MSG & BST…..

Hertsseasider said:
I'm interested in this Fan engagement charter that this Julian bloke is preparing. I wonder if this is being drawn up independently by the club or with assistance from outside ?
Anyone know ?
Click to expand...
Why the fuck do you need a charter, like it's the 14th century or somert.

Just commit to giving updates every say 2 months in response to questions that STH and POTD fans ask. You could go old skool and ask on paper.

Drop all this shit about who is suitable to talk to the Board. It's elitist and tiresome.
 
traffordtang said:
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.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not some fans are still suffering from the actIons of the rapist, fans that did something!
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
I get that however the venom is is seemingly aimed at those who fought side by side
Click to expand...

Tim,

Whilst I agree and don’t get it either and also think the “venom” is totally un-called for, I think the “cause & effect” here is SS wanting to “Cosy Up” only with BST

I don’t think BST for a second are the “drivers” of this.

But….,I personally think such a “restricted dialogue” will automatically divide the fan-base.

I can’t help but be “sceptical” here, the MSG may not be as “polished” as BST but they have the right to voice their opinions, I do agree though that “sometimes” their approach at times, if a little more refined, may assist in their valid opinions being more readily acknowledged.

MSG falling out with BST is NOT the answer!!

However, I do think the “overall make up” of the BST “top-table” whilst professional and dedicated are too PC & Compliant to represent ALL fans issues & viewpoints that are forever changing, due to the very nature of football itself.

Ashley.
 
Last edited:
I can only speak about what I’ve heard from the CEO
He hasn’t said anything about restricting dialogue to BST - quite the contrary
 
30-odd years ago, before BST, before boycotts, before everything, we tried to start a protest against the Oystons. Jez Smith painted a Ford Sierra tangerine and dumped it outside the ground. We put Oyston Out stickers everywhere. I somehow managed to get a group of fans and Karl together for a meeting. It didn't go well. The club stopped talking to the Gazette and Radio Lancs. I had Gary Hickson on the phone every day trying to get any sort of BFC-related information. It was a complete mess. I can totally understand the club wanting to focus their communications channels through properly structured, constituted and formalised groups. I would assume there may even be potential legal implications of discussing confidential or sensitive information to other groups/people. Perhaps this needs clarification? There's an interesting section on the Spurs website about what they require to be an officially recognised fans group, if anyone can be bothered to go find it.

One of the phrases often quoted during the protest years was "doing nothing changes nothing" - and the best way to influence or change something is from within. So in order to represent the views of a fat bald middle aged bloke with a disabled kid who would have been in the midst of the Muckers thirty years ago before life rolled it's dice, I intend to stand for election to the BST committee next election.
 
SLO_BFC said:
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". 😉
Click to expand...
No single aim says that at all.
They say “Hold whomever owns the football club to account”
Another one states to strengthen the bonds between club and community and to represent the interests of the community, which is very different to what you ever so smugly and incorrectly quoted.
 
Tangerine Tractor said:
30-odd years ago, before BST, before boycotts, before everything, we tried to start a protest against the Oystons. Jez Smith painted a Ford Sierra tangerine and dumped it outside the ground. We put Oyston Out stickers everywhere. I somehow managed to get a group of fans and Karl together for a meeting. It didn't go well. The club stopped talking to the Gazette and Radio Lancs. I had Gary Hickson on the phone every day trying to get any sort of BFC-related information. It was a complete mess. I can totally understand the club wanting to focus their communications channels through properly structured, constituted and formalised groups. I would assume there may even be potential legal implications of discussing confidential or sensitive information to other groups/people. Perhaps this needs clarification? There's an interesting section on the Spurs website about what they require to be an officially recognised fans group, if anyone can be bothered to go find it.

