Football Supporters Association and BST

[Plumbs]

I certainly hear what you say re affordability and exclusion but when making things more exclusive it doesn't mean that all requirements are dropped.

Aye but look at the things that drive the financials for fans; increased ticket prices as you go up the leagues, TV subscriptions, membership fees, travel costs (esp railway) and where the FSA themselves have used the term 'affordable'.

I'm sure that Arsenal FC will say that £1,000 for a season ticket is affordable but that doesnt make it right does it?

 

[dodgy_surname]

Where’s whusc ?

 

[SEASIDE2020]

Aye but look at the things that drive the financials for fans; increased ticket prices as you go up the leagues, TV subscriptions, membership fees, travel costs (esp railway) and where the FSA themselves have used the term 'affordable'.

I'm sure that Arsenal FC will say that £1,000 for a season ticket is affordable but that doesnt make it right does it?

Plumbs

No big deal but I am not sure we will agree on this one.

I hear what you say in that the FSA banging on about affordability but having audited accounts does add value to an organisation and certainly adds credibility, that is true regardless of the cost.

I am not sure that anybody could say that the FSA should not be allowed to introduce such a requirement because of the cost, although you are obviously perfectly entitled to disagree and to express such a view.

I am calling it a night.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

I would presume the rule revisions implemented were intended to achieve a legitimate objective

For example I can imagine that limiting small groups voting rights might be viewed as proportionate because otherwise an organisation representing 3 fans would have the same voting rights as one representing say 1000

The associate membership of the old FSF was really easy to secure and as has been stated you could if you were so minded flood the FSF as was with multiple groups who would each have the same voting rights as far larger and more established fans organisations

That certainly makes sense to me.

 

[FedoraExplorer]

That certainly makes sense to me.

And me. It seems to me that one bloke with weird views wants the same voting rights for himself as the Trusts get.

100 odd posts in and I still don't see what it has to do with BST.

 

[Plumbs]

And me. It seems to me that one bloke with weird views wants the same voting rights for himself as the Trusts get.

100 odd posts in and I still don't see what it has to do with BST.

Very good but a lot depends on the integrity of the Trusts concerned. Get a good one who treat everyone the same then you're laughing, but get one that marginalises long term supporters and their groups and its a nightmare.
Some double standards on here after the abuse BSA were getting at one point, for doing nothing more than providing an equitable vehicle for Blackpool fans-irrespective of the perception of one or two of its board members.

 

[FedoraExplorer]

BSA ran coach trips and did some (very good) fund raising from time to time. I can't see the comparison tbh.

if you've got a grievance with the Leeds United ST - which you obviously have - why don't you take it over to one of their message boards?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Very good but a lot depends on the integrity of the Trusts concerned. Get a good one who treat everyone the same then you're laughing, but get one that marginalises long term supporters and their groups and its a nightmare.

But aren’t questions of integrity an issue between the individual trusts and the supporters of the club in question?

I can’t really see what it’s got to do with the FSA and even less BST.

 

[FedoraExplorer]

But aren’t questions of integrity an issue between the individual trusts and the supporters of the club in question?

I can’t really see what it’s got to do with the FSA and even less BST.

He started this thread making serious accusations about the FSA and then even suggested that BST couldn't be trusted not to share personal data with them. Plus he seems to think that them not having a public row on here with him is suspicious. Mental.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

He started this thread making serious accusations about the FSA and then even suggested that BST couldn't be trusted not to share personal data with them. Plus he seems to think that them not having a public row on here with him is suspicious. Mental.

I know what you mean. The op seems to want to say something about BST but without actually saying it. And certainly without any evidence to back up what he may, or may not, be implying. Bit like trying to knit fog answering him really.

I think what Tangerinemoss said at post 12 sums up my position.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I think this may be one of those cases where ‘Bee in Bonnet’ has progressed to ‘unhealthy obsession’.

 

[Plumbs]

He started this thread making serious accusations about the FSA and then even suggested that BST couldn't be trusted not to share personal data with personal information

No I haven't.

This is where it goes-making accusations that are untrue,where the head of the FSA is allowed to out people which violates forum rules. The same forum btw where BST have dodged the question of impartiality on moderation here.

 

[Plumbs]

I think this may be one of those cases where ‘Bee in Bonnet’ has progressed to ‘unhealthy obsession’.

Absolutely but not from my direction. I'll stick some of the abuse I've endured from FSA associates later, and of which they've dodged the issues I've raised over the years.

