MSG & BST…..

T

Torycorner

Well-known member
Right!!!

BST are independent and a recognised “INDEPENDENT” Fans Voice they arenothing like BSA.

However, this comment, put by a poster on another thread should be absorbed & taken notice of as a very valid opinion of an independent voice ……. I get the posters point to be honest.

“They’re obviously fighting against the totalitarianism of BST and their blatant outcasting of other supporters groups to ensure that Christine, Tim & Whittaker still maintain their seat at the top table”

I think ALL fans whatever group the belonged to were collectively “Fans United” before Sadler started to try being the “tail wagging the dog” when fans spoke out about poor management appointments last season.

This proposed “sole censored communication” medium is not good for future expansive relations with all the fan-base overall I don’t think.

BST can “unilaterally” resolve this potential problem by ensuring members of all fans group are joined at the top table of any meetings.

By the way I have no interest in PLFS being involved in any meetings with the club or BST. we just run coaches and organise boats for charity and many of our group are members of BST and have allegiance with MSG who I personally view as the “Ultas” in our support home & away who have made the atmosphere magical at our matches.

Ashley. 🚌🛳️🍊🧡
 
Last edited:
BST have NEVER tried to oust other groups- quite the opposite. We support the position that the club should engage with all supporter groups and are glad that Julian Winter has indicated that the club intend to do just that. We are all Blackpool fans and should be supporting each other and the club.
People can be members of more than one group and many are. The Trust is an open and democratic organisation and it makes absolute sense that any club will engage with a Trust where there is one, but not to the exclusion of all others
As for this "top table" nonsense- what does that even mean? If being on the Trust committee is supposed to give special benefits then they have certainly passed me by! We don't get special treatment, we don't get freebies, so what is the poster suggesting? The role from where I'm sitting is hard work, a big responsibility in trying to represent the views of members and all Blackpool fans, the donation of hours of our time and being the object of abuse from certain quarters. Thankfully there are plenty of fans who can see the good work being done and being part of something constructive and positive is the reward.
This supposed "war" between MSG and BST is manufactured nonsense. There is an element among the fanbase that like to stir up trouble that isn't real, grab the headlines and manipulate the narrative. Please don't just accept every headline you see. If you want an answer to any question then contact BST directly. Might not be as "exciting" as a thread on AVFTT with hundreds of comments but you will get the real story that way.
 
CSSeasider said:
BST have NEVER tried to oust other groups- quite the opposite. We support the position that the club should engage with all supporter groups and are glad that Julian Winter has indicated that the club intend to do just that. We are all Blackpool fans and should be supporting each other and the club.
People can be members of more than one group and many are. The Trust is an open and democratic organisation and it makes absolute sense that any club will engage with a Trust where there is one, but not to the exclusion of all others
As for this "top table" nonsense- what does that even mean? If being on the Trust committee is supposed to give special benefits then they have certainly passed me by! We don't get special treatment, we don't get freebies, so what is the poster suggesting? The role from where I'm sitting is hard work, a big responsibility in trying to represent the views of members and all Blackpool fans, the donation of hours of our time and being the object of abuse from certain quarters. Thankfully there are plenty of fans who can see the good work being done and being part of something constructive and positive is the reward.
This supposed "war" between MSG and BST is manufactured nonsense. There is an element among the fanbase that like to stir up trouble that isn't real, grab the headlines and manipulate the narrative. Please don't just accept every headline you see. If you want an answer to any question then contact BST directly. Might not be as "exciting" as a thread on AVFTT with hundreds of comments but you will get the real story that way.
Click to expand...
Didn't you get given a job in the Blackpool fc hotel because you were on the BST top table?

That's kinda a benefit in my book

Anyway back to the main point the SLO in his message to Grmmy make it quite clear that the club only wants dialogue with BST currently, are you saying that's now untrue?

Its probably also worth reminding people that the SLO was the previous BST secretary
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The whole thing is ridiculous and needs to stop.

Everyday Blackpool Fans don’t want or need this bullshit.
Click to expand...
To be honest I get where you are coming from but that last thing we need is a BSA style closed shop approach to dialogue

And from the outside looking in that's what appears to be happening
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The whole thing is ridiculous and needs to stop.

