BST meeting with Julian Winter ; October 2023

Briggs5 said:
So BST are in bed with the club now, to the exclusion of other groups?
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound like it's to the exclusion of other groups as there will still be an opportunity for communication through other channels.

It does seem, on the face of it, like BST might enjoy a closer working relationship with the Club than the other groups, moving forward though.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
What does "Part f BST" mean though?

I don't even get why anyone would say that.... Are you sure you've not just assumed they were associated with BST, because BST were the Public Face of the campaign?

I get you want to move on mate, but it's completely unfair of you to tarnish an organisation (especially one that through it's policies would have been totally against any kind of intimidatory behaviour) due to the actions of individual people, wo were clearly not acting for the organisation.

Even during the NAPM campaign, BST always stuck to very clear principles and always maintained that fans should be free to choose whether to join the boycott or attend and rightly so.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I have no idea what "part of BST" meant and didn't particularly care then (or now) but that was how they described themselves when they tried to intimidate and bully my father into joining in the Oyston Out chants

As I said previously, I've no issues with the committee of BST (whoever they are) but unfortunately the distress this event caused my father has inevitably tainted my view of BST

Like I said, let's agree to disagree and move on, I certainly won't be commenting further on this
 
seasideone said:
BST represent their members.

I no longer live in the far east - but would love to again soon.
Click to expand...
All 1200 of them

Brilliant

According to the website they also represent all Blackpool fans or are you changing that?

I think its worded as the wider fanbase or something
 
April13th1970 said:
To be honest, I have no idea what "part of BST" meant and didn't particularly care then (or now) but that was how they described themselves when they tried to intimidate and bully my father into joining in the Oyston Out chants

As I said previously, I've no issues with the committee of BST (whoever they are) but unfortunately the distress this event caused my father has inevitably tainted my view of BST

Like I said, let's agree to disagree and move on, I certainly won't be commenting further on this
Click to expand...
I don't believe you
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I'm fine with them completely fine

As I was marching outside in the rain after a 3 hour journey to not see a match the current BST secretary was sat inside the ground posting on this site criticising the protesters

I won't forget that and to be frank I very much doubt you were involved in any of the direct action protests so your opinion on all this matters not to me

You should feel honoured that I even respond to some of your nonsense
Click to expand...
Don't get above yourself. There is no great cause in continuing to fight yesterday's battles. Not when there is a peace to be won and a future to be built. Mandela saw that and built a rainbow nation. Blackpool FC needs fans to look forwards together, not to continue taking cold comfort from a fractured past.
 
There are some very bitter people on this site. I would suggest that the vast majority of Blackpool fans, who do not read this stuff, have either no interest in the structure of fan groups or they are happy for committed fans to liaise with the club. Either way, I do not see the future of BFC and its fans centred around the bitter memories of those on here who have an axe to grind.
 
I tell you what they could do to encourage our younger supporters - stop going OTT when they make enthusiastic mistakes and tell the rest of the fan base to back off as well.

Loads of "lifetime bans" spouted on here all the time - 3 strikes minimum for silly things; perhaps a final warning for a smoke bomb.

That would allow them to grow into their support. There's loads of first generation Blackpool fans who don't have a family member to guide them - even more telling after NAPM and Covid.

Cut them some slack.

Other than that; I'm not convinced better communication will be achieved by being channeled through one supporters group - that's the definition of a contradiction in terms.

Get them all in at the same time as far as is possible, so you get the widest range of opinions to base your decisions on otherwise you're going to get an echo chamber who are worried about losing their status. It's inevitable.
 
TSSeasider said:
I tell you what they could do to encourage our younger supporters - stop going OTT when they make enthusiastic mistakes and tell the rest of the fan base to back off as well.

Loads of "lifetime bans" spouted on here all the time - 3 strikes minimum for silly things; perhaps a final warning for a smoke bomb.

That would allow them to grow into their support. There's loads of first generation Blackpool fans who don't have a family member to guide them - even more telling after NAPM and Covid.

Cut them some slack.

Other than that; I'm not convinced better communication will be achieved by being channeled through one supporters group - that's the definition of a contradiction in terms.

Get them all in at the same time as far as is possible, so you get the widest range of opinions to base your decisions on otherwise you're going to get an echo chamber who are worried about losing their status. It's inevitable.
Click to expand...
Launching shit on the field and setting off smoke bombs and flares aren’t enthusiastic mistakes. It’s the behaviour of degenerates that threatens the safety of others. Zero tolerance is the appropriate response for that.