You've seen what narcissists can do to a fan base and you've had a few examples of it on here over the years too.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

No I haven't.

This is where it goes-making accusations that are untrue,where the head of the FSA is allowed to out people which violates forum rules. The same forum btw where BST have dodged the question of impartiality on moderation here.

Why do BST have to deal with moderation issues on here ?

It's got nothing to do with them

 

[Mexboroseasider]

No I haven't.

This is where it goes-making accusations that are untrue,where the head of the FSA is allowed to out people which violates forum rules. The same forum btw where BST have dodged the question of impartiality on moderation here.

This was the point I was making really. Innuendos about BST are not the same as specific allegations supported by evidence.

Otherwise they can be dismissed as “making accusations that are untrue”.

 

[Plumbs]

This was the point I was making really. Innuendos about BST are not the same as specific allegations supported by evidence.

Otherwise they can be dismissed as “making accusations that are untrue”.

There are no innuendos just stating my genuine concerns over data protection with the FSF/SD where my personal details were abused, and where subsequently I've had threatening screenshots sent of where I live for instance. Abuse against my wife, punched at an away game and veiled blackmail threats about my business.

I still maintain that the moderation on here has BST association and have asked politely for them to address this,where in the past Blackpool fans have been unfairly removed for minor indiscretions.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Absolutely but not from my direction. I'll stick some of the abuse I've endured from FSA associates later, and of which they've dodged the issues I've raised over the years.

You've seen what narcissists can do to a fan base and you've had a few examples of it on here over the years too.

I can understand you might have some ongoing personal battle with the FSA that may well feel to you like the most important thing in the world, but I’m not sure what all that has to do with us lot.

Also, given the backdrop of Covid I can’t help, but think it ought to feature pretty low on the ‘things to be arsed about’ scale.... Perhaps somewhere between “Should I wash or peel my mushrooms before frying them” and “Am I better tying my the laces on my Gazelles or tucking them in”

 

[Plumbs]

I can understand you might have some ongoing personal battle with the FSA that may well feel to you like the most important thing in the world, but I’m not sure what all that has to do with us lot.

We'll have to wait and see on that particularly -seeing you've mentioned covid-how any restricted tickets will be served up.

Been there before haven't you?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

We'll have to wait and see on that particularly -seeing you've mentioned covid-how any restricted tickets will be served up.

Been there before haven't you?

I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[Plumbs]

I'm not sure what you mean?

Arguments over who gets first dibs on tickets but hey we're moving away from the core issue.

I'm leaving this now- made my points and feel vindicated by someone having to bring the FSA head man, and also allowing some nonsense to get through the moderation.

MOT

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Arguments over who gets first dibs on tickets but hey we're moving away from the core issue.

I'm leaving this now- made my points and feel vindicated by someone having to bring the FSA head man, and also allowing some nonsense to get through the moderation.

MOT

Ah OK... I can't say the ticket thing is something I've ever been arsed about from a personal perspective.

 

[Tangerinemoss]

I still maintain that the moderation on here has BST association and have asked politely for them to address this,where in the past Blackpool fans have been unfairly removed for minor indiscretions.

Evidence, please, or you are doing exactly what I suggested above and you refuted, that you are suggesting BST shut down debate.

Put up or shut up

 

[Magic147]

I've printed this thread off for the next time insomnia strikes.

 

[coppiceman]

*At present Clarkie has broken one of the basic forum rules on releasing personal information, and my posting of a certificate was something that all groups get so it really was no excuse.

I hope this isn't you asking the evil mods for protection. It would be absolutely priceless if it were.

 

[SEASIDE2020]

I hope this isn't you asking the evil mods for protection. It would be absolutely priceless if it were.

Are you suggesting that the moderator(s) should ignore forum rules because applying the rules would protect a poster who had previously criticised them ?

If that's the case then perhaps the forum rules should be changed to reflect this ?

 

[coppiceman]

Are you suggesting that the moderator(s) should ignore forum rules because applying the rules would protect a poster who had previously criticised them ?

If that's the case then perhaps the forum rules should be changed to reflect this ?

I'm actually suggesting that your mate Plumbs is a bit of a hypocrite.

 

[SEASIDE2020]

I'm actually suggesting that your mate Plumbs is a bit of a hypocrite.

Morning Coppice.

You may be suggesting that Plumbs is a bit of hypocrite but you appeared to demonstrate your own hypocrisy regarding this situation.