One of the phrases often quoted during the protest years was "doing nothing changes nothing" - and the best way to influence or change something is from within. So in order to represent the views of a fat bald middle aged bloke with a disabled kid who would have been in the midst of the Muckers thirty years ago before life rolled it's dice, I intend to stand for election to the BST committee next election.
Click to expand...
If you are who I think you are I think you would be a “positive” contributor to BST and should stand.

But…..please correct me if wrong but were you not on BISA and like me attended the meeting/meetings with CoCo?

I left BISA committee when they voted 7/2 to become the official supporters club and become BSA.

I was one of the two who voted against and I remain good friends with the other.

Ashley.
 
Torycorner said:
If you are who I think you are I think you would be a “positive” contributor to BST and should stand.

But…..please correct me if wrong but were you not on BISA and like me attended the meeting/meetings with CoCo?

I left BISA committee when they voted 7/2 to become the official supporters club and become BSA.

I was one of the two who voted against and I remain good friends with the other.

Ashley.
Click to expand...
I was never on BSA/BISA - I arranged a meeting with KO when all other channels had failed, I did it through running the early email discussion group, and running the first independent website. I stood up in front of a big BSA crowd in the No1 club to feed back the meeting contents, but was never on any committees or anything - like I said, it was really disorganised chaos, with no official channels open to communicate with the club.
I always kept away from putting myself in any official named capacity - as a kid we lived next door to OO's dad, I met him a few times and didn't like him, and my mum worked for him for a while and told me to keep my distance from him.
 
The Twitter account of the MSG and their sycophants is hilarious on this issue,painting out that Tim, Christine and the SLO are the bad guys and that only the MSG alone are the true purveyors of truth and justice
 
Last edited:
Tangerine Tractor said:
Neither can I. But change needs to come from within, if change is what you want.
Click to expand...
I don't want change I'm quite happy for several different fans groups to have dialogue with the club

Obviously it needs streamlining a little as having people who are all BST members but also represent different groups getting a seat at the table so to speak dilutes things

The change appears to be coming from the club, BST and the SLO with interference from the FSA
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
I don't want change I'm quite happy for several different fans groups to have dialogue with the club

Obviously it needs streamlining a little as having people who are all BST members but also represent different groups getting a seat at the table so to speak dilutes things

The change appears to be coming from the club, BST and the SLO with interference from the FSA
Click to expand...
Here's where I disagree with you. I'm happy for no supporters groups to have real dialogue with the Club. Some groups are social groups anyway.

You are always one meeting away from, 'Don't say anything to your membership, but here's some information...'. Immediately the committee/member relationship becomes tarnished, especially as hints will be dropped (knowingly or otherwise).

There should a Club obligation to respond to STH and purchase history supporters questions, say every 2 months with an open public forum once a year.

It really doesn't need Custard Creams.
 
fcblackpool said:
Here's where I disagree with you. I'm happy for no supporters groups to have real dialogue with the Club. Some groups are social groups anyway.

You are always one meeting away from, 'Don't say anything to your membership, but here's some information...'. Immediately the committee/member relationship becomes tarnished, especially as hints will be dropped (knowingly or otherwise).

There should a Club obligation to respond to STH and purchase history supporters questions, say every 2 months with an open public forum once a year.

It really doesn't need Custard Creams.
Click to expand...
Maybe you have a point I certainly see where you are coming from

What I don't want is a situation like we used to have with BSA and to me that looks like the way it's going

At the last forum thing we had BST members attending from other groups like the Yorkshire lot and TKs that shouldn't be allowed to happen for a start

i do think that any meeting should be streamlined though

Maybe 3 who are BST members, 3 from the MSG and then maybe 3 who aren't members of any group
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Maybe you have a point I certainly see where you are coming from

What I don't want is a situation like we used to have with BSA and to me that looks like the way it's going

At the last forum thing we had BST members attending from other groups like the Yorkshire lot and TKs that shouldn't be allowed to happen for a start

i do think that any meeting should be streamlined though

Maybe 3 who are BST members, 3 from the MSG and then maybe 3 who aren't members of any group
Click to expand...
Your plan is great until you realise that - as with most voluntary positions - there's a limited number of people who get involved and it's usually the same people most the time. People always shout and scream, but when you ask them to get involved they don't want to. They just want to tell everyone else that everyone else is doing it wrong.
And then you miss the other key point, that the so-called 'hard questions' that are apparently not being asked will either a) not be given an answer that can really be put into the public domain, because that's the reality of running a business or b) those who want those questions asked will never be happy with the answers anyway.
 