Excusing the inexcusable isn’t the way forward.
 
LA1 Seasider said:
Launching shit on the field and setting off smoke bombs and flares aren’t enthusiastic mistakes. It’s the behaviour of degenerates that threatens the safety of others. Zero tolerance is the appropriate response for that.

Excusing the inexcusable isn’t the way forward.
Click to expand...
Well I disagree to zero tolerance especially with youngsters.

Education and support is the way forward
 
April13th1970 said:
Certainly not me nor my late father who, following the abuse he received from some BST supporters prior to lockdown, went to his grave feeling unable to go and watch the team he'd followed for over 80 years
Click to expand...
Really sorry to hear of your sad loss, I lost my father in 2000 so 100% Condolences.

I have a best mate who walked “up to” the ground early with me & I helped his “lovely late father in there” when it was “Oyston FC”
100% Respected his reasons for still going to games.

I also know of friend whose father who sadly passed away with Covid in 2021, who decided to protest for future generations & paid the “ultimate sacrifice” of not watching the “Boys In Tangerine” ever again.

He also followed the “Mighty Pool” well a bit… went to the 51 & 53 Cup Finals.

BST are there to support ALL fans views, I think your accusations directed at BST are not only “unfair” but “totally inappropriate”.

Hope you consider retracting them.

Ashley. 🧡
 
TSSeasider said:
Well I disagree to zero tolerance especially with youngsters.

Education and support is the way forward
Click to expand...
Well, apparently, the youngsters in the North don't listen to BST and aren't members so maybe we should be looking at other groups to educate and support?
 
GJJW said:
Well, apparently, the youngsters in the North don't listen to BST and aren't members so maybe we should be looking at other groups to educate and support?
Click to expand...
Agreed, but it appears that the club don't want to engage to the same level with those groups who probably have the best chance of educating and supporting them.

Shutting out entire demographics of our fan bases representatives (and they are even without the formal structures of BST) is shortsighted and a mistake in my opinion.

I'm nearly 51; BST do a decent job of reflecting much of what I think

They aren't even on the radar of my sons - who feel associated with The Muckers etc even though they don't live in the town.

The online community on Facebook and X is as real to them as physically joining a group - it's a generational difference we would do well to embrace rather than ignore at best/belittle at worst.
 
TSSeasider said:
Agreed, but it appears that the club don't want to engage to the same level with those groups who probably have the best chance of educating and supporting them.

Shutting out entire demographics of our fan bases representatives (and they are even without the formal structures of BST) is shortsighted and a mistake in my opinion.

I'm nearly 51; BST do a decent job of reflecting much of what I think

They aren't even on the radar of my sons - who feel associated with The Muckers etc even though they don't live in the town.

The online community on Facebook and X is as real to them as physically joining a group - it's a generational difference we would do well to embrace rather than ignore at best/belittle at worst.
Click to expand...
The said group or groups do not have to communicate with the club to deter their members from throwing items etc though surely?
If your lads listen to the Muckers on social media then they will be influenced by them whether the "top brass" of the Muckers talk to the board of BFC or not, yes?
 
GJJW said:
The said group or groups do not have to communicate with the club to deter their members from throwing items etc though surely?
If your lads listen to the Muckers on social media then they will be influenced by them whether the "top brass" of the Muckers talk to the board of BFC or not, yes?
Click to expand...
Of course they don't need to; but, would you go out of your way to help when the cub are essentially saying "we don't value you, your members or your influence, to the same level we value BST" by excluding them from the same conversations.

This isn't anti-BST, they serve a purpose which is great for people like me.

I honestly think the club are making a mistake because they prefer the equivalent structures they operate in - membership of the EFL AND FA etc - and cannot see that for thousands and thousands of people online communities, with a Facebook admin are just as real and that connection is just as meaningful.

I think fully embracing it would give the Club a better understanding of that element of our fan base in a whole load of ways, one of which would be the messaging around expected behaviours. It would also add a bit of weight to the "top brass"when they give those messages out.

I just don't think it's that big an ask of the other groups to be treated equally and would lead to much stronger fan representation which is what BST want
 
TSSeasider said:
Of course they don't need to; but, would you go out of your way to help when the cub are essentially saying "we don't value you, your members or your influence, to the same level we value BST" by excluding them from the same conversations.

This isn't anti-BST, they serve a purpose which is great for people like me.