You are backing the moderator(s) but suggesting that they should not provide Plumbs with the same "protection" afforded to all other posters - as per the forum rules.

Are you suggesting that the moderator(s) are doing things properly AND that Plumbs should not receive "protection" from the mods because he may have criticised them over another matter in the past ?

I would have thought that the moderator(s) should be supported and encouraged to carry out their responsibilities within the forum rules and that we are going down a dangerous road if we were to start accepting that rules should be blatantly disregarded or applied inconsistently because of any personal bias of the moderator(s).

 

[coppiceman]

Morning Coppice.

You may be suggesting that Plumbs is a bit of hypocrite but you appeared to demonstrate your own hypocrisy regarding this situation.

You are backing the moderator(s) but suggesting that they should not provide Plumbs with the same "protection" afforded to all other posters - as per the forum rules.

Are you suggesting that the moderator(s) are doing things properly AND that Plumbs should not receive "protection" from the mods because he may have criticised them over another matter in the past ?

I would have thought that the moderator(s) should be supported and encouraged to carry out their responsibilities within the forum rules and that we are going down a dangerous road if we were to start accepting that rules should be blatantly disregarded or applied inconsistently because of any personal bias of the moderator(s).

You're hard work aren't you?

I've no idea what moderation policy is and I don't care. What I am saying is that your friend Plumbs has trashed the mods throughout the thread but the minute someone gives him something back he wants them to protect him. I've also noticed that the self same mods have let him have a free run on this thread to say pretty much what he wants.

Like a lot of people I started reading this thread because it mentioned BST. I didn't expect it would be an attempt to smear them with innuendo. Are you happy with him doing that? Perhaps you might give us your opinion?

 

[Plumbs]

You're hard work aren't you?

I've no idea what moderation policy is and I don't care. What I am saying is that your friend Plumbs has trashed the mods throughout the thread but the minute someone gives him something back he wants them to protect him. I've also noticed that the self same mods have let him have a free run on this thread to say pretty much what he wants.

No one has trashed the mods and no one is denigrating BST, but a simple question has been asked to determine if they have any influence in the moderation of this site. They were given the opportunity on their FB account and fudged it, so it would suggest someone is involved who is controlling things on here
For the record I have been under mod restrictions for a while now so cant say any more, but if everything is transparent and open then why cant the question be answered?

 

[SEASIDE2020]

You're hard work aren't you?

I've no idea what moderation policy is and I don't care. What I am saying is that your friend Plumbs has trashed the mods throughout the thread but the minute someone gives him something back he wants them to protect him. I've also noticed that the self same mods have let him have a free run on this thread to say pretty much what he wants.

Like a lot of people I started reading this thread because it mentioned BST. I didn't expect it would be an attempt to smear them with innuendo. Are you happy with him doing that? Perhaps you might give us your opinion?

Coppice

You can come at we with, "You're hard work aren't you" but that is just a cheap soundbite.

It might possibly appeal to some who may disagree with me on certain matters but all I did was politely explain to you why I thought you were wrong to accuse Plumbs of hypocrisy and why it might be you yourself who was being hypocritical and your latest response would appear to confirm that.

Sorry, I'm afraid that unfortunately I can't do anything about the thread title as I didn't create the thread.

You ask for my opinion, I don't know what it is you expected when you opened the thread but I certainly don't believe that it was in anyway an attempt to smear BST with innuendo.

 

[coppiceman]

No one has trashed the mods and no one is denigrating BST, but a simple question has been asked to determine if they have any influence in the moderation of this site. They were given the opportunity on their FB account and fudged it, so it would suggest someone is involved who is controlling things on here
For the record I have been under mod restrictions for a while now so cant say any more, but if everything is transparent and open then why cant the question be answered?

Your question WAS answered, at post number 2. Why would BST be involved in moderation? It's bizarre.

All I see is a lot of nodding and winking and generally slyness, with nothing to back it up. If either you or 2020 has something concrete to say, you could have said it a hundred posts ago.

 

[20togo]

Your question WAS answered, at post number 2. Why would BST be involved in moderation? It's bizarre.

All I see is a lot of nodding and winking and generally slyness, with nothing to back it up. If either you or 2020 has something concrete to say, you could have said it a hundred posts ago.

Conveniently sidesteps and deflects the issue.

The question isn't whether BST are involved in moderation of the site. The question is whether anybody of authority within BST [ie sits on the committee] is involved in moderation on this site. ie as an individual not as a group.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Conveniently sidesteps and deflects the issue.

