Wassup with the Muckers?

BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m not sure, I don’t really pay that much attention really. I’m more interested in how the Team performs 👍

Though if I had to guess, I’d imagine that the aims and objectives have probably not been reviewed for ages, because nobody’s had much time to think about it.

Either way, it was never some big plan for BST world domination anyway. The Fan on the board would have to be voted for by all fans.

I’ve not met all of the BST committee, but the ones I have met seem to be sound, I wouldn’t say they think they’re better than others. I expect it’s more that they just have more spare time than others.

You know Higgy don’t you ?
Click to expand...
I do know Higgy.

Higgy is a genuine fan, who listens to fans of all ages and respects everyone’s views and opinions on the club. Higgy WILL call out lacklustre ownership, he will ask probing questions if required. It’s the others that won’t. I’ve seen numerous people ask a variety of questions of BST to put to Sadler across all forms of social media and read all meeting minutes. None of the challenging questions have been asked - why?
 
ItsGrimUpNorth said:
I do know Higgy.

Higgy is a genuine fan, who listens to fans of all ages and respects everyone’s views and opinions on the club. Higgy WILL call out lacklustre ownership, he will ask probing questions if required. It’s the others that won’t. I’ve seen numerous people ask a variety of questions of BST to put to Sadler across all forms of social media and read all meeting minutes. None of the challenging questions have been asked - why?
Click to expand...
Grim I've only attended one SD meeting and based on that the minutes weren't accurate as it completely excluded any reference to a lengthy discussion over whether reciprocal pricing should be offered where I and Ashley Knowles challenged the club's position

It is also to be noted that the questions are submitted in advance and the Club select those to be answered

BST submit all those received subject only to amalgamating those that duplicate and follow up on those not answered on the night

You seem to respect Higgy and he's BST's chair As such he has more contact with BFC than anyone else I'd say - most certainly far more than me or Christine for example
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Grim I've only attended one SD meeting and based on that the minutes weren't accurate as it completely excluded any reference to a lengthy discussion over whether reciprocal pricing should be offered where I and Ashley Knowles challenged the club's position

It is also to be noted that the questions are submitted in advance and the Club select those to be answered

BST submit all those received subject only to amalgamating those that duplicate and follow up on those not answered on the night

You seem to respect Higgy and he's BST's chair As such he has more contact with BFC than anyone else I'd say - most certainly far more than me or Christine for example
Click to expand...
That's concerning that the minutes weren't accurate

Who wrote and published them?
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Correct BFC
As Kevin bless him was always at pains to say - as secretary I am not on the committee
That remains the case
The Secretary isn't elected and doesn't vote He/she just implements the committee's instructions
Click to expand...

This is correct. The position of Secretary is the only appointed one in BST ; on the rare occasions where policy decisions need to go to a vote, it is the elected Members of the Committee who take decisions based upon the will of the majority, and they are duly recorded. But I don't get a vote.

Some other things :

a) the club does NOT have a blank cheque when it comes to supporter consultation. EFL Regulations require them to hold at least two such meetings a year, and they are expected to follow general democratic principles in terms of who they invite. At BST, we :

  • notify our members of the dates of meetings
  • invite them to submit questions direct, or through us
  • collate those question we do get from Members (there are always a few)
  • add any questions that the Committee or Secretary might wish to submit
  • try to chase down answers to any questions that don't get addressed in the meeting (with varying success)

b) if there is legislation in the near future, it is likely that these requirements will change or evolve, and in reality it is happening already. Many clubs are looking the White Paper and thinking hard about how to make sure they can comply with whatever might emerge. I'm sure that includes looking at the innovative things other clubs are doing. I'm delighted that work is going on at BFC on a fan engagement charter ; it's proactive and prudent.

c) The FSA play no part in the running of our elections, although we do closely follow their good practice guidance. They are also a source of advice on how we comply with our legal requirements, should we need it. Phil, whatever you have been reading on social media, it simply isn't true.

d) I think people sometimes forget that BST are a Community Benefit Society and as such are answerable not only to our Members, but also to the Financial Conduct Authority. As such, we are required to behave in a formal way in some aspects of our business ; this is occasionally frustrating, but in my view is also a source of great strength.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
This is correct. The position of Secretary is the only appointed one in BST ; on the rare occasions where policy decisions need to go to a vote, it is the elected Members of the Committee who take decisions based upon the will of the majority, and they are duly recorded. But I don't get a vote.