Everyday Blackpool Fans don’t want or need this bullshit.
Click to expand...
Correct. The 'fans' groups represent a small percentage of fans, in reality.
Most fans don't give two hoots.
It seems to me that these groups committees, the ones that do all the sabre rattling, just like to be recognised in some way.
They have all done great things when it WAS needed but with a decent man now in charge they seem to want to moan about the smallest irrelevant issues.
 
L’étranger said:
I bet Julian Winter is wondering what the hell he’s walked into.
Click to expand...
I would have hoped he would have done his research on us and the troubles every day fans have had with the previous owners at our club

As a fanbase we probably are more invested in the club and the politics surrounding it and it's no wonder given what's gone on in our recent history

I actually think it's a good thing to have several hundred fans willing to hold the football club to account
 
The standard of discussion, both here and on the other thread, has taken a nosedive. Why? Because it's being conducted remotely, on (un)social media. Put people together in a room, with structured terms of engagement and the discussion would work on a much better level. That's what is needed - face to face discussion, not this keyboard warrior stuff.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I would have hoped he would have done his research on us and the troubles every day fans have had with the previous owners at our club

As a fanbase we probably are more invested in the club and the politics surrounding it and it's no wonder given what's gone on in our recent history

I actually think it's a good thing to have several hundred fans willing to hold the football club to account
Click to expand...
At last a constructive post from Phil. Keep it at that level and the debate will benefit no end. Please note, I will not throw in a laughing emoji just for the hell of it.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Fair enough, but some people do care if you don't then that's fine not sure why you are getting all uppity about it though
Click to expand...
l’m uppity about it because it affects the thing I do care about, which is the football. I don’t want all this bullshit and drama ** things up, when we’re starting to turn a corner.

It’s not difficult to sort the problem out, but it ain’t going to be resolved by calling each other names on Social Media.

If the Club is only willing to engage in an exclusive relationship with BST (and personally I very much doubt that would happen) then BST needs to make it clear they either communicate with all or none.

That’s exactly what BST asked of BSA back in the day and so they should have the same standard for themselves.

And the MSG needs to reign in the Social Media attacks and encourage cooperation.

Just talk to each other and be reasonable and respectful …
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
l’m uppity about it because it affects the thing I do care about, which is the football. I don’t want all this bullshit and drama ** things up, when we’re starting to turn a corner.

It’s not difficult to sort the problem out, but it ain’t going to be resolved by calling each other names on Social Media.

If the Club is only willing to engage in an exclusive relationship with BST (and personally I very much doubt that would happen) then BST needs to make it clear they either communicate with all or none.

That’s exactly what BST asked of BSA back in the day and do they should have the same standard fir themselves.

And the MSG needs to reign in the Social Media attacks and encourage cooperation.

Just talk to each other and be reasonable and respectful …
Click to expand...
Your 3rd paragraph is spot on but I very much doubt BST would do that
 
FFS what a lot of waffle. I joined SISA (BST) in the early days as part of the fight to oust our rogue owners. I'm still a member & have no real reason not to continue being such. Now I just go to the matches & that's miles better than being an angry boycotter.
 
CSSeasider said:
BST have NEVER tried to oust other groups- quite the opposite. We support the position that the club should engage with all supporter groups and are glad that Julian Winter has indicated that the club intend to do just that.
Click to expand...

BFC_BFC_BFC said:
If the Club is only willing to engage in an exclusive relationship with BST (and personally I very much doubt that would happen) then BST needs to make it clear they either communicate with all or none.

That’s exactly what BST asked of BSA back in the day and so they should have the same standard for themselves.
Click to expand...

I know you clearly say that your doubt it would happen, but given the above quote from Christine, why are we even having to speculate/consider that it could happen? There just isn't any evidence that the club is going to have an exclusive relationship with BST, and the evidence available suggests the opposite.