I honestly think the club are making a mistake because they prefer the equivalent structures they operate in - membership of the EFL AND FA etc - and cannot see that for thousands and thousands of people online communities, with a Facebook admin are just as real and that connection is just as meaningful.

I think fully embracing it would give the Club a better understanding of that element of our fan base in a whole load of ways, one of which would be the messaging around expected behaviours. It would also add a bit of weight to the "top brass"when they give those messages out.

I just don't think it's that big an ask of the other groups to be treated equally and would lead to much stronger fan representation which is what BST want
Click to expand...
So you're saying that said group or groups shouldn't go out of their way to do the right thing that will benefit the club unless the club speak to them as regularly as other groups?
I don't think certain youngsters give a hoot whether the club speak to BST or the man on the moon. They will do what they want. But if certain groups have the influence they claim to have over said youngsters, then a social media post here and there deterring bad behaviour can't hurt I guess.
 
TSSeasider said:
Well I disagree to zero tolerance especially with youngsters.

Education and support is the way forward
Click to expand...
How would a club even ban anyone anyway. Surely a banned individual would still get in easily, either their mates just buying tickets or whatever. How are these bans even enforced?

Obviously people shouldn't throw things etc and the club recently thanked fans for a big decrease in any issues, which is good, but life bans for silly things isn't the way and isn't what the club does anyway I don't think.
 
I think the dialogue process has a way to go yet to be fully refined. Personally I expect and hope it will evolve so all significant groups get a good hearing and a chance to contribute. Not just what people want, but also what they can offer. That would be sensible and beneficial but it is also a deal that flows two ways. It's pretty clear we are somewhat under the spotlight with everyone from refs to the EFL, FA and even on occasion the Local Authority. We haven't exactly been shrinking violets over the last few years. Ours is a great story to tell but it doesn't put points on the board or give us leeway when we create problems for ourselves. Some good work was done to ensure order was kept at the flashpoint Wigan game with the club under the microscope. That should be recognised. There will be other times when help like that is needed.

We got our club back after a long hard fight, we need to build it now with all the resources we have available. Otherwise, what was the point?
 
1966_and_all_that said:
There are some very bitter people on this site. I would suggest that the vast majority of Blackpool fans, who do not read this stuff, have either no interest in the structure of fan groups or they are happy for committed fans to liaise with the club. Either way, I do not see the future of BFC and its fans centred around the bitter memories of those on here who have an axe to grind.
Click to expand...
No Axe to grind, I simply explained the reason for my antipathy towards BST as I was asked the reason 👍
 
GJJW said:
So you're saying that said group or groups shouldn't go out of their way to do the right thing that will benefit the club unless the club speak to them as regularly as other groups?
I don't think certain youngsters give a hoot whether the club speak to BST or the man on the moon. They will do what they want. But if certain groups have the influence they claim to have over said youngsters, then a social media post here and there deterring bad behaviour can't hurt I guess.
Click to expand...
I didn't say they shouldn't.

I said I could understand why they wouldn't.

If they are excluded due to the perception that they aren't a group in the historic sense of being formally constituted etc etc, then perhaps they think the responsibility isn't theirs.

And as you say, there are some who will ignore it anyway and will eventually get into bother - but that shouldn't include being given "lifetime bans" - certainly not initially.

I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but I still think the club and the fan base would be better served by understanding the nature of communities of interest which may or may not involve having a written set of rules and votes.

We are on the same side, but I'm not convinced, with a process that currently excludes groups, it would necessarily feel like it.

All our supporters groups do a huge amount of good beyond supporting the team - Christmas dinners for homeless people, food bank drives, Armfield mural (MK II) trying to change English football, Yorkshire pub crawls and the rest of it - we'd do well to celebrate all of it, very publicly, rather than, on the face of it, saying "yeah, but you're not worth our time talking to" because that's the impression being given out.

It really doesn't affect me, but I can empathise with the concerns of the Muckers etc.
 
Last edited:
TSSeasider said:
Of course they don't need to; but, would you go out of your way to help when the cub are essentially saying "we don't value you, your members or your influence, to the same level we value BST" by excluding them from the same conversations.

This isn't anti-BST, they serve a purpose which is great for people like me.

I honestly think the club are making a mistake because they prefer the equivalent structures they operate in - membership of the EFL AND FA etc - and cannot see that for thousands and thousands of people online communities, with a Facebook admin are just as real and that connection is just as meaningful.

I think fully embracing it would give the Club a better understanding of that element of our fan base in a whole load of ways, one of which would be the messaging around expected behaviours. It would also add a bit of weight to the "top brass"when they give those messages out.

