Trust News 10 by CAS Trust

www.castrust.org

C I P M OLY um i d a t s ’ d e t c ‘reda al speci

NT CAS Trust News

AUTUMN edition

www.castrust.org

Number 10 SEPTEMBER 2015

roland SPEAKS !:

But not about Football!

News

www.castrust.org/join

Welcome

to the 10TH Edition of CAS Trust News Welcome to the 10th edition of Trust News. It is great to be writing this at a time when things are going well for our team. Just one defeat in the opening seven games gives good cause for confidence and optimism and we congratulate Guy Luzon and, in particular, Phil Chapple and the scouting team on their achievements so far. We make no apologies for leading this issue with the story of the funding of the Olympic Stadium. CAS Trust has been at the forefront of investigating and promoting this matter for over two years and we were very pleased when the BBC picked it up and ran a half hour programme “The Olympic Stadium; How The Hammers struck gold” on August 6th. On page 4 you can see the figures which reveal the astonishing fact that you and I and the people of Newham are paying the lion’s share of the enormous conversion costs plus West Ham’s annual rent for the stadium. On page 6 we graphically demonstrate the secrecy in which most of the deal is shrouded by reproducing a typical page from the highly redacted contractual agreement between The London Legacy Development Corporation and West Ham. CAS Trust currently has an application lodged with The Information Commissioner to force the LLDC to reveal the entirety of the agreement and we

www.castrust.org/join

News expect a ruling on this shortly. I’d like to make it absolutely clear that CAS Trust has nothing against West Ham or their occupation of The Olympic Stadium. Our issue is purely and simply that they are being allowed to do so at an extraordinarily preferential rate and that this commercial advantage is being funded by taxpayers. Compare this with Arsenal’s costs in building The Emirates Stadium or the deal whereby Manchester City moved to The Etihad. Why should this concern Charlton supporters ? Firstly, we think it should concern everyone as it is a question of public money, but the main reason CAS Trust has led this campaign is because of the detrimental effect it could have on our club. West Ham have already announced their intention to discount ticket prices when they move to the stadium. This is hardly surprising given the number of seats they will have to fill. Although 92% of current Charlton fans told us in our recent survey that they had no intention of abandoning The Valley for The Olympic Stadium we suspect that the offer of cheap seats for Premier League football might well encourage potential supporters to take advantage of the good transport links that now exist between Kent, South London and Stratford. If West Ham were financing this seduction of supporters through their own excellence we would just have to grin and bear it – that is competition after all. It is the fact that they will be able to afford to do so only because you and I are subsidising

the deal which is the scandal. On page 20 we outline the steps that we, along with thirteen other supporters trusts, are taking to publicise the issue and gain more transparency. This is not a lost cause and you can make a difference by signing the UK Government petition requesting a public inquiry into how this lamentable situation came about. Everyone involved with Charlton Athletic owes a great debt of gratitude to CAS Trust board member Richard Hunt who has spearheaded the whole campaign for us. He has been indefatigable in his research and networking and he has refused to be fobbed off by the vested interests concerned. This edition of Trust News also carries a fascinating interview with our owner Roland Duchatelet. We are very grateful to Belgian journalist Douglas de Coninck who has given us permission to reproduce the interview first published in De Morgen earlier this year. Despite the fact that M. Duchatelet refused to talk about football we think you will find that the interview gives an intriguing insight into the man, his values and his ambitions. If you aren’t already a member of CAS Trust please do think about joining. We currently have just over 1000 members who are united in their wish to support a healthy club which values and listens to its supporters. Details of how you can join are given on page 22. Steve Clarke- Chairman

www.castrust.org/join

Board Chairman - Steve Clarke Vice-chairman -Craig Sloman Secretary -Richard Wiseman Treasurer - Richard Pemberton Jonathan Bangs Richard Hunt Heather McKinlay Alex Clarke Aaron Bowater Web designer - David Hall Editorial - Richard Wiseman, Design, Layout, Photos Ken Sinyard Additonal photos - CAFC, Getty Images Keith Gillard Except where indicated copywright CAS Trust 2015

15 4

News

Numbers

2 0 390

£272m Cost of converting the stadium for football use £15m West Ham’s contribution to the above £71m West Ham’s own valuation of The Boleyn Ground £2.5m Annual rental West Ham will pay for the stadium (less if relegated) 100% Share of corporate hospitality revenue West Ham retain £0 Amount West Ham pay for stewarding, ticket office staff, policing etc £390m Build cost of Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium £9m Annual rental Ajax pay at The Amsterdam Arena

