I
wanted to take a bit of time after last night's Trust meeting to mull things
over, get warm again, and to watch the video of the VIP meeting to
compare/contrast. Those things have all been achieved. I don't want to give a
detailed account of the Trust meeting as no doubt that is being put together by
them (but would add that the way the event was arranged and handled only serves
to demonstrate why the club should be fully embracing the organisation), rather
to focus on a few issues/questions arising from both gatherings and to perhaps
use them to suggest something positive.
Should
Katrien Miere and/or Roland Duchatelet talk to the Trust, either as a one-off
or on a regular basis? Her line from the VIP meeting is that she views the Fans
Forum as the "best tool" for communicating with fans, along with VIP
or open Q&As, and that any other approach is to favour some fans over
others (while adding that she has had previous meetings with the Trust). She was
adamant at the end of the VIP gathering that all dialogue should be through her
as that is part of her job (ie don't think about trying to go direct to Roland
or try to coopt Richard Murray).
So
is the Fans Forum the best and sufficient structure for communication with the
fans? After all, the Trust does have a representative. I can't comment on the
workings of the Forum from a position of knowledge and I'm certainly not
knocking it, or belittling the efforts of those involved (they give their time and experience for the good of the club), but would suggest
that it is barely sufficient for normal circumstances and inadequate for the
exceptional situation we find ourselves in (if the owner/board does not
consider the situation exceptional they are simply turning a deaf ear to the
many expressions of alienation, sticking to the head-in-the-sand 'oh well, if
we do better on the pitch all will be well' line).
In
its favour, the club on the site says that it encourages fans to contact
representatives and to put themselves up for inclusion "if you are a
member of a significant supporters group". Perhaps we as fans have not
fully availed ourselves of these opportunities. Why not have a Royal Oak Group
representative put him/herself forward for inclusion? And why not lobby the
current representatives to get issues of real concern tabled at the next
meeting (apparently scheduled for 2 April)? Such actions might either make the
Forum a more active outlet for supporters or reveal more about its limitations
(unfair I know but a glance at the minutes of the last meeting dealing with any
other business concluded with a note that the East Stand keeps running out of
Bovril).
Against
it, look at the minutes of the April 2014 meeting, the first following the
January transfer window debacle and the sacking of Chris Powell. The headings of
the minutes read: 'season ticket update', 'Crossbars and Millennium Lounge
packages for 2014/2015 season', 'The Valley pitch update', 'CAFC player', 'CAFC
website', 'the club shop', 'group rail travel', 'Valley Express and Valley Away',
'Charlton Athletic museum update', 'Player of the year dinner', 'Fans Forum
email address and communications received', and 'any other business'. All
important ongoing issues, but I suspect hardly those that were paramount for fans at
the time. Note also this from the September 2014 meeting minutes: "KM
reiterated that this was a confidential meeting and that minutes would be
published to reflect the discussions at said meeting. KM asked that until the
minutes were published that this was not discussed on public forums or with
anyone outside of this meeting". A forum is not a confidential meeting.
In
short, whether by accident or design the Fans Forum is not set up to provide
true engagement with fans on anything other than day-to-day issues. Either
change that or accept that it is not a sufficient tool for meaningful
communication with the fans on issues that concern them. To pretend otherwise is either to be mistaken or to be willfully misleading.
Do
the VIP and other Q&As compensate for the shortfall? Sorry, but there's a
world of difference between such events and structured, regular meetings at
which proposals can be made, decisions taken or promised, progress monitored
with accountability, and with no restrictions on the passing on of information to
fans over what was discussed and said. The former, as with the VIP meeting, involves
questions which can be answered fully when there is a desire to pass on
information or side-stepped when there is not. The VIP meeting ended, not
surprisingly, with no promises made on issues of concern (there were of course
promises and information on some important matters such as training facilities,
Academy status). There is absolutely no accountability involved.
The
line that meetings with fans groups might favour some more than others is quite
frankly absurd. It's a little like a prime minister/president declaring that
he/she no longer wishes to hold cabinet meetings or attend parliament as that
would amount to favouritism, instead opting to 'engage with' all voters
equally. The analogy may not be exact as MPs are (usually) involved in the
process of selection and themselves have a mandate. But I'd suggest that fans
are stakeholders, given their contribution to paying the wages (yes, one outweighed by the owner's funding of the losses), and that groups
such as the Trust have a form of mandate too, as last night fully demonstrated.
Are
there issues to be discussed by the Trust and Miere which have not been
adequately covered in the Fans Forum and the Q&As? Of course there are, and
they relate to the owner (his strategy, vision, priorities, and involvement in
key decisions), not Bovril. They would involve going over issues that Miere may feel have been dealt with, and/or would rather avoid, but that is part and parcel of meaningful engagement. The question I would have asked at the VIP meeting (with
no expectation of an insightful answer) is just why does Duchatelet believe he
knows who is and who isn't a good/excellent coach/manager (which of course would lead back to the issue of his involvement in head coach/transfer/team selection)?
