Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 14:39:22 GMT
The volunteers are all memberts of the sc which has been the main topic of this forum about how others can do so much better,so let the entire ec,volunteers,fans directors and shop workers all resign and let the critics get on with showing how things should be done You're being a bit hysterical, calm down.
The topic of conversation has been the disagreement by some of certain statements by one man, followed by a discussion on how SC activities can be used in the best in the new situation the club finds itself in. That is not putting down the hard work of the volunteer community, in fact some posts have expressly stated this. Nor is it, 'shut it all down'.
Not hystertical at all but if I was a member of the scec or a volunteer and read some of the comments made on here and the other forum I would say sod that I put time in to do work that benefits the club andsuddenly we are of no consequence because we have rich owners who can do no wrong and we are just dinosaurs from a previous era,so I quit and lets see who will put in the time I put in,the answer would be no one.The sc are being criticised as a whole by in the main non members who cant be bothered to join or help.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 14:42:33 GMT
Ken and BSS clearly have a vested interest in attending those meetings, but that's another story for another day. Interesting to note that although Harry insists that there are regular meetings involving them and the FC hierarchy, when questioned in a recent radio interview, although he was across all other subjects, the Chairman seemed totally unaware of what the role of the SC directors was. It's nothing for you and I to fall out over, just a question of perception. I would have thought that the Chairman of the SC should do a little more than sit in the same bar on a match day, shouldn't he be out and about, meeting the membership? I guess the question is, should the SC be what the EC think it should be, or should they find out what the supporters want and, as far as possible, mould the SC around that? Don't know where Jim is supposed to go to meet supporters but I'll have a guess that there are more supporters in the clubhouse bars after a match than turn up at any regional meetings. If the EC and Chairman aren't doing what the supporters want then the supporters should vote them out at the next elections. Simples. As to the supporters directors I'll guess they'll be allowed no more input to the running of the club than they were allowed under the old board. Which I guess is supported by the radio interview you heard. Makes no difference if 1000 supporters cram into that bar if Jim sits passively at a table. Last I heard only SC members could vote for committee members. That brings you right back to the question of pressing the flesh and shaking hands. Simples. My guess is that the new boardroom will be run as a meritocracy. So I agree with your last sentence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 14:45:01 GMT
Looking to the future, Padstow. What do you see as the SC's role now that the club appears to be on a more stable financial footing. Previously it was made clear that the SC was an organisation whose purpose was to support the FC, not an organisation for the benefit of supporters. Time for a change of mindset perhaps? If everything is as rosy as everyone seems to think then the sc is surplus to requirements and should shut up shop and leave it all to the club
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 14:51:51 GMT
That is your opinion,shared by a tiny minority of supporters,some who no longer attend matches,this is a democracy and everyone is entitled to an opinion without constant criticism,i will reiterate if you think it so bad stand against him.you don't have to wait 2 years just get the required number of sc members to sign a proposal of a vote of no confidence in the current chairman then put yourself forward to replace him,simple isn't it? That's a response, not an answer. I don't know which of Bulbous's opinions, that you say is shared by a tiny minority, your're referring to: the only one in that post was that what Jim Chappell wrote was a 'pile of crap'. That might not be the phrase I'd use, but I'd say a huge majority of fans agree with the spirit of it. I don't have the attendance records of these people, but then neither do you. Without playing the victim, sensing constant criticism or being denied an opinion, imagining people denigrating volunteers who are nothing to do with what was said (many of whom might well agree with Bulbous's description, anyway), or deflecting to any other perceived ill with the world, or saying that nobody can disagree with him (in this democracy) unless they stand against him, what's your opinion: do you agree with the tone, content, and omission of any acknowledgement of the Al-Qadis (cursory sneers aside) in Jim's Jottings, and feel that is a fair and helpful reflection of what someone called these rosy times? But aren't all officers of the sc volunteers? and how do you know the opinions of the supporters of the club,all you are basing your assumptions on are comments from the small percentage of fans who post on both forums,which is much less than 1%,so how is that a majority.Seems tome like the tail trying to wag the dog