71272 www.castrust.org/join

Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust is seeking a review of the terms of West Ham’s rental agreement at the Olympic Stadium because we believe the current agreement (most details of which have still not been made public) is prejudicially favourable to West Ham. This should be a matter of concern for all taxpayers but we are involved because of the specific commercial impact it will have on Charlton Athletic FC. CASTrust is not opposed to West Ham playing at the Olympic Stadium, and we acknowledge the need for a viable legacy for the stadium. But we believe that the terms of the agreement put far too much financial burden on the taxpayer; and that, as a result West Ham will be able to offer heavily discounted tickets south of the river in Charlton’s catchment area which is now well connected to the Olympic stadium thanks to the transport links built for the games. This presents a severe commercial threat to our club, whose long term future it is our mission to care for and seek to preserve. A re-negotiation of the contract which requires West Ham to pay more will oblige them to focus more on filling the stadium with core West Ham supporters paying unsubsidised prices which are likely to be similar to those at other Premier League clubs in London. Regrettably the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) have resisted all attempts by CAS Trust to inspect the rental contract, even under Freedom of Information law. We have a complaint lodged with the Information Commissioner since last October and the length of time this is taking indicates that the LLDC are determined to conceal from the public the extent of the support from public funds West Ham are getting. However, some figures have been put in the public domain (see previous page) and they

illustrate that West Ham pay far less rent than, for example, Ajax Amsterdam pay for a similar stadium even though West Ham have far more revenue from TV rights than Ajax. The Hammers will pay only about 8% of the cost of refurbishing the stadium, whereas Manchester City contributed 50% of the cost of refurbishing the City of Manchester stadium. Furthermore, West Ham will easily meet these costs through the sale of Upton Park. However, the most important advantage is that West Ham are allowed to keep 100% of “corporate” match-day revenue. The Olympic Stadium has a huge capacity for this type of customer. We believe that if West Ham sell this capacity, and achieve attendances of around 35,000, their revenue will be such that they can treat the 19,000 spare capacity as “promotional”. They can afford to offer these seats at a heavy discount in order to build their support in new areas, particularly in South-East London. This is the scenario that concerns CAS Trust. Put simply, the taxpayer should pay far less of the capital costs than is currently planned, and West Ham should pay back far more in rent to the taxpayer. If this re-balancing were to take place, West Ham will still have excellent commercial prospects, but they will not be able to threaten the commercial health of other clubs (particularly Charlton) using taxpayers’ money. There is also the separate issue of “Unfair State Aid”. If the European Commission believe that state funding has been used in a way which could distort competition they can rule that the funding is repaid. It is very surprising that the LLDC did not seek prior approval on this before signing the deal as failure to do so has left them open to a challenge from anyone who feels disadvantaged by it. The challenge could be made any time in the next ten years and, if the EC did find that the LLDC had broken state aid rules, West Ham could be liable for millions.

www.castrust.org/join

The Trusts position

OS l Specia

News

“If there has been an advantage that has the potential to distort competition within the football market there may well have been illegal state aid” - Hayley Green, Ashfords LLP

OS l Specia

“This is us basically being given a chance to launch ourselves on to the global stage more and I don’t see how you can turn that down” - West Ham fan in TV programme “The Olympic Stadium: How The Hammers struck gold

“This is the worst negotiated deal since the North American Indians gave uP THEIR LAND FOR A HADFUL OF TRINKETS” Barry HEARN

“They can bog off” - Boris Johnson when asked what he thinks about European Commission investigating the deal as illegal state aid.

www.castrust.org/join

“Why the secrecy in London when in Manchester the deal with Manchester City Council was quite open and clear” Murad Quereshi London Assembly member

“The venue that witnessed British Olympic history being made will be daubed with the team’s claret and blue colours and the logos of such sponsors as online bookmakers Betway” - David Jones (The Daily Mail)

“This is about the Olympic Stadium which has now been effectively transferred to a commercial enterprise for virtually nothing” Barry Hearn

“It’s a sea of black ink” - Richard Hunt of CAS Trust, describing the contract

We call on Boris Johnson to end months of speculation by publishing all documentation relating to the deal Mat Roper Leyton Orient Fans Trust

“If you hire a badminton court at the local leisure centre you wouldn’t expect to provide your own net “ The London Legacy Development Corporation

“There is absolutely no chance tickets will be dumped. We need to move because we have simply outgrown the Boleyn Ground” - WHU statement “To all intents and purposes this is a contract which gives West Ham the stadium at a peppercorn rent at most or, to be honest, for no rent whatsoever. The question is, if we were able to see the fuller facts and figures would we be even more angry ?” Chris Bryant (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport)

“I believe the public has a right to know” Andrew Boff – Conservative Group Leader, London Assembly

“It’s a major part of our strategy to move to The Olympic Stadium” - David Sullivan in 2010

“If it was subsequently proven that there had been illegal state aid provided to West Ham through this deal then West Ham would end up having to pay back any potential financial advantage which might have accrued to them” - Chris Bryant