I just don't think it's that big an ask of the other groups to be treated equally and would lead to much stronger fan representation which is what BST want
Click to expand...
Or fans could just join BST if they feel that they want their views to be represented to the BFC Board.
 
TSSeasider said:
I didn't say they shouldn't.

I said I could understand why they wouldn't.

If they are excluded due to the perception that they aren't a group in the historic sense of being formally constituted etc etc, then perhaps they think the responsibility isn't theirs.

And as you say, there are some who will ignore it anyway and will eventually get into bother - but that shouldn't include being given "lifetime bans" - certainly not initially.

I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but I still think the club and the fan base would be better served by understanding the nature of communities of interest which may or may not be involve having a written set of rules and votes.

Well are on the same side, but I'm not convinced, with a process that correctly excludes groups, it would necessarily feel like it.

All our supporters groups do a huge amount of good beyond supporting the team - Christmas dinners for homeless people, food bank drives, Armfield mural (MK II) trying to change English football, Yorkshire pub crawls and the rest of it - we'd do well to celebrate all of it, very publicly, rather than, on the face of it, saying "yeah, but you're not worth it time talking to" because that's the impression being given out.

It really doesn't affect me, but I can empathise with the concerns of the Muckers etc.
Click to expand...
I don't think any groups will be excluded in the long run. At least I hope not. This is the start of the communication process as Julian states.
However, I don't believe that ego's should get in the way of groups backing the club and using their influence to deter bad behaviour.
 
TSSeasider said:
I didn't say they shouldn't.

I said I could understand why they wouldn't.

If they are excluded due to the perception that they aren't a group in the historic sense of being formally constituted etc etc, then perhaps they think the responsibility isn't theirs.

And as you say, there are some who will ignore it anyway and will eventually get into bother - but that shouldn't include being given "lifetime bans" - certainly not initially.

I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but I still think the club and the fan base would be better served by understanding the nature of communities of interest which may or may not be involve having a written set of rules and votes.

We are on the same side, but I'm not convinced, with a process that correctly excludes groups, it would necessarily feel like it.

All our supporters groups do a huge amount of good beyond supporting the team - Christmas dinners for homeless people, food bank drives, Armfield mural (MK II) trying to change English football, Yorkshire pub crawls and the rest of it - we'd do well to celebrate all of it, very publicly, rather than, on the face of it, saying "yeah, but you're not worth our time talking to" because that's the impression being given out.

It really doesn't affect me, but I can empathise with the concerns of the Muckers etc.
Click to expand...
That's a very good post
 
TSSeasider said:
I didn't say they shouldn't.

I said I could understand why they wouldn't.

If they are excluded due to the perception that they aren't a group in the historic sense of being formally constituted etc etc, then perhaps they think the responsibility isn't theirs.

And as you say, there are some who will ignore it anyway and will eventually get into bother - but that shouldn't include being given "lifetime bans" - certainly not initially.

I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but I still think the club and the fan base would be better served by understanding the nature of communities of interest which may or may not involve having a written set of rules and votes.

We are on the same side, but I'm not convinced, with a process that correctly excludes groups, it would necessarily feel like it.

All our supporters groups do a huge amount of good beyond supporting the team - Christmas dinners for homeless people, food bank drives, Armfield mural (MK II) trying to change English football, Yorkshire pub crawls and the rest of it - we'd do well to celebrate all of it, very publicly, rather than, on the face of it, saying "yeah, but you're not worth our time talking to" because that's the impression being given out.

It really doesn't affect me, but I can empathise with the concerns of the Muckers etc.
Click to expand...
What an excellent and well thought out post. You've hit the nail on the head there.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Or fans could just join BST if they feel that they want their views to be represented to the BFC Board.
Click to expand...
Why would anybody under 40 want to join an organisation run by over 60's a secretary that is a mushroom and slagged off Blackpool fans, committee members who are mushrooms, and several of them who don't live in the town (or country) but want to have a say on the local community?
 
Fiduciary said:
Why would anybody under 40 want to join an organisation run by over 60's a secretary that is a mushroom and slagged off Blackpool fans, committee members who are mushrooms, and several of them who don't live in the town (or country) but want to have a say on the local community?
Click to expand...
Showed your true colours pretty quick there eh?
Which committee members are mushrooms?
 
