seasideone
Well-known member
With BST the reality is only elected members of the committee have a vote.
So the secretary and any co-opted members have no vote on any matters.
BST meeting with Julian Winter ; October 2023
- Thread starter BlackpoolSupportersTrust
- Start date
So the secretary and any co-opted members have no vote on any matters.
SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
Of course it's my opinion GJ.
It might be an idea to compare the views on football politics expressed by the BST secretary on here in a personal capacity with the views expressed publicly by BST on football politics and then perhaps reconsider your opinion.
Probably easier just to ask the man himself, if he is of the opinion that he "only helps out from an admin point of view" then he is not to be trusted.
You don't have to change your mind GJ but if you do ever decide that the BST secretary does more than "help out from an admin point of view" then I will ask you again, do you believe that he should have been democratically elected ?
todayistheday
Well-known member
Oh dear, that is poor if true. Not opened link. Can we not have an election to see who is entitled to be the fans reps to the club. A bit like a general election.
TwelveAngryMen
Well-known member
The reality is we aren't 'at loggerheads', indeed there is a fair few from both groups that socialise whilst the BST Chair is also in a business partnership with certain prominent MSG reps - including Fiduciary
Makes all this that bit more bizarre
Mind you this is Blackpool
SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
seaside
No problem with anything you say and I don't have any reason to doubt you but the question still remains:
Does the BST secretary "only help out from an admin point of view" ?
I am not sure that anybody was asking whether he had a vote or not and I believe that has already been addressed but I guess there is no problem in reaffirming it. *** Apologies seasideone I originally wrote no point in reaffirming it but meant to say no problem ***
So does the BST secretary only help out from an admin point of view ?
Last edited:
GJJW
Well-known member
Mute point for me as I don't as stated earlier.
Just feels like we are going round in circles here so let's leave it eh
SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
The reality is we aren't 'at loggerheads', indeed there is a fair few from both groups that socialise whilst the BST Chair is also in a business partnership with certain prominent MSG reps - including Fiduciary
Makes all this that bit more bizarre
Mind you this is Blackpool
I'm not suggesting that the groups are are at loggerheads TAM and I'm sure that the groups socialise as you suggest but despite all the nice soundbites, we all know perfectly well that BST and Muckers do not want to work with each other and have no intention of seriously doing so.
SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
Fair enough GJ.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
The ‘vote’ factor is an irrelevance to be honest. The secretary clearly participates in policy formation, has been a prominent voice representing the trust and is as influential as anyone, regardless of the vote.
It’s this kind of pretence that seriously fucks people off when it comes to BST and it does you no favours whatsoever. People start to think that if you’ll bullshit about one thing then you’ll bullshit about everything.
Just be straight with people…if not you’re corrupt
Yes ‘technically’ the Secretary should be a purely administrative role. However it never had been from the very outset. Same has also applied to co-opted individuals…. (Myself included)
Reality is that any permanent position should really be subject to the election process.
TwelveAngryMen
Well-known member
We have before and in my view we will again.
Whilst individual BST committee members including myself have responded to correct certain assumptions / allegations on here at X ( where I am called all sorts ) we are on the same side which makes any mud slinging on whichever side of the fence you sit unfortunate.
For me the MSG have a role to play but what we don't control is the club
SEASIDE2020
Well-known member
All fair enough TAM.
I was not trying to make the divide any bigger, I was just stating the obvious in that the 2 groups are not going to be working together anytime soon.
I certainly have no doubt about anything you say re the members of each group socialising with each other etc, etc.
Southshoresteve
Well-known member
It’s still got the biggest proven membership of any of our supporters groups as far as I know
Not sure why you think it’s so poor? They represent a small section of our fan base, but they have the biggest numbers.
rememberlesshannon
Well-known member
When was the last time BST were granted access to a group of players at the club when they weren't happy with a performance ?
JJpool
Well-known member
Fair enough maybe not the whole fanbase, but a section. I don't think it's quite as simple as one person either, given the influence on that group and people who are members of the MSG social media for eg, who want their voice heard too.
It's nowehere near as together as it has been.
There's also some people who won't sing the managers name and still hold a grudge. That doesn't contribute to all pulling in the same direction either.
basilrobbie3
Well-known member
The truth is that the job involves a number of different elements. The most time consuming one by far IS administration.
It's also my job to drive the Trust business forward in a timely manner ; recording decisions, carrying out and chasing others for follow up action etc. That is a mixture of administrative and influential, I suppose.