“Perhaps the most important thing we don’t know in the secret deal is how much the tax payer would receive as a claw-back in the future in the event of West Ham’s owners selling the club at a profit as a result of their occupancy of The Olympic Stadium” - Dan Roan, BBC Sports Editor

“Information as to WHUFC’s commercial position vis a vis the Stadium would be noted by competitors who would be able to use such information contrary to West Ham United’s commercial interests in matters such as but not limited to transfer dealings. The redacted information relates to West Ham’s commercial position, strategic plans, transfer dealings, financial and business viability – The London Legacy Development Corporation, attempting to justify their redaction of the contract”

www.castrust.org/join

“This is a property rental contract. We have difficulty imagining a rental contract where the commercial tenant declares it commercial position, strategic plans and financial viability”. - CAS Trust in response to the LLDC

News

www.castrust.org/join

News

Why the secrecy ? On your left is a typical page from the agreement that the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) has signed with West Ham United for the club’s use of The Olympic Stadium. The agreement was only released for public scrutiny after CAS Trust made an application under The Freedom of Information Act last year. As you can see 60% of the content is obscured by black ink. We are not allowed to see it, even though it is our money that is paying for most of the costs of the transformation of the stadium into a venue suitable for football. So much for freedom of information. Underneath all the black ink lies the crucial detail of, for example: •How much annual rental West Ham will be paying (rumoured to be £2.5m) •How much could be clawed back by LLDC in the event that West Ham is sold in the future

So why are the LLDC being so coy about the terms they have negotiated with West Ham ? When CAS Trust appealed to The Information Commissioner against only being allowed to see the heavily redacted version of the agreement we were informed that full disclosure was not possible because of commercial confidentiality. The LLDC stated: “Information has also been withheld within this document because, if it is released, it would impact the commercial interests of WHUFC. The redacted information relates to West Ham’s commercial position, strategic plans, transfer dealings, financial and business viability as well as information that West Ham only tendered as part of their bid to become a concessionaire. WHUFC operates in a market in which there are comparatively few competitors and which is scrutinised to a much greater extent than many business sectors. Information as to WHUFC’s commercial position vis a vis the Stadium would be noted by competitors who would be able to use such information contrary to West Ham United’s commercial interests in matters such as but not limited to transfer dealings.” We are, to say the least, extremely unconvinced by this. We are talking about a property rental contract. We have difficulty imagining a rental contract where

the commercial tenant declares its commercial position, strategic plans and financial viability. How can player transfer dealings possibly be part of a rental contract? And anyway, everyone knows that West Ham will be a much better resourced club as a result of their move. Other clubs will not need to read the details of the agreement before trying to screw more money out of them in transfer fees. More recently, the LLDC has focussed on its own commercial confidentiality in defence of its unwillingness to share all the information. At a meeting of The Greater London Assembly Budget Monitoring sub-committee on July 15th, David Goldstone (LLDC Chief Executive) was asked whether, given the amount of taxpayer money that has been spent, he thought the taxpayer has a right to know much West Ham are paying. He answered: “I can see that argument. There are two factors to balance.......I have been dealing with commercial issues in public bodies for a long time and there is an absolute presumption in favour of transparency. However, it has to be balanced with the obligation on us as the management of the organisation to protect our commercial position... in terms of deals we may do in the future. If we gave away the position on individual agreements we had reached we would have no negotiating leverage when we came to talk to other partners who may be interested in coming in” Is this reasonable ? Our view is that the nature of the arrangement with West Ham makes it virtually impossible to contract with any other tenant for events on a regular recurring basis which mirror the usage of West Ham. Other potential tenants would therefore be looking for entirely different (often one-off) rental arrangements. Full disclosure of West Ham’s terms would be peripheral if not irrelevant to their negotiations. Could it just be that LLDC would be quite content for the details of the negotiations to remain secret in order to avoid the revelation of poor judgement in managing the transition of the stadium and the risk of embarrassment of senior public figures ?