It just seems like a complete waste of energy/time. I could come up with some speculative theories, with zero evidence, and then everyone has to debate/debunk/consider them as if they were potentially fact. I agree entirely that it's hot air and unnecessary drama. To be honest I think we're still suffering from the scars of the Oystons in this regard.
 
Sooty59 said:
FFS what a lot of waffle. I joined SISA (BST) in the early days as part of the fight to oust our rogue owners. I'm still a member & have no real reason not to continue being such. Now I just go to the matches & that's miles better than being an angry boycotter.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

But some people are only happy when it`s raining...
 
BWseasider said:
I know you clearly say that your doubt it would happen, but given the above quote from Christine, why are we even having to speculate/consider that it could happen? There just isn't any evidence that the club is going to have an exclusive relationship with BST, and the evidence available suggests the opposite.

It just seems like a complete waste of energy/time. I could come up with some speculative theories, with zero evidence, and then everyone has to debate/debunk/consider them as if they were potentially fact. I agree entirely that it's hot air and unnecessary drama. To be honest I think we're still suffering from the scars of the Oystons in this regard.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The original Twitter post that started all this sounded like some drunken rant with not a shred of substance to it. The SLO refuted this was the clubs stance weeks ago and now Christine has denied that it’s BSTs position. Some people just don’t want to hear this though. They appear to be suffering from some kind of post Oyston era PTSD.
Given everything that’s gone on at the club Since NAPM, it beggars belief that some people can’t just enjoy where we are now. The fans and whatever group they aligned themselves to did a great job in highlighting our plight and helping get rid of the Os but it’s over now.
Why do we even need meetings? What right have we got to hold the club to account? Most fans pay their money to support the team with like minded people, nothing more, nothing less.
 
BWseasider said:
I know you clearly say that your doubt it would happen, but given the above quote from Christine, why are we even having to speculate/consider that it could happen? There just isn't any evidence that the club is going to have an exclusive relationship with BST, and the evidence available suggests the opposite.

It just seems like a complete waste of energy/time. I could come up with some speculative theories, with zero evidence, and then everyone has to debate/debunk/consider them as if they were potentially fact. I agree entirely that it's hot air and unnecessary drama. To be honest I think we're still suffering from the scars of the Oystons in this regard.
Click to expand...
We're having to speculate, because the SLO seems to have given mixed messages in his communication with the MSG or his communication wasn't clear enough and has been misunderstood.

Whichever way you look at it and whether you feel the reaction is right or wrong, other supporter groups are bound to be concerned or angry if they feel they are being excluded, whilst others given favourable access. I agree that anger shouldn't be directed (in the way it has) at BST and their committee and I don't think it does anyone any favours, least of all the MSG, but these things can happen when frustrations start to boil over and people are being shut out.

The Club should be acutely aware of the history and the delicacy of this kind of situation and to be honest. leaving it up to the SLO to communicate with these groups is a bit stupid IMHO.

I really don't think all the bullshit posted on here (and I realise I took the piss out of it, but I felt it was deserved) by @seasideone about Tier 1 and Tier 2 Supporters Groups, which really just added fuel to the fire and has given the impression that BST are seeking to influence a higher level / special relationship, has helped at all either... Whether it was intentional or not, it was a blue touch paper moment.

However I also think that the way the MSG can react at times, makes it very difficult for the Club to manage that relationship.

The whole thing needs putting to bed, before it starts to negatively impact on the football and that means people need to talk to each other in person and sort out their differences.
 
CSSeasider said:
I was asked by the interim board to help out at the hotel Phil, based on my 36 years experience in hotel management and nothing whatsoever to do with being part of BST. Which you already know as this particular piece of misinformation has been done to death.
Click to expand...
But you wouldn't have been asked if you hadn't of been part of BST would you?

That's the point

Nobody begrudges you getting a job after all the work you put in during the troubles against the Oystons, just be honest about it

Also it doesn't look like you have answered my other point
 
Last edited:
Is it just me that thinks the fairest outcome is for Sadler to f*ck off every fan group and just run the club as he sees fit?