Is
there a way forward on this issue? Yes, if Miere takes on board Von
Clausewitz's advice on not confusing strength of character with stubbornness
(as things stand, in addition to her telling us that we simply have to accept
the way that Duchatelet does things we are also invited to simply 'have faith
in her'). That last night's Trust meeting included an overwhelming show of
support for continuing to try to engage meaningfully with the board. That in
itself was an astounding display of restraint and common sense, supported by
most of those who have already concluded that the chances of success are
slim-to-non-existent. So, Ms Miere, surprise us! Take the positive decision to
change tack and agree to the Trust's request for a(nother) meeting. I suspect
you would receive more applause for that, for acknowledging a difficult
situation - one which threatens to dent your ambitions for increasing the
club's revenues streams in the years ahead - and acting to try to address it,
than accusations of a U-turn. I hope the Trust is now preparing a renewed
approach in the wake of the meeting.
I
hope that Richard Murray will be encouraging her to take that approach, but
would caution against the suggestions at last night's meeting that he might be
utilised in support of the Trust. To be contacting him with that in mind would -
irrespective of his opinions - put him in an invidious position and quite
possibly end any influence he currently has. He is a member of the board and as
such has responsibilities and duties (for the same reason I don't support calls
for a reinstatement of a fans' director). Also, he stated at the VIP meeting
that he believed Duchatelet to be a good long-term owner, adding that if he did
not believe that/stopped believing it he would leave the board. Whether or not
we agree with him, that has to be taken at face value.
What
should the Trust do if there is stony silence? That's not an easy one as the
Trust is constituted to represent Charlton fans, all of them. That for good
reason includes everyone from those already in favour of whatever it takes to
engineer a change of owner through to those backing Duchatelet's approach. And
it is 'fully affiliated to and committed to the democratic principles set out
by Supporters Direct, the umbrella organisation for Supporters' Trusts'. In
other words it has no mandate for a campaign to oust our owner, unless and
until its members (of which I am one) conclude that this is 'for the benefit of
Charlton Athletic Football Club' (a bit like the ECB having no mandate for the
sort of action needed to help avert crises but being able to act when there is
a crisis).
It
could well be a tough decision for the Trust whether to accept impotence and
bide its time or to morph into a vehicle for outright opposition to Duchatelet.
If (for good reason) it proves the former, I would expect those members who
favour the latter to group together (if they have not already done so) with the
clear objective of seeking out other interested parties prepared to make an
offer for the club, in the belief that this is in the best interests of the club. In the interim, if there is no response from Miere in the
wake of last night's meeting I would expect the Trust to withdraw from the Fans
Forum and to adopt an approach of non-cooperation with her specifically, to the
point of being in favour of her removal (and yes, I read the piece by Wendy
Perfect in the latest Voice). The ball is in her court, I just hope she is
aware (as she has to be if she watches the recording of the meeting) that for a
significant number of fans it is getting close to breaking point and that
inaction will speak for itself.
In
the interim, personally it's a case of nothing off the pitch interfering with
avoiding relegation and making decisions at the end of the season (ie whether
or not to renew my season ticket, a decision that as before will not be down to
which division we are in). That means giving Sir Chris the reception he
deserves when he comes back to The Valley (barring exceptional cold I will be
wearing my 'Chris Powell Charlton and England' T-shirt) but not using him as the
fulcrum for any enduring protest that might affect the game.
6 comments:
I ope Katrien stands up to all them far right bullies.
I hope everyone stands up to far-right bullies, when the circumstance arises. This isn't one of them.
Thanks again for another incredibly well informed piece BA. You explain much that I was in the dark about, concerning the Trust and Forum machinery. I've never really considered what the Trust could do "in opposition" to RD, but the scenarios you paint are the first real glimmer of what we fans could do.
I always stood in the right of the Covered End.
Pembury Addick
I rarely post on these forums, just read and either moan or agree vehemently to myself! But just to say thanks for a very good,balanced,intelligent and insightful summary. I agree! Vehemently!
Good piece BA, but I don't necessarily agree with the premise in the title "Ball In Miere's Court After Trust Meeting".
I've watched the videos of the Trust meeting, and read the reports, and it isn't totally clear what was decided (if anything) about next steps or actions the Trust can take to get KM or RD to engage with the supporters.
I therefore conclude that the ball is still firmly in the Trust's court until it comes up with next steps.
KM / RD will sit on their hands until then (and probably after then as well!).
Keep u the stimulating posts...
Thanks guys. Re whose court the ball is in, there is an element of wishful thinking on my part. KM has outlined her position, I just cling to the hope that she will reconsider in light of the meeting and reflection on what is best for the club.
Post a Comment