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 25, 2016 14:55:03 GMT
Don't know where Jim is supposed to go to meet supporters but I'll have a guess that there are more supporters in the clubhouse bars after a match than turn up at any regional meetings. If the EC and Chairman aren't doing what the supporters want then the supporters should vote them out at the next elections. Simples. As to the supporters directors I'll guess they'll be allowed no more input to the running of the club than they were allowed under the old board. Which I guess is supported by the radio interview you heard. Makes no difference if 1000 supporters cram into that bar if Jim sits passively at a table. Last I heard only SC members could vote for committee members. That brings you right back to the question of pressing the flesh and shaking hands. Simples. My guess is that the new boardroom will be run as a meritocracy. So I agree with your last sentence. Jim's there to talk to perhaps people could try engaging him? Never struck me as the sort to blank anyone. As to pressing the flesh that's what politicians do when they think they won't get elected, I don't think anyone on the BRSC EC has to worry about not being elected due to the continuing apathy of the fans, both members and non members of BRSC.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 14:57:02 GMT
Well go ask the question of what happens to the 50/50 money or anything else they raise. Simple enough to look in the accounts if you're a member. Oddly your point succinctly somes up what a s***fest this thread is, if you need to know how BRSC operates get involved or actually ask those that give up there time to run BRSC. If not carry on sitting safely behind your keyboard. Well we all know what happens to the 50 50 but again not the point as you well know. If we are talking about the SC moving forward whether its Jim Tom Dick Harry in charge obviously the organisation need to change The SC dont have a benefactor to underwrite the losses do they? A few years ago i would have got involed and was starting to but than 2006 happened. Now i dont have time unfortunatley with finishing my house and hopefully starting a family Hopefully in years to come i can be involved Last i checked though i was still entitled to an opinion Here we go again 2006 raises its ugly head,10 years ago and people still hold a grudge
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,186
|
Post by eppinggas on May 25, 2016 15:01:22 GMT
The SC isn't surplus to requirements at all. Everyone (bar no-one) appreciates the efforts of all the voluntary help. But the SC needs dragging into the 21st century. The "them and us" mentality has no place in the new Jordanian paradigm. The SC needs to reach out and engage with the vast numbers of fans who are not SC members. Everything has changed since the take-over, as in time will the structure and actual purpose of the SC. As Angas says (and you have to bow to her superior knowledge of SC history) "time for a change of mindset". I'm open to change, as I believe most people on here are. I just wonder if the 'old guard' at the SC are capable of embracing change.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 25, 2016 15:06:57 GMT
Looking to the future, Padstow. What do you see as the SC's role now that the club appears to be on a more stable financial footing. Previously it was made clear that the SC was an organisation whose purpose was to support the FC, not an organisation for the benefit of supporters. Time for a change of mindset perhaps? If everything is as rosy as everyone seems to think then the sc is surplus to requirements and should shut up shop and leave it all to the club No one has said that have they?
People have discussed how or what (will have to be) the SC will be going forward in the future.
The SC has ran various functions on behalf of the club for years (in times of need) which should be acknowledged. However if the club is as stable as we hope it may now be and the impression the new ownership give than The SC may not be required to bail the club out through money or services in the way it has been before.
If that happens The SC needs to re-evaluate and change it's tact. I don't think anyone suggests disbanding The SC unless anyone thinks their only function is to do stuff for the club it couldn't do it's self.
If the burden of pressure/expectance from the club on The SC is reduced or eradicated that can only be a good thing for the club and the SC. Perhaps that is a scary notion for the SC precisely because it wont be doing what it has done for so long but it shouldn't be.