www.castrust.org/join

News

photographs CAFC

We are very grateful to @AFKABartram for allowing us to plagiarise outrageously his post first published on Charlton Life on September 2nd for this article. The transfer window has closed and all its excessive hype can be forgotten for four months. We now have a chance to assess whether or not Charlton have fallen behind their Championship competitors in terms of squad strength. Most of the club’s transfer dealings were concluded early in the window but since the arrival in late July of our last signing – Nabi Sarr – there have been 113 further transfers in to Championship clubs (an average of 5 per club). These include the headline signings of Bradley Johnson and Jacob Butterfield by Derby at an estimated cost of £10m and Middlesbrough’s capture of David Nugent (£4m) to play up front with Stewart Downing. The terms of all Charlton’s dealings remain undisclosed but it is very unlikely that we are paying anything like that sort of money. The same applies to wages. Since May, 13 senior players have permanently left our squad: Frederic Bulot, Yoni Buyens, Tal Ben Haim, Simon Church, Chris Eagles, Roger Johnson, Lawrie Wilson, Oguchi Onyewu, Neil Etheridge, Christophe Lepoint, Joe Gomez, Loic Nego, Andre Bikey-Amougou A further six have been sent out on loan: Marko Dmitrovic, Callum Harriott, Piotr Parzyszek, George Tucudean, Joe Pigott Zak Ansah Coming in, there have been 6 new permanent signings, and 1 loan signing: Patrick Bauer, Naby Sarr, El-Hadji Ba, Ahmed Kashi, Cristian Ceballos, Zakarya Bergdich, Simon Makienok Additionally, Regan Charles-Cook and Harry Lennon have been permanently promoted from the U21 squad.

With 19 players leaving and 9 arriving we are almost a complete team short compared to the end of last season. However, the current squad of 23 players is very similar numerically to the squad with which we kicked off last season under Bob Peeters. What does all tell us? I’d like to suggest the following: 1. When the squad is fully fit then it looks a relatively strong and balanced first team with the potential to do decent things in the Championship. This has been evidenced by the early form. 2. It would seem that the core of the squad has had a quality upgrade. Bauer for Ben Haim; Kashi for Buyens; Ba for Bulot; Makienok for Tucudean or Church represents significant improvement. 3. We are in an almost identical position to where we were last season going into the international break (in fact we are one point worse off). Last September we were looking at a decent first team that had made a better than expected start. That team went on to fade away as the winter months progressed and it desperately needed reinforcing in the New Year. A potential play-off bid turned into a relegation scrap. It is impossible as a fan to quantify how much of that was a result of lack of squad depth and how much was down to fall-outs with the manager and loss of confidence. Certainly, the injuries to Vetokele and Henderson were crucial. 4. The departure of Joe Gomez does not seem to have had a negative effect defensively, despite his meteoric rise into the Liverpool first team. It is very disappointing not to be able to watch our young star players on the local stage for a bit longer, but, if the income is put towards strengthening the squad, then

additions to www.castrust.org/join

News everyone benefits. The situation is similar to when Carl Jenkinson left for Arsenal. 5. We are carrying certain risks in our wide positions. Ceballos and Bergditch are still unknown quantities and an injury to Gudmundsson would hit us badly. 6. In a small squad Jordan Cousins’s versatility should really not be underestimated. 7. In Kashi, Ba, Cousins, Jackson and Diarra we have excellent quality in central midfield but there is no naturally offensive player in that group. This puts a lot of responsibility on Gudmundsson. If opposing clubs start to target him we are likely to have only a plan B that involves playing deeper and utilising Makienok, and, if the target man is injured, we may lack a plan C. 8. We are without doubt far stronger as an attacking force than the squad which kicked off at Brentford in August 2014 with Vetokele, Tucudean, Church and Pigott plus seventeen year old Ahearne-Grant. Now we have Watt, Vetokele, Makienok and Reza with Ahearne-Grant a year older. This is an exciting attacking force and all three main strikers could have highly influential seasons. At this precise moment however, things don’t look so bright. Makienok and Reza are injured. Watt has missed the last few games and is always likely to be a bit of a maverick. Vetokele is still way short of his incisive best. It is hard to make a case that the club should have further strengthened the attacking options but, if the injury situation doesn’t improve, there may be a need for a loan move.

manding than at this time last year. It seems likely that Henderson will continue to miss games because of injury and it is to be hoped that Pope will carry on improving with experience. It would be good to avoid the situation of last season when the club seemed to have a surfeit of goalkeepers all of whom were not quite good enough. 10. Squad gaps are being plugged by U21 players (Holmes-Dennis, Kennedy, Muldoon etc). On balance, most supporters would prefer this to the use of loan players provided that the young players are not completely out of their depth. 11. Our owner’s approach is still as difficult to decipher as it was when he first arrived. It is clear that the club is operating on a strict budget, although Katrien Meire has recently informed fans that we have overspent it. The approach seems more focussed on maintenance than an attempt to push for a play-off place. However, a strong wind, a dollop of luck, and getting our injury crisis out of the way early on might mean that challenging for a top six place is not out of the question as the high number of drawn Championship games already this season would suggest that there is little between many of the teams. What might make a difference as the season progresses is strength on the bench. It makes little sense for our owner to continue to subsidise a middle-ranking Championship team to the tune of £5m a year so we may be able to look forward to some strengthening in the New Year. First, however, we have to maintain our bright start and there are some good reasons to believe that we are better equipped this year to do this if players like Bauer, Kashi and Watt can maintain fitness and form.