Tangerine Tractor said:
I was never on BSA/BISA - I arranged a meeting with KO when all other channels had failed, I did it through running the early email discussion group, and running the first independent website. I stood up in front of a big BSA crowd in the No1 club to feed back the meeting contents, but was never on any committees or anything - like I said, it was really disorganised chaos, with no official channels open to communicate with the club.
I always kept away from putting myself in any official named capacity - as a kid we lived next door to OO's dad, I met him a few times and didn't like him, and my mum worked for him for a while and told me to keep my distance from him.
Click to expand...
Wise words from your mum there.
 
fcblackpool said:
Here's where I disagree with you. I'm happy for no supporters groups to have real dialogue with the Club. Some groups are social groups anyway.

You are always one meeting away from, 'Don't say anything to your membership, but here's some information...'. Immediately the committee/member relationship becomes tarnished, especially as hints will be dropped (knowingly or otherwise).

There should a Club obligation to respond to STH and purchase history supporters questions, say every 2 months with an open public forum once a year.

It really doesn't need Custard Creams.
Click to expand...
The problem would be the number of questions they would have to reply to .

However I would agree with your plan as long as the obligation on the club was removed .
 
Last edited:
AngelBFC said:
The problem would be the number of questions they would have to reply to .

However I would agree with your plan as long as the obligation on the club was removed .
Click to expand...
I think there would be the same dozen questions, often. There would need to be someone to coordinate it. Is the SLOs dept. independent enough to do this?
 
fcblackpool said:
I think there would be the same dozen questions, often. There would need to be someone to coordinate it. Is the SLOs dept. independent enough to do this?
Click to expand...
Personally I think Steve is an honest broker but others don’t due to his bst affiliation .

I don’t think anyone is clamouring to do his job though tbh.
 
To save the hassle, they should just bin off any charters and just do monthly or bi-monthly structured dialogue meetings with 1x rep from each fans group (say, with more than ~100 or members) and 2/3 independent fans places then share the minutes after.

Easy to do, ticks the communication box and saves any risk of this kind of vitriol or weird Oyston comparisons.

Edit: and don't serve alcohol at any such meetings
 
Last edited:
DonCorleone said:
To save the hassle, they should just bin off any charters and just do monthly or bi-monthly structured dialogue meetings with 1x rep from each fans group (say, with more than ~100 or members) and 2/3 independent fans places then share the minutes after.

Easy to do, ticks the communication box and saves any risk of this kind of vitriol.

Edit: and don't serve alcohol at any such meetings
Click to expand...
And don’t allow anyone intoxicated in or suspected of being intoxicated

These are serious meetings
 
I think it’s all a bit tragic all this i’m a super fan and the most important fans group democratically elected nonsense….personally I think it’s pretty obvious the sort of things fans want to know about…surely the club could just simply issue a statement perhaps twice a year….even with the pantomime fans forum get together there just pre determined questions the club are happy to answer….🤷‍♂️
 
Tangerine Tractor said:
I was never on BSA/BISA - I arranged a meeting with KO when all other channels had failed, I did it through running the early email discussion group, and running the first independent website. I stood up in front of a big BSA crowd in the No1 club to feed back the meeting contents, but was never on any committees or anything - like I said, it was really disorganised chaos, with no official channels open to communicate with the club.
I always kept away from putting myself in any official named capacity - as a kid we lived next door to OO's dad, I met him a few times and didn't like him, and my mum worked for him for a while and told me to keep my distance from him.
Click to expand...
Ok you’re not who I thought you were, a lot of what you described paralleled with a BISA Committee Member at the time.
Thank you for clarifying and apologises for thinking you might be the other person.
Good luck with standing for BST Committee whenever the time comes.