The fighting between our fans is beyond cringeworthy these days. If I was the owner I’d stop dialogue with all of you completely until you grow up and sort your sh*t out.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
We're having to speculate, because the SLO seems to have given mixed messages in his communication with the MSG or his communication wasn't clear enough and has been misunderstood.

Whichever way you look at it and whether you feel the reaction is right or wrong, other supporter groups are bound to be concerned or angry if they feel they are being excluded, whilst others given favourable access. I agree that anger shouldn't be directed (in the way it has) at BST and their committee and I don't think it does anyone any favours, least of all the MSG, but these things can happen when frustrations start to boil over and people are being shut out.

The Club should be acutely aware of the history and the delicacy of this kind of situation and to be honest. leaving it up to the SLO to communicate with these groups is a bit stupid IMHO.

I really don't think all the bullshit posted on here (and I realise I took the piss out of it, but I felt it was deserved) by @seasideone about Tier 1 and Tier 2 Supporters Groups, which really just added fuel to the fire and has given the impression that BST are seeking to influence a higher level / special relationship, has helped at all either... Whether it was intentional or not, it was a blue touch paper moment.

However I also think that the way the MSG can react at times, makes it very difficult for the Club to manage that relationship.

The whole thing needs putting to bed, before it starts to negatively impact on the football and that means people need to talk to each other in person and sort out their differences.
Click to expand...
The speculation has arisen because the MSG chose to make public part of a private exchange from me in response to their request for a meeting with the CEO. It wasn't a mixed message and I made it perfectly clear that this is merely a temporary situation.

As I've posted on a parallel thread: the CEO agreed to meet with BST because they are the largest "formally-constituted" fans' group. By formally constituted, in the case of Blackpool Supporters' Trust that means a legally constituted co-operative, affiliated to the FSA, with a democratically appointed board of officers, independently verified annual elections, registered and fully Financial Conduct Authority compliant, with annually audited books and a committee that is held to account for all of the actions of the Trust.

I also pointed out in that leaked response to the MSG that the situation is only temporary until BFC has finalised and published its Fan Engagement Charter, which it is working on at the moment. There is no intention that dialogue will be with BST only or that dialogue with BST will be to the detriment or exclusion of any other supporters' groups. No return to the Oyston MO. That was never fair. Wait for further details of the proposed Fan Engagement process. Patience please.

As to ongoing speculation that I was appointed to the SLO role because of my BST connections, that's simply not true. Nor is it the case that I'm biased in favour of one supporters' group over another. I'm truly independent and an intermediary between the Club and all fans (whether they belong to one grouping, several or none at all).
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I would have hoped he would have done his research on us and the troubles every day fans have had with the previous owners at our club

As a fanbase we probably are more invested in the club and the politics surrounding it and it's no wonder given what's gone on in our recent history

I actually think it's a good thing to have several hundred fans willing to hold the football club to account
Click to expand...
Phil, I don't know when you last checked to see what the key aims of BST are (if you ever did) but one of them is "holding the Club's owners to account in the interests of the community". 😉
 
FY4Representer said:
Is it just me that thinks the fairest outcome is for Sadler to f*ck off every fan group and just run the club as he sees fit?

The fighting between our fans is beyond cringeworthy these days. If I was the owner I’d stop dialogue with all of you completely until you grow up and sort your sh*t out.
Click to expand...


You are right FY4 and probably best that Sadler just does his own thing but like it or not in this day and age, clubs/owners/chairman/CEOs are not allowed to just tell the Judean Peoples Front or the Peoples Front of Judea to feck off.
 
SLO_BFC said:
The speculation has arisen because the MSG chose to make public part of a private exchange from me in response to their request for a meeting with the CEO. It wasn't a mixed message and I made it perfectly clear that this is merely a temporary situation.

As I've posted on a parallel thread: the CEO agreed to meet with BST because they are the largest "formally-constituted" fans' group. By formally constituted, in the case of Blackpool Supporters' Trust that means a legally constituted co-operative, affiliated to the FSA, with a democratically appointed board of officers, independently verified annual elections, registered and fully Financial Conduct Authority compliant, with annually audited books and a committee that is held to account for all of the actions of the Trust.