o the squad 9. Nick Pope’s error against Hull nearly cost us two points but he does look more confident and com-

www.castrust.org/join

Richard Wiseman

News

bu www.castrust.org/join

News This is an extract from an interview conducted by Belgian journalist Douglas de Coninck earlier this year. We are grateful to Douglas for allowing us to use it in Trust News. “Yes, the poverty numbers are going through the roof, but that is the fault of the people who haven’t understood what I have just explained to you.” An afternoon in the company of Roland Duchâtelet (68), who feels that Thomas Piketty simply doesn’t get it. “Free money for everyone: that really is the solution.” photograph: ken sinyard

Roland receives us in an executive box at Standard Liege. Outside, you can smell the grass. The 2011 Belgian Cup sits in a niche. Everything around us breathes football, but Roland imposes one condition: he does not want to talk about football. Nor the reason why not. “This is much

more important,” he says. He emailed in advance that he sees something of himself in Alan Turing, the scientist who cracked the Nazi’s Enigma code and thus, in the view of many historians, decided the war in favour of the Allies. During his life (1912-1954) Turing was not a popular figure, according to the film The Imitation Game. He was not empathetic and did everything with a shockingly bad sense of timing. I am reminded of Duchâtelet provoking concern among the supporters of his clubs with bizarre changes of coach. Whether Standard are winning or losing, the chant of ‘anti-Duchâtelet olé, olé’ rings out around the stadium. However, that is exactly what he does not want to talk about. Alan Turing, chemically castrated in 1952 because of homosexuality, only received recognition fifty years after his death. Duchâtelet, in his email, “Do you think that kept Alan Turing awake at night?”

Roland speaks,

ut not about football www.castrust.org/join

News

You think not? Roland Duchâtelet: “Like many people, I know that our solar system will no longer exist in five billion years. It is also conceivable that a few people in the meantime now and then will escape. I believe therefore that Turing was a very intelligent man, and that he realised that. He didn’t lie awake at night, worrying about being famous. That is totally not important. If someone thinks I’m a fat idiot, I’m sorry for him, but that’s not important to me.” We can’t talk about football, so what can we talk about? “About Thomas Piketty. His supporters go on about justice all the time. They find it unfair that capital delivers much more than labour. “Let me tell you something: in the economy, there is no place for justice. (He laughs). It is a simple question: does it work or not? By the by, someone who is politically appointed and doesn’t lift a finger all his life, is that fair? Wages for work is a myth.” “Piketty is someone who tries to analyse what happened in the past and then grabs on to that to predict the future. Of course, that is very dangerous and often turns out wrong. It doesn’t take account of the explosion in the world’s population, nor of the drying up of the oil supply. The concept of capital, just like labour, is only a bit more than two centuries old. Capital is a recent phenomenon, just like paid labour. Before that you had slaves and serfs. Unions have only existed for 150 years.

Now machines have replaced humans and animals.” “What I’m saying can be mathematically proven. In 1850, agriculture still represented 70% of employment, today it is 1%. Now only 8% of the population work in all of the productive sectors put together – agriculture, industry and construction. In the meantime, productivity has increased considerably: we are making much more with fewer people. The organisation of society as we now

“Like many people I know that our solar system will not exist in five billion years” know it will have only very briefly existed in the history of mankind.” “As far as I’m concerned, capital is also not particularly relevant anymore. It’s something that came into existence in the 19th century. Capital helps our income to shift in time, but that’s really quite artificial when you think about it.” “The problem with Piketty is that he doesn’t look beyond his own analysis. He doesn’t seem to understand that we are going through the two biggest revolutions in the history of mankind right now. After the replacement of physical labour through steam then electric machines, we are now seeing the replacement of mental labour through computers. There is absolutely no need for

people to work anymore in order to enjoy life to the full.” “Alongside this we have another revolution which is much greater than the invention of the printing press or the discovery of the wheel: the internet. People can now freely exchange information worldwide. Thirty years ago that was completely unthinkable. The problem is no-one realises it.” Sorry, what do we not realise? “That today we are in the middle of an unbelievably drastic revolution in the history of mankind. But people like Piketty, and others in our government, simply do not see it.” Only you can see what others can’t? “Me and a few other people. Few people see things clearly. Many people think tomorrow will be just like yesterday. It’s normal that they think like that, but in practice it is not like that. I belong to the small group of people who think tomorrow will be different from today.” In the shadow of stand four, red lamps irradiate the grass with an angelic patience. It was not Roland’s idea. “They think they will help the grass to grow better,” he says, strolling past. It’s obvious that he doesn’t believe it. Duchâtelet is a proponent of artificial pitches. It was one of the controversial ideas with which he got the whole football world up in arms. But, he says, “We were not going to talk about football.” Shame. Many people have ques-