Some other things :

a) the club does NOT have a blank cheque when it comes to supporter consultation. EFL Regulations require them to hold at least two such meetings a year, and they are expected to follow general democratic principles in terms of who they invite. At BST, we :

  • notify our members of the dates of meetings
  • invite them to submit questions direct, or through us
  • collate those question we do get from Members (there are always a few)
  • add any questions that the Committee or Secretary might wish to submit
  • try to chase down answers to any questions that don't get addressed in the meeting (with varying success)

b) if there is legislation in the near future, it is likely that these requirements will change or evolve, and in reality it is happening already. Many clubs are looking the White Paper and thinking hard about how to make sure they can comply with whatever might emerge. I'm sure that includes looking at the innovative things other clubs are doing. I'm delighted that work is going on at BFC on a fan engagement charter ; it's proactive and prudent.

c) The FSA play no part in the running of our elections, although we do closely follow their good practice guidance. They are also a source of advice on how we comply with our legal requirements, should we need it. Phil, whatever you have been reading on social media, it simply isn't true.

d) I think people sometimes forget that BST are a Community Benefit Society and as such are answerable not only to our Members, but also to the Financial Conduct Authority. As such, we are required to behave in a formal way in some aspects of our business ; this is occasionally frustrating, but in my view is also a source of great strength.
Click to expand...
Every rep of every fans groups at any meetings held with these reps in attendance follow those bullet points above Robbie. It’s not a BST exclusive. Everyone is equal at those meetings which is why there’s no reason to change at all. Unless full fans forums were held twice or more a year.
 
Sandgrown1 said:
Every rep of every fans groups at any meetings held with these reps in attendance follow those bullet points above Robbie. It’s not a BST exclusive. Everyone is equal at those meetings which is why there’s no reason to change at all. Unless full fans forums were held twice or more a year.
Click to expand...
Just offering it for info SG1. I've no idea what other fan groups do, if it's common place that is good.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Grim I've only attended one SD meeting and based on that the minutes weren't accurate as it completely excluded any reference to a lengthy discussion over whether reciprocal pricing should be offered where I and Ashley Knowles challenged the club's position

It is also to be noted that the questions are submitted in advance and the Club select those to be answered

BST submit all those received subject only to amalgamating those that duplicate and follow up on those not answered on the night

You seem to respect Higgy and he's BST's chair As such he has more contact with BFC than anyone else I'd say - most certainly far more than me or Christine for example
Click to expand...
The last SD was a combination of predetermined and open questions.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
He’s the secretary, which is an admin position as far as I know.

The idea of bullying anyone off the BST committee doesn’t really sit comfortable with me. I would imagine any right minded person would feel the same.
Click to expand...
Darren, I’m not trying to bully anyone off anywhere, I’m happy for him to stay on the Committee for all the great hard & valuable work he does and hope he continues to do administratively.
I am entitled to my opinion and it is that he is an “Ex Oyston Stalwart” he saw the errors of his ways which is great, but there are plenty of other great current BST Committee members who I would rather see on the “top table” of only 3/4 BST Committee Members representing my views to the Club/Clubs Owner than an “Ex Oyston Stalwart” I don’t think I’m alone in that “personal viewpoint.
And please stop misconstruing my posts.
Thank you
Ashley.
 
Torycorner said:
Darren, I’m not trying to bully anyone off anywhere, I’m happy for him to stay on the Committee for all the great hard & valuable work he does and hope he continues to do administratively.
I am entitled to my opinion and it is that he is an “Ex Oyston Stalwart” he saw the errors of his ways which is great, but there are plenty of other great current BST Committee members who I would rather see on the “top table” of only 3/4 BST Committee Members representing my views to the Club/Clubs Owner than an “Ex Oyston Stalwart” I don’t think I’m alone in that “personal viewpoint.
And please stop misconstruing my posts.
Thank you
Ashley.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to imply you were bullying anyone.... However I'm not sure that's the case across the board here.

BST is a democratic organisation, so any change will occur by the will of the majority of the voting members presumably and that's the way it should be.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Grim I've only attended one SD meeting and based on that the minutes weren't accurate as it completely excluded any reference to a lengthy discussion over whether reciprocal pricing should be offered where I and Ashley Knowles challenged the club's position

It is also to be noted that the questions are submitted in advance and the Club select those to be answered

BST submit all those received subject only to amalgamating those that duplicate and follow up on those not answered on the night

You seem to respect Higgy and he's BST's chair As such he has more contact with BFC than anyone else I'd say - most certainly far more than me or Christine for example
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, so you’re open and honest with your members yet have just openly admitted your minutes are inaccurate? How many other times have minutes been inaccurate?

