Rik, baby, we like you. But your selling us a pile of shat. You started off poorly by telling us that reams had not been invited to the 'top table' (hence the title) and he says he had continually. The dye was cast after that particularity as you tried to support him. Between you and me - the blokes a super moron. The trust need to take a long hard look at itself, it's aims and objectives and it's leadership. Like a football team your goona be judged on talent and personality and you don't seem to have any. Oi super - why am I not a well known member??? Ffs
@Typicalmessedhisloginup I'm arranging a meeting for next week where me and any other attendees that I invite will be discussing the Trust's business plan. I'm not inviting you though as you're not a well known member. The Agenda will be: 1. Me 2. Me 3. Me 4. Me 5. Me 6. Me 7. Me
I assume it's because of you having a sign back up after the server change. Actives good though. At least you have an excuse to not make kish's evening. God knows what I'm going to say.
I don't want to go anyway the trust have asked me to mind their hornby sets while they attend this big meeting. You'll never get no 4 past the attendees anyway.
No offense, Riko, but I'm going anyway, with or without you coming on here to include me. What do you mean we're not even of one mind? This is a discussion forum with an exchange of views, and I don't expect to agree with my fellow posters all the time.
Well, that was the point I made both here and on another forum, but sadly Nick's taken it out of context and tried to hijack it for his own agenda. I note that he started all this when he thought I'd gone. I'll leave that for you to consider. I really don't know what he or anyone else has to gain from criticising this meeting before it's even happened - by all means slag us if we get it big time wrong on the night. Anyway, look, I can't give anyone an agenda I don't personally have: the format of the meeting is being planned but not by me - but I don't believe it will involve a top table so perhaps that will put that rumour to bed once and for all. All I can do - as I was invited to by Nick - is to communicate with this forum what I know, and ensure you're aware it's happening so you can be there if you wish. The detail will be on the Supporters' Trust website in due course. And of course the Supporters' Trust is planning it - we called the meeting - but we're doing so to ensure that as wide a group of supporters and views is heard. Being taken over by the big boys, as someone said here, will achieve precisely the opposite, so I do hope people come along with an attitude of mutual respect and a willingness to seek a consensus. That's the point. If you don't like it, perhaps organise your own meeting? We've organised the Woolwich Grand Theatre at our own cost. It's quite expensive though, so Barnie has indicated there will be the opportunity to donate towards that cost at the door - but that would be entirely at the discretion of individuals. It is absolutely not an entrance fee, not compulsory nor a pre-requisite to involvement. It's an open meeting and free to anyone who wants to come. What it will need to be is organised, and we're giving of our own unpaid time to do that on behalf of everyone who wants to be there. If I've sounded defensive it's unintended, but perhaps a bit sneaked in there as a natural response to being personally slagged for doing nothing more than genuinely trying to involve as wide an audience as possible. At the invitation of one of your posters. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, no? Hope to see you all there. Now I am out of here. Nick, do your worst.
I asked two questions earlier in the thread.... 1) Could Rick confirm that the meeting would not be directly used as a recruitment exercise, rather than give a clear "No, we will not be actively encouraging people to join the trust" instead we were given the "No ulterior motives" line. The meeting was announced as an 'open meeting' to discuss the fans concerns with the present direction of the Club but is now starting to sound like a 'Time Share' event.... will the ST be giving out free Parker Pens (to new members) by any chance? 2) I then suggested an independent Chairperson for the meeting, I was told that the 'Top Table' was to be decided upon yesterday' ..... I guess we will be getting the result of this ST Cabal very soon. I fully understand that the ST have arranged this meeting and are currently paying for it but I urge them to step back from forcing the ST's own interests (at this meeting) and letting the meeting decide if they are the best people to try to discuss the fans concerns with the Club. However, let me predict the outcome from this meeting.... 1) The Trust will say they have listened to fans 2) The Trust will urge as many fans as possible to join the Trust 3) The Trust will say that they have been elected to lead discussions with the Club and ask fans to bear with them while they try to arrange a meeting. Oh and 1-2 to Naarwich.
A lot of "as far as I'm aware" for answers too. So there was no direct denying to questions, merely keeping it open to interpretation. Several members thanked you for your input, but then several didn't receive answers to genuine questions. Again, your final post seemed to make a point it was us being difficult, especially the old CAST saying of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Rik, there were people on here thanking you, others saying the meeting was a good thing. You have chosen to take issue with those who doubted the Trust's ulterior motives, without ever really suggesting they were wrong. And the 250 hits comment was crap. The fact is that people from here and ITTV will be going along, but they're going because they don't like what is happening to their Charlton. As was pointed out , the Trust could have disarmed a lot of criticism by having an independent Chairperson, but sadly, 'its our ball, we decide who plays with it' is the mindset, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I still agree with the idea of the fans uniting against Roland, but the idea of CAST leading the charge...... well, we'll see what happens at the meeting. You were saying on CL that you can't see what some people on other fórums get out of their constant criticisms. They don't trust the Trust Rik, and while I think it's great you were on here to welcome us into the meetings, the fact is that while I don't see a conspiracy, CAST do seem to regard themselves as more important than CAFC, and nothing that is happening now is changing that. Do yourselves a favor, listen to AHLL and invite a non CAST chairperson to chair the meeting.