www.castrust.org/join

News tions about what you were up to with all those clubs. (Unperturbed) “If in any case you want to take the philosophical tour, then I’ll say: let’s see the achievements of mankind as a collective capital, a social dividend. The interest on something which we have brought about together during the past few hundred years. Our society is therefore rich enough and in a state to take care that no-one should live in poverty. Robots and computers now work in our place.” The poverty numbers are going through the roof. “Yes, they are going through the roof, but that is the fault of the people who have not understood what I have just explained to you.” 20 years ago with your minority Vivant party you were striving for the introduction of a guaranteed basic income. In 2016, the Swiss are voting on it in a referendum. Were you right after all? “What has the problem been up till now with a basic income? On the right, many people think it can’t happen, that people who do nothing still get money. You can’t get this across to most of the West Flemish. On the left the problem is that a basic income takes the power away from the unions and the socialists. They can no longer say to people, ‘Vote for us, because otherwise you’ll get nothing.’ That’s why everyone in politics is against the basic income.” “If you reflect on Piketty’s success, who says that everything is

unfair, then I say: introduce the social dividend. Our parents and grandparents have built this society. With motorways, railways, waterways and automation. Let’s translate that into a dividend for everyone. I no longer talk about free money, but about social dividend, Piketty’s term for the basic income. Everyone should get money, because that is the best for our economy”. Philosopher Philippe van Parijs, who also lobbies for free money, once said that you need a coalition of three types of people to bring about change: daredevils, visionaries and opportunists. Which are you? “I’m a visionary, of course. Because I’m an engineer. I try to reflect on how the world might look tomorrow.” In advance Duchatelet emailed a file with a carefully calculated answer to the question of how free

money would work in practice. 170 euro per child. On turning 18, you get 500 euro, after which the amount increases to 800 euro for 61 year olds and 1,200 euro for 68 year olds. Alongside this, every Belgian receives in kind the right to 300 euro per month for education and medical care, through which he/she can choose schools and hospitals in a privatised environment. The whole thing, it states, is easy to bring into effect: ‘The solution: cut 12 billion euro three times over.’ And that is done, we read, by abolishing all subsidies, a tax shift and making civil servants redundant. Abolish all subsidies? “In Belgium we give out 12 billion per year in subsidies. To institutions and establishments, whilst everyone knows that it serves no purpose.”

www.castrust.org/join

News

Even culture serves no purpose? “At the moment a theatre company has to go and beg for money from a minister. Then it pays the artist net and goodness knows how much in tax. If you explain the situation to the artist, then he/she will chose the individual subsidy of the basic income. “When we set up Vivant 20 years ago, we had a big following in the cultural world. They felt that the basic income delivered them from the constraint of specialists who decided over their heads whether their art was good or bad.” Your next 12 billion comes from a tax shift. “Yes, income tax – and also social security – would be further reduced and replaced by an increase in VAT, excise and a property tax, in the shape of a higher tax on financial transactions. In this way you can abolish up to 1,500 euro per month income tax. Which means, for people in this category, especially those of a lower education level, there is no longer any difference between declared and undeclared work. Precisely within this vulnerable group, more people will go out to work.” You will achieve your third 12 billion by mass redundancies among civil servants. “By doing nothing more than bringing civil service employment back to the level of 15 years ago. Since 2000 we have compensated for the loss in employment opportunities by directly or indirectly taking people on in the public

sector, and the number has grown by 15%. It’s a consequence of mismanagement by the Flemish government above all. Local authorities especially have recruited so many people. Paid for through taxes. Why did Ford Genk close? Because the authorities have recruited too many bureaucrats. Simple. We must dare to call a spade a spade.” As years go by you seem to become more hostile towards politicians. “I am not hostile. I try to analyse rationally. I am the inventor of the tax shift, 20 years ago. It’s unfair to say that my ideas don’t

“We are in the middle of an unbelievably drastic revolution in the history of mankind”

hit the mark. In Germany, they introduced the tax shift in 2005, in Belgium, we are just 20 years too late. “Above all, political parties are self-interested. We have a big problem: 95% of existing legislation was envisaged and introduced in an era without the internet and our politicians do not seem to be at all motivated to change anything about that. Why are politicians not concerned about the future? Because their electors live in the past. They can’t put out messages to the world in the

