of being invited. I was posted about that word privately myself. The hacker bit was a joke on my part but I agree not as funny as the lie. I'm not looking for a conspiracy just transparency. It might surprise the trust that others care about this club too and will step up to the plate when the moment is right. The trust's shining knight routine wears thin with me.
Rik, let me help you then, if you don't have time to find and address what Richard Hunt said. This is it: "We are seeking an explanation from RD as to what it (i the business plan) is, so that we can decide whether it is likely to secure the long term future of Charlton Athletic Football Club. Nothing more, nothing less ,as far as the Supporters Trust is concerned." His statement couldn't be clearer and he is very precise on the point. It's "nothing more nothing less, as far as the Supporters Trust is concerned." Well I think it does need more than this if any initiative from the Trust is to engage a significant body of support. You need to put firm proposals to the meeting and they need to range considerably wider than the narrow point Richard Hunt is fixated upon. My fear is that unless the Trust shows firm leadership and keeps a firm grip on the agenda, this meeting will achieve little as the usual suspects polish their egos with windy perorations and the militant tendency vent their hatred of everything Belgian, allowing Duchatelet and Mademoiselle Meire to take zero notice, safe in the knowledge that the Trust has sidelined itself by becoming the voice of a destructive cabal whose stated aim is 'Duchatalet out' That's not going to happen and will get us nowhere. In my view, the Supporters Trust needs to be the voice of critical but constructive co-operation, not present itself as an oppositional body that the club will come to regard as 'the enemy'. I'd come along to the meeting and say this , but I know I'd only be howled down by those who are out for blood. Let's hope we can get at least four points from the two home matches before the meeting, because that will take much of the sting out of the situation!