The question isn't whether BST are involved in moderation of the site. The question is whether anybody of authority within BST [ie sits on the committee] is involved in moderation on this site. ie as an individual not as a group.

What difference does it make?

Unless BST are somehow officially moderating this site, which is frankly ridiculous and, If I'm being honest bordering on the kind of paranoia that the writer ought to consider discussing with a medical professional, then I'm struggling to see an issue.

Any individual committee member is entitled to a life beyond the scope of thei association with a small time Football Committee surely?

 

[20togo]

What difference does it make?

Unless BST are somehow officially moderating this site, which is frankly ridiculous and, If I'm being honest bordering on the kind of paranoia that the writer ought to consider discussing with a medical professional, then I'm struggling to see an issue.

Any individual committee member is entitled to a life beyond the scope of thei association with a small time Football Committee surely?

Clearly the o/p has an issue and frankly your sneering post aimed at him doesn't do anything to help. Especially as you were a former committee man yourself. And some-one who openly stated on AVFTT that you had your own issues too and if recall was a reason why you jacked it in.
Anyway, it's Plumbs problem. .

 

[FedoraExplorer]

What difference does it make?

Unless BST are somehow officially moderating this site, which is frankly ridiculous and, If I'm being honest bordering on the kind of paranoia that the writer ought to consider discussing with a medical professional, then I'm struggling to see an issue.

Any individual committee member is entitled to a life beyond the scope of thei association with a small time Football Committee surely?

You're right, it is paranoid rubbish at best. Agenda driven spite at worst.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Clearly the o/p has an issue and frankly your sneering post aimed at him doesn't do anything to help. Especially as you were a former committee man yourself. And some-one who openly stated on AVFTT that you had your own issues too and if recall was a reason why you jacked it in.
Anyway, it's Plumbs problem. .

I don't have any time for committees, but at the same time, I think there's a need to separate the person from the committee. At the end of the day, people on the BST committee are not elected officials running the country, they are just volounteers ....

You seem to think (for some absurd reason) that being a bit part player on the BST committee entitles you to question everyting that the BST committee member says and does outside of their role as a committee member.... It doesn't.

In my humble opinion (and I've said this before) the continuous hounding (by some) of certain individuals in relation to moderation on this site is nothing short of bullying / harassment. You'd think grown men would have more about them TBH.

 

[20togo]

Well I'm not a bit part player on the BST committee and I suspect neither is the o/p so god knows what your second para means. And the BST committee have my full support when representing the Trust in an official capacity. But I'm not sure that that is the issue here.

I do like your first para though.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Well I'm not a bit part player on the BST committee and I suspect neither is the o/p so god knows what your second para means. And the BST committee have my full support when representing the Trust in an official capacity. But I'm not sure that that is the issue here.

I do like your first para though.

It means that if someone is on the BST Commiteee then you (and seemingly the O/P) seem to think that gives you two the right to question the unrelated activities of that certain someone. It doesn't!!

 

[Plumbs]

What difference does it make?
Any individual committee member is entitled to a life beyond the scope of thei association with a small time Football Committee surely?

Doesnt make a lot of difference in the immediate situation so I dont understand why they couldnt answer the question.
'No -no-one associated with BST is involved in the moderation'...there we go,nice and simple.

In the greater scheme of things I think the Trusts trying to run forums is a massive issue, and I think its happening as part of an orchestrated campaign to win hearts and minds. That I find manipulative and also a tad sinister, coming on the back too of restricting the opportunity to non Trust groups to get elected onto the top table.

Exeter City Trust had control of tickets and for a Manu away Cup tie around 200 tickets went missing-later found in the Chairs desk at the club.
Tweet here from someone on the LU Trust who was laughing at our away season ticket holders, because they thought they'd persuaded the club to stop them thereby allowing more for the jonny come latelies who's come back.

I've no issue with any group or individual doing anything for supporters,but it must be done openly and transparently imo.



I think I'm done here

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Doesnt make a lot of difference in the immediate situation so I dont understand why they couldnt answer the question.
'No -no-one associated with BST is involved in the moderation'...there we go,nice and simple.

In the greater scheme of things I think the Trusts trying to run forums is a massive issue, and I think its happening as part of an orchestrated campaign to win hearts and minds. That I find manipulative and also a tad sinister, coming on the back too of restricting the opportunity to non Trust groups to get elected onto the top table.