I will make a contribution to the cost. I won't join the Trust, and if they ask me why I'll tell them. Otherwise I'll go with an open mind.
Nice try Rick, but you protest a bit too much. You have made a real mess of it over the last week. It was you who used the phrases about this site only getting 250 hits on match days - so what ?? - and it was you who referred to your misfit ego maniac colleagues Everitt, Hayes and Hunt as "Charlton thought leaders". FFS - do you realise how pathetic and sycophantic that sounds? You still don't get it. CAST was built on a lie (flats on the Valley) and you are now trying to add the next layer by embellishing something you know to be incorrect and fatuous - that RD will shat himself on hearing that 250 fans have had a get together. CAST's agenda - its all about me, me ,me.
There never was a top table. The only one who claimed there was a top table and that he was sitting on it was Paul May. Perhaps the message has finally got through to him there is no top table for the great, the good and the self-important as he's now said he's not coming. Nick Gray asked the Supporters Trust to involve Not 606, Rik comes on here in order to do so, and then gets abuse for it from... Nick Gray, who seems to have become Duchatalet's secret agent.
I am now told that the CAST meeting is in serious doubt due to a fire hazard presented by the amount of polyester cardigans in one place. According to the fire officer for the building Mr Reg Olymgugiu "as every school boy will tell you polyester and dry skin will cause a triboelectric effect". Reg then explained "I am very concerned that at least 150 of the 160 people invited have skin conditions and will be wearing polyester garments- you only need a ignition source such as hot air or a spark from a Bovril warmer for the place to go up like Hiroshima"
I hate Bovril, my skin is moisturised and I do not possess a polyester jumper. But just to be safe I will position myself next to the door, for a quick getaway.
You have to be honest, Rik's comment about having a spokeman to put the views of NOT606 is a non starter. We're too interesting and too varied. As I said, I've nothing to say anyway, I don't expect RD to even waste his time sticking two fingers up to the meeting. However, I wish I was able to go. In the meantime, I'll look forward to reports from those who attend, and if someone wants to do a match thread for all of us exiles, that would be great.
Absolutely final one from me now. 1. We have formally invited one of your mods to speak at the meeting and await confirmation. The idea is that they represent the opinions that are shared here, as opposed to representing a single voice (which is somewhat of an impossibility, as has been pointed out by others). 2. There will be a fair number of speakers from a breadth of supporter groups and representation. Each will have exactly the same opportunity in terms of platform and duration. For the avoidance of doubt, the Supporters' Trust's speaker will be subject to exactly the same constraints. Input sent through the Trust website will also be presented during the evening. 3. The meeting terms of reference, including purpose, format, procedure, groundrules etc. will be published on our website in due course, for sake if transparency and order. It will be chaired by a Supporters' Trust board member, minuted, and summary tweets sent throughout the evening to give a flavour of it to those who can't attend. 4. Let me state unequivocally that this is not a recruitment drive for the Supporters' Trust. It is an open meeting, no entrance fee or membership is required, although we will be offering the means for people who want to donate towards the costs - which are high - to do so. It is an attempt to give voice to the various groups of supporters and focus on the things that unite us rather than those which divide, and we've tried to remove as many barriers to that as possible. I also want to appeal to you to keep an open mind. I recognise there is some cynicism, and I understand why some of that exists, probably even agree with some of it. I would simply ask you to recognise that whatever has happened in the past to shape negative opinion isn't guiding what we're doing today. I was elected to the board at our AGM at the back end of last year and there have been several other board changes since our launch too. There may have been past excesses and we'll undoubtedly make mistakes in the future too, but I can confidently say that there isn't a person on the board whose primary interest isn't to see the best for Charlton Athletic. I hope you've seen the influence of the new members in our recent statements and plans. The challenges and opportunities are very different to those that faced us when the Supporters' Trust was formed as well. You're free to listen to Nick say I've made a mess of things as he takes individual words and phrases out of context to support his relentless anti everything agenda (the 250 hits thing was - in context - in support of a broad representation, for example, not against it). Maybe I have made a mess of it, perhaps I was blindsided by a friendly invitation to involve this forum when the undeclared agenda was to "campaign against CAST." And when you're running the sort of destructive campaign Nick has now declared you will rarely seek the balance of an objective view, but certainly will twist words to make them fit your agenda. So I'll leave it to you to conclude where the agenda lies. In the meaning I hope as many of you as possible come to the meeting and make your own invaluable contribution. That is genuinely why it's been organised, and why I came here and have tried to respond to your questions and address your concerns, albeit with uneven success. To be frank, though, I can only say my piece and hope you believe me. If you doubt my veracity, cone along and see for yourself - you might be surprised and who is speaking and, particularly, who is not. All the best everyone, hope to see you next week. Rich