I agree with you that Kev (and Steve, when he did it) were very influential, not least because they between them steered the Trust through some very challenging times. Whether I am equally influential is not for me to say. But I hope I am having some influence, because otherwise I am probably not doing the job as well as I might.
It's also worth bearing in mind that I did not become involved with the Trust in 2015 with the idea of becoming Secretary. I had a very specific job to do in my first year, after which it was my professional experience that the Trust wished to draw upon. I took the Secretary role on at the back end of 2020 because Kev was no longer in a position to do it and the Trust urgently needed someone to organise the AGM and the Elections. So I volunteered to do it for three months , to get it through a difficult period and allow the Committee time to find a more permanent solution. I now appear to be it
.I'm not sure why this is controversial really. The Trust's Constitution provides for the appointment of a Secretary and in my experience it is difficult to be on top of all aspects of our potential role without one. As for being "influential" in terms of governance and so on - again, this was part of my professional experience that made me useful. I'd expect to be centrally involved in that, but most of what I have done in that area in the post Oyston era is for and on behalf of the FSA - not BST.
Edit to add : one thing I think you're incorrect about Biff is Structured Dialogue. I don't think I've attended one in over two years. With the exception of the (largely unstructured) meeting in March I've found them a bit stilted and not all that enlightening. Hopefully Julian Winter and his team can freshen them up.
BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Obviously, I know what's involved and was co-opted myself when the Trust began, until shortly after Tim was forced to resign as well as a short period as an official committee member. I think the point about the SD or 'U'SD meeting was that you weren't there to take notes on behalf of BST, but rather as an active participant.The truth is that the job involves a number of different elements. The most time consuming one by far IS administration.
It's also my job to drive the Trust business forward in a timely manner ; recording decisions, carrying out and chasing others for follow up action etc. That is a mixture of administrative and influential, I suppose.
I agree with you that Kev (and Steve, when he did it) were very influential, not least because they between them steered the Trust through some very challenging times. Whether I am equally influential is not for me to say. But I hope I am having some influence, because otherwise I am probably not doing the job as well as I might.
It's also worth bearing in mind that I did not become involved with the Trust in 2015 with the idea of becoming Secretary. I had a very specific job to do in my first year, after which it was my professional experience that the Trust wished to draw upon. I took the Secretary role on at the back end of 2020 because Kev was no longer in a position to do it and the Trust urgently needed someone to organise the AGM and the Elections. So I volunteered to do it for three months , to get it through a difficult period and allow the Committee time to find a more permanent solution. I now appear to be it
I'm not sure why this is controversial really. The Trust's Constitution provides for the appointment of a Secretary and in my experience it is difficult to be on top of all aspects of our potential role without one. As for being "influential" in terms of governance and so on - again, this was part of my professional experience that made me useful. I'd expect to be centrally involved in that, but most of what I have done in that area in the post Oyston era is for and on behalf of the FSA - not BST.
Edit to add : one thing I think you're incorrect about Biff is Structured Dialogue. I don't think I've attended one in over two years. With the exception of the (largely unstructured) meeting in March I've found them a bit stilted and not all that enlightening. Hopefully Julian Winter and his team can freshen them up.
I don't think it is particularly controversial that the role is more expansive.... It's always been that way.
I think the difficulty arises potentially from a constitutional perspective as to whether any unelected permanent role should be so far-reaching and influential (voting aside). I think from a technical perspective you can 'Get Away With It" constitutionally, but I'm not sure it's really abiding by the spirit of the whole 'democratic' profile really. Especially when (as we are seeing right now) you are really there to be shot at to a certain extent.
From a personal perspective, I'm more than happy and grateful that people are prepared to put in the hard miles, especially with what is chucked in your general directions. I know only too well the effort that goes on in the background, but I also still care about the welfare of the Trust and I'm invested in it's long term success. So to that extent, I don't think it's unreasonable to call things out that might be perceived to calling the integrity of the organisation into question.
todayistheday
Well-known member
Are you a senior MSG member ?
fcblackpool
Well-known member
Looking at your username, are you really a man of the cloth?
No need for the abuse though. Just make your points, many of which I agree with in general, but not wrt individuals.
Thanks
Wizaard
Well-known member
I thought the MSG represented the youth element. Not so many, it seems
So to be a member of The MSG you have to be chosen, presumably by likeminded types. Sounds just like the mafia!You are chosen to be a member. There will be signs if and when it's your time.
BST, however, encourages all types of Blackpool fan to join them. Not to be chosen but to choose to join them.
So, one fans group appears to be largely sensible and democratic whilst the other models itself as some kind of Green Street/Sopranos hybrid but ends up looking like a follow up to Phoenix Nights.