For me if that burden is reduced on the SC, surely that should be a positive freeing them from the shackles that have tied it intrinsically to the club for so long
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 15:07:18 GMT
Don't know where Jim is supposed to go to meet supporters but I'll have a guess that there are more supporters in the clubhouse bars after a match than turn up at any regional meetings. If the EC and Chairman aren't doing what the supporters want then the supporters should vote them out at the next elections. Simples. As to the supporters directors I'll guess they'll be allowed no more input to the running of the club than they were allowed under the old board. Which I guess is supported by the radio interview you heard. Makes no difference if 1000 supporters cram into that bar if Jim sits passively at a table. Last I heard only SC members could vote for committee members. That brings you right back to the question of pressing the flesh and shaking hands. Simples. My guess is that the new boardroom will be run as a meritocracy. So I agree with your last sentence. What is wrong with members being the only ones who can vote in sc elections ? are you allowed to vote in foe example election of directors to M & S if you are not a shareholder?I think not
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 15:10:39 GMT
Makes no difference if 1000 supporters cram into that bar if Jim sits passively at a table. Last I heard only SC members could vote for committee members. That brings you right back to the question of pressing the flesh and shaking hands. Simples. My guess is that the new boardroom will be run as a meritocracy. So I agree with your last sentence. Jim's there to talk to perhaps people could try engaging him? Never struck me as the sort to blank anyone. As to pressing the flesh that's what politicians do when they think they won't get elected, I don't think anyone on the BRSC EC has to worry about not being elected due to the continuing apathy of the fans, both members and non members of BRSC. And there we are, right back through the full 360 degrees. Should Jim just sit there and say that in doing so he's fulfilled his duty? (I don't know if that's what he does by the way) In 2005 David Brain was elected with something like 44 votes from a membership of 3000. That's the question right there, if you are OK with that then leave well alone, if you think it should maybe look at itself and ask if it's doing all it can to be representative then maybe Jim and his foot soldiers (including the ones not trying to win votes so that they can sit in Box 1) need to get out and about more?
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on May 25, 2016 15:11:39 GMT
Well we all know what happens to the 50 50 but again not the point as you well know. If we are talking about the SC moving forward whether its Jim Tom Dick Harry in charge obviously the organisation need to change The SC dont have a benefactor to underwrite the losses do they? A few years ago i would have got involed and was starting to but than 2006 happened. Now i dont have time unfortunatley with finishing my house and hopefully starting a family Hopefully in years to come i can be involved Last i checked though i was still entitled to an opinion Here we go again 2006 raises its ugly head,10 years ago and people still hold a grudge Padstow I don't hold a grudge. Not least because no one I would have had one with is involved with the cub anymore. I certainly don't have a grudge against any SC EC member or volunteer. I might disagree with them or their views mind you
I only mentioned it as it was period where as a young man I was beginning to get involved but felt I could no longer at the time. Unfortunately or not. life changes doesn't it. Not sure courting, getting married and renovating a house and hoping to start a family gave me much time to get involved in recent years.
Well I could have but I think I would be out on my ear. on second thoughts....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 15:14:44 GMT
Makes no difference if 1000 supporters cram into that bar if Jim sits passively at a table. Last I heard only SC members could vote for committee members. That brings you right back to the question of pressing the flesh and shaking hands. Simples. My guess is that the new boardroom will be run as a meritocracy. So I agree with your last sentence. What is wrong with members being the only ones who can vote in sc elections ? are you allowed to vote in foe example election of directors to M & S if you are not a shareholder?I think not No problem whatsoever with only SC members being able to vote for SC positions. Did I suggest otherwise? The point is, as it always was, that the SC is supposed to represent the opinions and interests of members and non-members alike.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on May 25, 2016 15:28:48 GMT
Looking to the future, Padstow. What do you see as the SC's role now that the club appears to be on a more stable financial footing. Previously it was made clear that the SC was an organisation whose purpose was to support the FC, not an organisation for the benefit of supporters. Time for a change of mindset perhaps? If everything is as rosy as everyone seems to think then the sc is surplus to requirements and should shut up shop and leave it all to the clubI can't agree with that. A supporters club does not have to restrict itself to financially supporting a struggling football club. BRSC now has the opportunity to concentrate more on providing services to the thousands of supporters of Bristol Rovers and on putting itself on a sound financial footing. There's nothing to say that they can't continue raising money and investing that into the FC in some way, but it does seem that for the moment, in terms of needing to hand over every available penny, the pressure is off Personally I see a golden opportunity for a complete re-think of the aims of the SC, along with the chance to build a solid cash reserve for the future. After all, none of us knows what that future might hold. Things may seem rosy at the moment, but there's no guarantee that will always be the case.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 15:32:18 GMT
If everything is as rosy as everyone seems to think then the sc is surplus to requirements and should shut up shop and leave it all to the clubI can't agree with that. A supporters club does not have to restrict itself to financially supporting a struggling football club. BRSC now has the opportunity to concentrate more on providing services to the thousands of supporters of Bristol Rovers and on putting itself on a sound financial footing. There's nothing to say that they can't continue raising money and investing that into the FC in some way, but it does seem that for the moment, in terms of needing to hand over every available penny, the pressure is off Personally I see a golden opportunity for a complete re-think of the aims of the SC, along with the chance to build a solid cash reserve for the future. After all, none of us knows what that future might hold. Things may seem rosy at the moment, but there's no guarantee that will always be the case.