way that I do. If they were to do that, they’d face conflict.” The only way to mean something in politics, is to peddle rubbish? “Curry favour with people, and then you get votes: that’s how it works. Politicians read the paper in the morning, then spend the rest of the day trying to think up ways to appear in the next day’s paper.” “60 years ago Belgium was a closed economy, everything was made here. Telephones, radiators, everything. Today the economy is completely open. What you are now getting is competition between countries. Engineers, artists and other sensible people will move to countries that are more interesting, where they can lead a better life. Then there are two possibilities. Either the Belgian authorities adapt and try to keep these people here, or they don’t, and they are gone.” Roland Duchâtelet, through his technology company Melexis, worked his way up from nothing to become one of the top 20 richest Belgians. When Standard Liege were for sale in 2011, he put 41 million euro on the table. He went on to buy Charlton Athletic in London, Ujpest in Hungary, Carl Zeiss Jena in Germany and Alcorcon in Spain. At each of these clubs the fans crave explanation of his bigger plan, of his vision. Towards the end of our conversation, he lifts a corner of the veil after all. With a sigh. We are staring at the T2, the stand of the ultras; of the frightful fans;

www.castrust.org/join

News of the chants. Does that never bother him? He says: “Many of the guests who sit there are unemployed and have nothing else to do all day. They spend all their time on internet fora. Suddenly they know everything about Standard. They have nothing better to do the whole day long. I cannot compete with that.” With a policy of free money, do we not risk becoming even more of a global magnet for poor people? “Your question suggests you are saying: actually you are right, but there are a few practical problems. Well, practical problems are there to be solved. You could tighten the immigration conditions to the level of other developed countries. Such as Canada, New Zealand, the United States. Then you’re actually already there. “It’s also not the case that the introduction of a social dividend implies that people will no longer work, quite the contrary. There have already been a reasonable number of studies carried out about the basic income. There have been experiments in Canada and India and also in Belgium with ‘Win for Life’. At Leuven University they have studied the behaviour of winners. They all carry on working. The big difference is that they do it with much more pleasure, they do what they want to do. The results are identical everywhere. People feel happier, richer and above all, more entrepreneurial.” Interview by Douglas de Coninck. Translated by Heather McKinlay

www.castrust.org/join

News

y t i n Affi

FROM HERE TO The most telling test of affinity is what happens when a goal is scored. Do your eyes close and does your whole body slump ? (full affinity, goal against). Do you politely applaud ? (neutral spectator) Or, are you out of your seat screaming ? (full affinity, goal for). These responses are instinctive. You can’t control them with thought. I can’t really see the point of watching football without an affinity for one of the teams. Yes, you can admire the skill and commitment, but where’s the emotional edge ? Whether it’s a big game on TV or a Sunday morning match on Blackheath it doesn’t take me long to decide where my sympathies lie. I need to care what happens. It needs to matter. I’ve never struggled with affinity for Charlton Athletic before. I was always fully engaged in the team’s every moment. Even at The Valley with just three thousand others against Halifax. Even losing 7-1 at Burnley. Even at Selhurst. During all those Alwen / Murray years I took affinity for granted of course. It was our club run by our people. Back to The Valley; portacabins; Richard Rufus; Wembley; Scott Parker; Valley Gold; Curbs. It was more than affinity; it was total love and devotion. And when outsiders Jiminez and Slater took over they had the

wisdom to appoint as manager the man who symbolised everything good that Charlton stood for. Those three years were perhaps my proudest as a Charlton supporter – the chance to offer unswerving loyalty to an excellent manager and an even finer man. Yes, the 2011/12 season was played in League 1 but for me it rivalled the best of The Premiership years in terms of affinity. I was very upset when Chris Powell was sacked and I know that a number of long-term supporters walked away at that point. I was angry but to my amazement I found myself soon transferring my allegiance to Jose Riga. That late winner against Bournemouth had me out of my seat and down the gangway. Jackson restoring the lead against Watford had me in full voice with all the gestures. And don’t get me started on The Hillsborough comeback. There was no affinity shortfall on my part. I was puzzled by the appointment of Bob Peeters at the start of last season but my commitment didn’t falter. The good results certainly helped and, in Igor Vetokele, we had another new hero to identify with. Even when things started to go awry, I was still waking up on match days full of excitement and anticipation. But when Big Bob was sacked it

seems that my affinity nerve must have snapped. I suddenly found myself not caring. Not because of the sacking itself which was clearly the right thing to do, but because it showed what a poor appointment it had been in the first place. We were about to appoint our fourth manager in a year. Creeks and paddles came to mind. I felt our club was becoming a laughing stock. I thanked goodness for Blackpool, Blackburn and Leeds, and spared a thought for their long-suffering supporters. I felt so disenchanted that I didn’t go to Watford and I have to admit (with some shame) that, as the goals flew in that afternoon, I wasn’t broken-hearted. “It’s what you deserve” I muttered, conveniently overlooking in my fury that it was “we” not “you”. I went to the supporters meeting in Woolwich at the end of February and guess what I found. Affinity ! It was a relief to discover that I wasn’t alone. Nearly four hundred people in the freezing cold talking about disconnect, apathy and alienation. What was heartening about the meeting was that it showed Charlton supporters at their best. The mood was realistic, good humoured and constructive. The outcome was an overwhelming majority in favour of building bridges with the owner and CEO and seeking constructive dialogue.