I also pointed out in that leaked response to the MSG that the situation is only temporary until BFC has finalised and published its Fan Engagement Charter, which it is working on at the moment. There is no intention that dialogue will be with BST only or that dialogue with BST will be to the detriment or exclusion of any other supporters' groups. No return to the Oyston MO. That was never fair. Wait for further details of the proposed Fan Engagement process. Patience please.

As to ongoing speculation that I was appointed to the SLO role because of my BST connections, that's simply not true. Nor is it the case that I'm biased in favour of one supporters' group over another. I'm truly independent and an intermediary between the Club and all fans (whether they belong to one grouping, several or none at all).
Click to expand...
You didn't mention anything being temporary

You also waffled about affiliations and associated groups

With last sentence saying that until that is finalised the CEO won't be meeting any other groups

I will post the message if you want me to remind you in more detail
 
SLO_BFC said:
The speculation has arisen because the MSG chose to make public part of a private exchange from me in response to their request for a meeting with the CEO. It wasn't a mixed message and I made it perfectly clear that this is merely a temporary situation.

As I've posted on a parallel thread: the CEO agreed to meet with BST because they are the largest "formally-constituted" fans' group. By formally constituted, in the case of Blackpool Supporters' Trust that means a legally constituted co-operative, affiliated to the FSA, with a democratically appointed board of officers, independently verified annual elections, registered and fully Financial Conduct Authority compliant, with annually audited books and a committee that is held to account for all of the actions of the Trust.

I also pointed out in that leaked response to the MSG that the situation is only temporary until BFC has finalised and published its Fan Engagement Charter, which it is working on at the moment. There is no intention that dialogue will be with BST only or that dialogue with BST will be to the detriment or exclusion of any other supporters' groups. No return to the Oyston MO. That was never fair. Wait for further details of the proposed Fan Engagement process. Patience please.

As to ongoing speculation that I was appointed to the SLO role because of my BST connections, that's simply not true. Nor is it the case that I'm biased in favour of one supporters' group over another. I'm truly independent and an intermediary between the Club and all fans (whether they belong to one grouping, several or none at all).
Click to expand...
The response to the MSG (or at least the one I saw published) was a long way from being ‘perfectly clear’, it was ambiguous and open to interpretation.

There’s no such thing as ‘Private’ when you are communicating with an organisation that is completely transparent and open with their membership.

BST has their ‘constitution’ and the MSG has a collective understanding and adopt an open book approach and this has always been the case.

The clarification is helpful, though ‘Temporary or Not’ preference shown by the Club really isn’t and nor is talk of Tiered structures.

Appreciate this isn’t easy, but collectively the key people in this need to get their heads together and sort it out, sooner rather than later.
 
SLO_BFC said:
I'm not.
Click to expand...
You are (if you ever did) comment is completely patronising

Of course I've checked the aims and I've been a member of BST I think I still am, I also recall when the primary aim was for Blackpool fc to be a fans owned club and to have fans on the board

And I actually pointed out how ridiculous that was at the time
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The response to the MSG (or at least the one I saw published) was a long way from being ‘perfectly clear’, it was ambiguous and open to interpretation.

There’s no such thing as ‘Private’ when you are communicating with an organisation that is completely transparent and open with their membership.

BST has their ‘constitution’ and the MSG has a collective understanding and adopt an open book approach and this has always been the case.

The clarification is helpful, though ‘Temporary or Not’ preference shown by the Club really isn’t and nor is talk of Tiered structures.

Appreciate this isn’t easy, but collectively the key people in this need to get their heads together and sort it out, sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...


I don't know if criticism of BST is allowed but I'd say that their "constitution" is very flexible.

It would appear that they are perhaps more interested in being seen to do things properly than doing things properly ?

The SLO tells us about how they aim to hold the clubs owners to account in the interests of community or whatever he said but I don't think BST like being questioned themselves.

Whenever they are questioned, they never seem to address those questions and prefer to inform folk that they are volunteers and then blow smoke up each others @rses.

That is not to say that they have not made a positive contribution and that they should be proud of their efforts, they just don't like to be questioned themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top