Ashley.
 
Torycorner said:
Tim,

Whilst I agree and don’t get it either and also think the “venom” is totally un-called for, I think the “cause & effect” here is SS wanting to “Cosy Up” only with BST

I don’t think BST for a second are the “drivers” of this.

But….,I personally think such a “restricted dialogue” will automatically divide the fan-base.

I can’t help but be “sceptical” here, the MSG may not be as “polished” as BST but they have the right to voice their opinions, I do agree though that “sometimes” their approach at times, if a little more refined, may assist in their valid opinions being more readily acknowledged.

MSG falling out with BST is NOT the answer!!

However, I do think the “overall make up” of the BST “top-table” whilst professional and dedicated are too PC & Compliant to represent ALL fans issues & viewpoints that are forever changing, due to the very nature of football itself.

Ashley.
Click to expand...
The fact that a football club owner wants a dialogue with the fans is, of itself, to be applauded. There is no "cozying up" as you put it. Simon Sadler and the Board are being positive in their approach to dialogue. But, with the best will in the world, you can't talk to every individual. It has to be done in a practical way and BST provides a conduit for that.

I don't believe that most fans have a problem with that. But, as always, it's those who shout the loudest over social media who get the attention. Throughout the dialogue on these two threads I've become weary with those who want to create an agenda. I don't believe there is one. There are fans who work damned hard to connect with the club but - if I have one criticism - it is that they don't communicate well enough with their members. This helps those with conspiratorial theories to invent agendas. It's bollocks but they do insist on being heard. Meanwhile Simon Sadler and his Board want to engage with fans. Fans, who he must think, after reading all of this nonsense, aren't worth the farthing.
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
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
Click to expand...
You are a complete tosser. Why do you insist on repeating the same misinformed garbage over and over again?
 
WestHertsUnsocialClub said:
No single aim says that at all.
They say “Hold whomever owns the football club to account”
Another one states to strengthen the bonds between club and community and to represent the interests of the community, which is very different to what you ever so smugly and incorrectly quoted.
Click to expand...
Well there you go, WHUC. What I quoted was what it used to say, because I have it on a flier and I helped to draw the aims up when I was on the BST committee. The fact the wording has changed I guess just demonstrates that I'm no longer up close with BST (though I remain a lifelong member). Just to add: contrary to rumours, I did not arrange the meeting between BST and the CEO. But I did try and arrange one on behalf of the MSG at their request, because I am impartial and independent.
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
Thanks Wiz, no problem with anything you say and no reason to doubt you but I was really looking for an explanation of the secret meeting, or perhaps I should say alleged secret meeting.

I think there should be some balance.

Plenty are tripping over themselves to defend BST while at the same time everybody is expected to take it as a given that all the Muckers fight with opposing supporters, snort cocaine and throw dangerous missiles on to the pitch so I think it's only fair that a harmless question around a secret meeting can be asked.
Click to expand...

So did BST hold a secret meeting or not ?
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Yes
Click to expand...

Given that Phil is the only one to offer an answer, we'll have to go with that answer.

So given that the BST committee and/or their secretary are prepared to attend meetings without informing their members, my next question would be:

Do we think that the BST committee and/or their secretary act in the best interests of their members or in the best interests of themselves ?
 
SEASIDE2020 said:
Given that Phil is the only one to offer an answer, we'll have to go with that answer.

So given that the BST committee and/or their secretary are prepared to attend meetings without informing their members, my next question would be:

Do we think that the BST committee and/or their secretary act in the best interests of their members or in the best interests of themselves ?
Click to expand...
Themselves...

Goodnight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top