So basically, those who attend meetings know exactly what’s going on and BST’s inaccurate minutes allow members to know what BST want their members to know.
 
ItsGrimUpNorth said:
Ahhhh, so you’re open and honest with your members yet have just openly admitted your minutes are inaccurate? How many other times have minutes been inaccurate?

So basically, those who attend meetings know exactly what’s going on and BST’s inaccurate minutes allow members to know what BST want their members to know.
Click to expand...
The club (not BST) produce the minutes for the Structured Dialogue Meetings. BST are no more responsible for the minutes than any other Group (TK’s, MSG etc.) who attend those meetings.

That’s why people have asked for them to be live-streamed.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The club (not BST) produce the minutes for the Structured Dialogue Meetings. BST are no more responsible for the minutes than any other Group (TK’s, MSG etc.) who attend those meetings.

That’s why people have asked for them to be live-streamed.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of these types of meetings, however the Club and most fans are so they will happen. The live streaming would help no-end in terms of transparency, but TAM said above that questions were pre-selected by the Club and someone followed up to say some were open. Which imo is wrong.

Obviously you can't just spring question at the Board and expect complete and accurate replies, so I'd say it needs someone to coordinate the questions and give them to the Club well in advance so they can prepare answers. Which in a roundabout way negates the need for a meeting, although this would be a way of discussing answers.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The club (not BST) produce the minutes for the Structured Dialogue Meetings. BST are no more responsible for the minutes than any other Group (TK’s, MSG etc.) who attend those meetings.

That’s why people have asked for them to be live-streamed.
Click to expand...
but surely then BST should be asking for the minutes to be corrected if they were not an accurate reflection. Seems pretty obvious to me.
 
20togo said:
but surely then BST should be asking for the minutes to be corrected if they were not an accurate reflection. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, to the letter of 'the law' (obviously it's not legal...) But in a good faith environment you'd hope that if there were inaccuracies, all parties could acknowledge where errors were made in good faith and decide whether there were critical reasons for an amendment to HAVE to be made.

If TAM felt his question and the relative answer with dealbreakers then he's well within his rights to call it out and expose the issue. If he felt it really wasn't a big deal then we can move forward.

The real issue here is what do people feel they need under the notion of 'holding the club to account'? Does every custodian need to be considered Oyston-esque until proven otherwise or are people allowed to make mistakes or 'fail' whilst trying to do the best for the football club and the wider community around it? Seems to me that there's a certain section of people who want to live in an environment of constant confrontation where everything they don't like - such as relegation from the Championship - is followed up by accusations of mismanagement, criticism for certain fans who aren't in their clique and question marks over every last thing being done. Maybe that sort of mindset isn't helpful at this time?
 
fcblackpool said:
I'm not a fan of these types of meetings, however the Club and most fans are so they will happen. The live streaming would help no-end in terms of transparency, but TAM said above that questions were pre-selected by the Club and someone followed up to say some were open. Which imo is wrong.

Obviously you can't just spring question at the Board and expect complete and accurate replies, so I'd say it needs someone to coordinate the questions and give them to the Club well in advance so they can prepare answers. Which in a roundabout way negates the need for a meeting, although this would be a way of discussing answers.
Click to expand...
At the last meeting ( which I wasn't at ) they had an open question session I believe rather than the pre-planned questions

The SLO collates them as I understand it from the questions submitted - mainly to avoid repetition

I didn't follow up on the minutes - just pointing out that not everything discussed is always recorded
 
Last edited:
TwelveAngryMen said:
At the last meeting ( which I wasn't at ) they had an open question session I believe rather than the pre-planned questions

The SLO collates them as I understand it from the questions submitted - mainly to avoid repetition

I didn't follow up on the minutes - just pointing out that no everything discussed is always recorded
Click to expand...
Ah, the 'SLO' collates them. Well we know what that means...
 
straightatthewall said:
Ah, the 'SLO' collates them. Well we know what that means...
Click to expand...
I don't think you do know what it means, so I'll tell you. It means two things. There's normally over 100 questions submitted across the 10 fans' groups and there's a lot of duplication so the first thing I do is de-dupe the questions. Only duplicate questions get filtered out, nothing else. The second thing I do is group them together into logical sets and a sequence (infrastructure, matchday experience, player recruitment etc) and then I submit them to the board so they can do some prep. The board decides which questions to concentrate on at the meeting. The club is responsible for taking minutes, not the SLO. It's also the responsibility of the delegates from the various supporters' groups to feed back to their groups on the nature and content of the discussions. The club (not the SLO) then provides a written summary, primarily for the benefit of fans who don't belong to a supporters' group.
 