GJJW said:
Showed your true colours pretty quick there eh?
Which committee members are mushrooms?
Click to expand...
Think basil blobbie would spring to mind. Whoever is chair or on the committee of the 2nd largest supporters group should fit certain criteria
Season ticket holder
Live in blackpool
Non mushroom
 
Jdseacidre81 said:
Think basil blobbie would spring to mind. Whoever is chair of the 2nd largest supporters group should fit certain criteria
Season ticket holder
Live in blackpool
Non mushroom
Click to expand...
He isn't on the committee or chair. The post said certain committee members were "mushrooms". Just interested to know who he/she means
 
Fiduciary said:
Why would anybody under 40 want to join an organisation run by over 60's a secretary that is a mushroom and slagged off Blackpool fans, committee members who are mushrooms, and several of them who don't live in the town (or country) but want to have a say on the local community?
Click to expand...
You might as well ask why anybody under 40 would want to support a football club owned by someone in their 50s who didn't used to live in the country and continues not to live in Blackpool. On the other hand, you could applaud people who want to benefit the club and the town, regardless of where they live. You may, at the same time, ruminate on the developments the Club has and continues to make post-Oystons, including its ability to welcome back all supporters - whether they boycotted or not. If, however, you would rather see all the so-called 'mushrooms' banned from the ground forever then you're supporting the wrong team. Blackpool is now an inclusive club and I, for one, celebrate that approach.
 
Jdseacidre81 said:
Think basil blobbie would spring to mind. Whoever is chair or on the committee of the 2nd largest supporters group should fit certain criteria
Season ticket holder
Live in blackpool
Non mushroom
Click to expand...
The only criterion for the appointment of any committee member to any Supporters Group, should be that they have been democratically elected by the membership.
 
Last edited:
TSSeasider said:
Agreed, but it appears that the club don't want to engage to the same level with those groups who probably have the best chance of educating and supporting them.

Shutting out entire demographics of our fan bases representatives (and they are even without the formal structures of BST) is shortsighted and a mistake in my opinion.

I'm nearly 51; BST do a decent job of reflecting much of what I think

They aren't even on the radar of my sons - who feel associated with The Muckers etc even though they don't live in the town.

The online community on Facebook and X is as real to them as physically joining a group - it's a generational difference we would do well to embrace rather than ignore at best/belittle at worst.
Click to expand...
How old are your sons TS? BST have asked for 16-30 year old Blackpool fans to get involved with the formation of a youth advisory board. It's already gaining momentum and is for the representation of younger supporters across the fan base. If your sons have opinions that they want to share and would like to see things done differently and have direct input, maybe they could get involved?
 
TSSeasider said:
I didn't say they shouldn't.

I said I could understand why they wouldn't.

If they are excluded due to the perception that they aren't a group in the historic sense of being formally constituted etc etc, then perhaps they think the responsibility isn't theirs.

And as you say, there are some who will ignore it anyway and will eventually get into bother - but that shouldn't include being given "lifetime bans" - certainly not initially.

I have no idea whether this is the case or not, but I still think the club and the fan base would be better served by understanding the nature of communities of interest which may or may not involve having a written set of rules and votes.

We are on the same side, but I'm not convinced, with a process that correctly excludes groups, it would necessarily feel like it.

All our supporters groups do a huge amount of good beyond supporting the team - Christmas dinners for homeless people, food bank drives, Armfield mural (MK II) trying to change English football, Yorkshire pub crawls and the rest of it - we'd do well to celebrate all of it, very publicly, rather than, on the face of it, saying "yeah, but you're not worth our time talking to" because that's the impression being given out.

It really doesn't affect me, but I can empathise with the concerns of the Muckers etc.
Click to expand...
Good post that. The reality is also that young people don't tend to join things but they will follow things if they are of interest. I believe msg and other groups should have a voice, not least to help take things in the right direction at the right time. The club has indicated they will be communicating more extensively. Let's see how that pans out.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The only criteria for the appointment of any committee member to any Supporters Group, should be that they have been democratically elected by the membership.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure Robbie is secretary so not on the actual committee? May be wrong though.
 
GJJW said:
He isn't on the committee or chair. The post said certain committee members were "mushrooms". Just interested to know who he/she means
Click to expand...

Robert Whittaker - Secretary - Continued to go to games long after the boycott had started, repeatedly slated Blackpool fans and mocked protests. Even lied about saying AVFTT was closing down. "If the Oystons succeed, Blackpool FC succeeds".

Mike Latham - Contiued to attend the odd game when in England during the boycott

Karen McGuinness - Was a committee member who never stopped going once, even went in the corporate area every single game.