Exeter City Trust had control of tickets and for a Manu away Cup tie around 200 tickets went missing-later found in the Chairs desk at the club.
Tweet here from someone on the LU Trust who was laughing at our away season ticket holders, because they thought they'd persuaded the club to stop them thereby allowing more for the jonny come latelies who's come back.

I've no issue with any group or individual doing anything for supporters,but it must be done openly and transparently imo.

View attachment 4898

I think I'm done here

Why on earth would they want to get involved in such a ridiculous discussion? I imagine they thought you were some kind of loony tune taking the piss.

And sorry but Trusts trying to run forums is DEFINITELY NOT a massive issue. In fact on a scale of 1-100 on the issue scale it features somewhere around 0

 

[20togo]

It means that if someone is on the BST Commiteee then you (and seemingly the O/P) seem to think that gives you two the right to question the unrelated activities of that certain someone. It doesn't!!

What tosh. For instance, you could be serving on the BST committee but as an unrelated activity running a drug farm in Wales. Could I not question that? Anyway, I'm out. My point was never anything to do with BST and all to do with the transparency of moderation on here.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

What tosh. For instance, you could be serving on the BST committee but as an unrelated activity running a drug farm in Wales. Could I not question that? Anyway, I'm out. My point was never anything to do with BST and all to do with the transparency of moderation on here.

Of the many reasons I decided to quit the BST committee was tosspots like you. I think I had been 'Officially' on the committeee for a matter of days when you were trying to suggest I shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion and some other cock twanger was on facebook moaning that I was supporting the Anti-Fracking campaign.... Complete bell ends!!

Yes, in the unlikely event that someone like me on the BST commitee might run a drug farm in Wales (which of course might seem like a realistic scenario to someone either on drugs on suffering a mental breakdown) then I suppose a BST member might wnt to raise that with the committee. However if instead we are referring to a long-standing AVFTT poster assisting with the moderation of a Blackpool internet forum as well as assisting on the BST committee, then that would probably be a complete non-issue and the suqre root of fuck all to do with you.

 

[Wizaard]

I can understand you might have some ongoing personal battle with the FSA that may well feel to you like the most important thing in the world, but I’m not sure what all that has to do with us lot.

Also, given the backdrop of Covid I can’t help, but think it ought to feature pretty low on the ‘things to be arsed about’ scale.... Perhaps somewhere between “Should I wash or peel my mushrooms before frying them” and “Am I better tying my the laces on my Gazelles or tucking them in”

Tucking them in is so wrong...

 

[spudgun]

Tucking them in is so wrong...

Have occasionally followed this thread - whilst lapsing in and out of a coma - but the most shocking takeaway is the fact that middle-aged men are actually wearing Gazelle trainers, and that they may even tuck the laces in....

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

I have to say I am with BFC on this

Who really gives a damn if someone has the time helps moderate on here and acts as secretary to BST

The BST secretary's role is in any event administrative - they AREN'T on the committee itself and don't vote

And who AVFTT ask to help them is completely their call

If you don't like it don't post

 

[20togo]

I have to say I am with BFC on this

Who really gives a damn if someone has the time helps moderate on here and acts as secretary to BST

The BST secretary's role is in any event administrative - they AREN'T on the committee itself and don't vote

And who AVFTT ask to help them is completely their call

If you don't like it don't post

My whole point on here is with regards to transparency of moderation. Like I said, no problems with the BST committee at all.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

Why do AVFTT have to be transparent ?

Surely it's up to them whether they publish details as to who the moderators are or not

 

[20togo]

Why do AVFTT have to be transparent ?

Surely it's up to them whether they publish details as to who the moderators are or not

Yes it's up to them but as I said it would be more transparent if posters knew the usernames of the moderators. If you think posters haven't been discriminated against, then that's your prerogative. I think they have. I'm out.

 

[coppiceman]

I have to say I am with BFC on this

Who really gives a damn if someone has the time helps moderate on here and acts as secretary to BST

The BST secretary's role is in any event administrative - they AREN'T on the committee itself and don't vote

And who AVFTT ask to help them is completely their call

If you don't like it don't post

Aaah, now I'm starting to see what this is really about. Cheers TAM.

 

[20togo]

As we have explained to @Plumbs - there are no actual ‘Moderators’ on this site as such. We have two log ins which we only use to look at Posts that are ‘Reported’ (which for reference a few people did with this post).

Who really gives a damn if someone has the time helps moderate on here and acts as secretary to BST

Two posts which totally contradict each other.