SLO_BFC said:
I don't think you do know what it means, so I'll tell you. It means two things. There's normally over 100 questions submitted across the 10 fans' groups and there's a lot of duplication so the first thing I do is de-dupe the questions. Only duplicate questions get filtered out, nothing else. The second thing I do is group them together into logical sets and a sequence (infrastructure, matchday experience, player recruitment etc) and then I submit them to the board so they can do some prep. The board decides which questions to concentrate on at the meeting. The club is responsible for taking minutes, not the SLO. It's also the responsibility of the delegates from the various supporters' groups to feed back to their groups on the nature and content of the discussions. The club (not the SLO) then provides a written summary, primarily for the benefit of fans who don't belong to a supporters' group.
Click to expand...
Don't worry Steve. I DO know what it means...
 
ItsGrimUpNorth said:
Which should be how it works. However, due to the damn right ignorance of BST hierarchy, they believe they’re the only ones who deserve an opinion about the club. They don’t care about non-members, nor members and their views, wishes and feelings surrounding the club.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense. Why is it that they specifically say they are happy to take forward views of all fans, whether they are members or not?

For whatever reason, it seems a few people want the fanbase split. It's ridiculous and counter productive.
 
fcblackpool said:
I'm not a fan of these types of meetings, however the Club and most fans are so they will happen. The live streaming would help no-end in terms of transparency, but TAM said above that questions were pre-selected by the Club and someone followed up to say some were open. Which imo is wrong.

Obviously you can't just spring question at the Board and expect complete and accurate replies, so I'd say it needs someone to coordinate the questions and give them to the Club well in advance so they can prepare answers. Which in a roundabout way negates the need for a meeting, although this would be a way of discussing answers.
Click to expand...
The meetings (a minimum of two per season) are mandated by the EFL for all 72 league clubs. Live streaming has been requested and discounted. Filming for subsequent airing has also been considered but not implemented.
 
SLO_BFC said:
The meetings (a minimum of two per season) are mandated by the EFL for all 72 league clubs. Live streaming has been requested and discounted. Filming for subsequent airing has also been considered but not implemented.
Click to expand...
Any explanation for that ?
Personally I think streaming should be done as there is nothing to hide and I’ve never understood the reluctance to allow all the fanbase to attend the SD meetings remotely
Greater transparency can only be positive
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Any explanation for that ?
Personally I think streaming should be done as there is nothing to hide and I’ve never understood the reluctance to allow all the fanbase to attend the SD meetings remotely
Greater transparency can only be positive
Click to expand...
Communication is still a massive issue within the club and that breeds mistrust uncertainty and ultimately division
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Any explanation for that ?
Personally I think streaming should be done as there is nothing to hide and I’ve never understood the reluctance to allow all the fanbase to attend the SD meetings remotely
Greater transparency can only be positive
Click to expand...
I support this too. People deserve to have the opportunity to find out what's going on and to be able to feed in questions etc. Apart from anything else we have a lot of exiles who would find it difficult to attend events in person. I hope we we get there in time with live streaming. I do believe though that there will be more and better communication with fans over the coming year.
 
Derby said:
What happened to supporters clubs who just booked on the coaches got a pin badge and had a beer together and grumbled about the west paddock open air bogs and how bad the team was
Click to expand...
There was a collective effort to fight the Oystons . Associations were formed .

When that ended most left. The anoraks and some warriors remained .

A bit like when you see punk rockers still walking the streets now and again or people dressed as Bros.
 
Last edited:
AngelBFC said:
There was a collective effort to fight the Oystons . Associations were formed .

When that ended most left. The anoraks remained and a few warriors remained .

A bit like when you see punk rockers still walking the streets now and again or people dressed as Bros.
Click to expand...
As good an explanation as you’ll see.
 
It’s wrong to think fan groups are only required in time of crisis. That’s a short-sighted view. Owners and custodians of all clubs need to be held to account, in good times and bad.

Do we have too many groups? Probably. But that’s another debate entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top