These are inexcusable for a so called supporters trust.

In addition, Steve Rowland - SLO - a lifetime BST member and former committee member. There's simply no independence from BFC to BST.

Tim Fielding - Former Non Executive board member of BFC - Former Chirman of BST - Lifetime BST member - Arranged the candidates for the role of SLO amd advised Michael Bollingbroke. To say he didn't have a say in who got that role is insulting to Blackpool fans. There is no independence.

Christine Seddon - Former BST chairwoman - Lifetime member of BST - Worked as hotel manager for BFC - There is no independence.

All this talk of affiliations, associations, legally structured supporters groups, it's all a load of tripe spouted by old timers who are losing their grip on the new generations. Young people today are just as interested in Blackpool Football Club as they are, but don't want to be messing about with AGM's, minutes, agendas, politics and all the jockeying for position that goes with it.

There is no way that the majority of Blackpool fans (certainly those under the age of 40) want a load of old yes men and women mascarading as the voice of BFC fans, not a chance, and all the bullshit spouted by BST defenders isn't going to stop The MSG from holding the whole lot to account.
 
Fiduciary said:
Robert Whittaker - Secretary - Continued to go to games long after the boycott had started, repeatedly slated Blackpool fans and mocked protests. Even lied about saying AVFTT was closing down. "If the Oystons succeed, Blackpool FC succeeds".

Mike Latham - Contiued to attend the odd game when in England during the boycott

Karen McGuinness - Was a committee member who never stopped going once, even went in the corporate area every single game.

These are inexcusable for a so called supporters trust.

In addition, Steve Rowland - SLO - a lifetime BST member and former committee member. There's simply no independence from BFC to BST.

Tim Fielding - Former Non Executive board member of BFC - Former Chirman of BST - Lifetime BST member - Arranged the candidates for the role of SLO amd advised Michael Bollingbroke. To say he didn't have a say in who got that role is insulting to Blackpool fans. There is no independence.

Christine Seddon - Former BST chairwoman - Lifetime member of BST - Worked as hotel manager for BFC - There is no independence.

All this talk of affiliations, associations, legally structured supporters groups, it's all a load of tripe spouted by old timers who are losing their grip on the new generations. Young people today are just as interested in Blackpool Football Club as they are, but don't want to be messing about with AGM's, minutes, agendas, politics and all the jockeying for position that goes with it.

There is no way that the majority of Blackpool fans (certainly those under the age of 40) want a load of old yes men and women mascarading as the voice of BFC fans, not a chance, and all the bullshit spouted by BST defenders isn't going to stop The MSG from holding the whole lot to account.
Click to expand...
Robbie isn't on the committee. He is secretary. No current committee members are mushrooms yes?
 
Jdseacidre81 said:
Think basil blobbie would spring to mind. Whoever is chair or on the committee of the 2nd largest supporters group should fit certain criteria
Season ticket holder
Live in blackpool
Non mushroom
Click to expand...
So, living in Cleveleys on a pension that might make it difficult to afford a season ticket should rule me out from becoming involved in a fans group. Do you have any other exclusion clauses whilst you're at it? Shouldn't sit in M Block perhaps, or must be fit enough to stand up for the full 90 minutes, or mustn't live in a house that was once sold by Oyston's estate agents in the dim and distant past?
 
CSSeasider said:
How old are your sons TS? BST have asked for 16-30 year old Blackpool fans to get involved with the formation of a youth advisory board. It's already gaining momentum and is for the representation of younger supporters across the fan base. If your sons have opinions that they want to share and would like to see things done differently and have direct input, maybe they could get involved?
Click to expand...
They are, with The MSG
 
1966_and_all_that said:
You might as well ask why anybody under 40 would want to support a football club owned by someone in their 50s who didn't used to live in the country and continues not to live in Blackpool. On the other hand, you could applaud people who want to benefit the club and the town, regardless of where they live. You may, at the same time, ruminate on the developments the Club has and continues to make post-Oystons, including its ability to welcome back all supporters - whether they boycotted or not. If, however, you would rather see all the so-called 'mushrooms' banned from the ground forever then you're supporting the wrong team. Blackpool is now an inclusive club and I, for one, celebrate that approach.
Click to expand...
It's always been an inclusive club. It's you and your ilk that like to think that only your say so on inclusitivity goes however. Times are changing, and you old fuddy duddies need to keep up. The world of social media has passed you by unfortunately. You think this site provides an overarching view of Blackpool fans, when in reality it's laughed at from most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top