www.castrust.org/join

News But, although it was great to feel such an affinity with my fellow supporters, it wasn’t entirely what I was looking for. I wanted to rediscover my childlike association with the team on the pitch. But you can’t manipulate your emotions and, during the extraordinary winning run in March and April, I found my mind admiring the team’s performances while my body was stuck firmly in my seat. In fact, one of the few times I stood up was to applaud Chris Powell after three minutes of the Huddersfield game. Disloyal ? Maybe, but I didn’t want Charlton to lose. I just didn’t feel euphoric when they won. I missed that euphoria but I couldn’t manufacture it. During the summer I toyed with the idea of not renewing my season ticket. What was the point if I wasn’t getting a buzz from games ? But, actually, I was desperate to find reasons to make me feel good about the club. When Katrien Meire had made her statement about appointing Guy Luzon for the long term I was more than a little cynical but, in truth, it was what I wanted to hear. It made me

realise how important continuity is to me because you can’t build affinity with someone who is here today and gone tomorrow. I love Chris Solly and John Jackson precisely because I’ve had time to appreciate them and, although it might seem fanciful, to develop a relationship with them. So, as my friends had predicted, I bought a season ticket and I’m pleased to say that it was delivered through my letter box in plenty of time for the first game. It was good that we were playing QPR – a club it is easy to dislike. This helped me to care about the outcome. I mean really care. I didn’t exactly hit the roof when we scored our goals but they did have me on my feet. While following the away games at Derby and Forest on the BBC website I found myself biting my nails and I took this as a sign that my passion was on the way back. And, finally, when JBG stooped to head his 97th minute winner against Hull, I experienced the full affinity bounce back. Out of my seat ? I was in a different postcode. So what is winning me back ? Partly, it is just the passing of

time. It’s like getting over being dumped and I’ve had plenty of practice at that. Also, there are welcome signs that the management have found the humility to listen a bit to supporters and that they have learned from their experience of last year. But mainly, it’s because I want to feel affinity. I don’t enjoy sulking on the sidelines. So please, give us less about fans just having to get used to the owner’s way of doing things. Give us more continuity and stability. Slow down the carousel of player arrivals and departures. Stick with Guy Luzon. Improve the administration and reduce the cheap publicity stunts. Keep giving us something we can be proud of (which doesn’t mean we have to win every week). And then, maybe, there will be a few thousand more of us leaping out of our seats.

www.castrust.org/join

Richard Wiseman

News

SIGN THE PETITION Sign the petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions106355 Or (much easier) go to Castrust.org and follow the links

www.castrust.org/join

News

MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS Help build a strong representative Trust Ownership of ÂŁ1 share in the Trust E - Certificate Free e version of quarterly Trust News Regular Trust updates Innovative website Access to member-only areas Help support Trust research and campaigns AGM rights (including the right to elect the board)

www.castrust.org/join

20 20 22

wss ew N e N

MEMBERSHIP FORM Membership Form

Your Details First Name

Last Name

Date of Birth

Email Address

Address

I wish to join the Charlton Athletic Supporters’ Trust as a: Junior Member-Under 16( Free)-You must be under 16 Full Member (£5)- You must be over 16 and payment must be enclosed with this form The fee is for 1 years full membership and entitles the member to 1 years access to our members section and includes a Membership e-Certificate, Ownership of £1Share (whilst a paid member) and AGM rights. The fee is non-refundable, but membership can be cancelled at any time

Signature

Date

I enclose a cheque for£

Optional Information Internet How did you find us? Leaflet Are you a Charlton Athletic season ticket holder? Which stand do you normally sit in? North

Word of Mouth Yes No East

West

CAS Trust,c/o The Beehive 365 Footscray Road London SE9 2DR The Charlton Supporters’ Trust is registered in England and Wales as the Charlton Supporters Society Limited. Industrial and Provident Socirty number 31912R

THE CHARLTON ATHLETIC SUPPORTERS’ TRUST Complete the survey to enterwww.castrust.org/join our free prize draw@ http://www.castrust.org/survey3

News

CAS Trust Annual General Meeting Thursday October 29th at 7.30pm

Venue - probably The Bugle Horn, Charlton Village (but to be confirmed) Guest Speaker: Owen Gibson Chief Sports Correspondent (The Guardian) Members only.

Please make sure your membership is up to date. Castrust.org/renew

www.castrust.org/join

Your Trust News the Free magazine for all fans of Charlton Athletic Football Club ‘COME ON YOU REDS’