This.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 15:35:10 GMT
That's a response, not an answer. I don't know which of Bulbous's opinions, that you say is shared by a tiny minority, your're referring to: the only one in that post was that what Jim Chappell wrote was a 'pile of crap'. That might not be the phrase I'd use, but I'd say a huge majority of fans agree with the spirit of it. I don't have the attendance records of these people, but then neither do you. Without playing the victim, sensing constant criticism or being denied an opinion, imagining people denigrating volunteers who are nothing to do with what was said (many of whom might well agree with Bulbous's description, anyway), or deflecting to any other perceived ill with the world, or saying that nobody can disagree with him (in this democracy) unless they stand against him, what's your opinion: do you agree with the tone, content, and omission of any acknowledgement of the Al-Qadis (cursory sneers aside) in Jim's Jottings, and feel that is a fair and helpful reflection of what someone called these rosy times? But aren't all officers of the sc volunteers? and how do you know the opinions of the supporters of the club,all you are basing your assumptions on are comments from the small percentage of fans who post on both forums,which is much less than 1%,so how is that a majority.Seems tome like the tail trying to wag the dog You're clearly unable to focus on whether what Jim Chappel said was a fair reflection, or was petulant and an unwarranted swipe at the Al-Qadis - without whom we'd now be in Queer Street - intead deflecting the question by accusing anyone who does of insulting all volunteers, not knowing what everyone else thinks, or (perversely) denying you the right of an opinion. Without exception, everyone I've spoken to views the takeover as a good thing and is feeling particularly positive. I think it's a shame that a spokesman for supporters a) published the opposite sentiment and b) demonstrated that there's an obdurate core (him, you and Harry so far as I can tell) who haven't bought into the change, or recognise that it was needed, and think it's fine to be bloody rude about, and dismissive of, the people who are taking the club forward. I hope the new board realise that at least some of us (because that's all I can vouch for) appreciate what they're doing. That's it. I'll leave you to it.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 25, 2016 15:38:55 GMT
Jim's there to talk to perhaps people could try engaging him? Never struck me as the sort to blank anyone. As to pressing the flesh that's what politicians do when they think they won't get elected, I don't think anyone on the BRSC EC has to worry about not being elected due to the continuing apathy of the fans, both members and non members of BRSC. And there we are, right back through the full 360 degrees. Should Jim just sit there and say that in doing so he's fulfilled his duty? (I don't know if that's what he does by the way) In 2005 David Brain was elected with something like 44 votes from a membership of 3000. That's the question right there, if you are OK with that then leave well alone, if you think it should maybe look at itself and ask if it's doing all it can to be representative then maybe Jim and his foot soldiers (including the ones not trying to win votes so that they can sit in Box 1) need to get out and about more? Well going 360 why don't you pop in the clubhouse next season and ask / tell Jim that? Or let apathy continue to reign.
|
|
strung out
Administrator
Paul Hardyman
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 758
|
Post by strung out on May 25, 2016 15:57:01 GMT
I think the problem is that for many years the SC has been about supporting the club rather than being a club for supporters.
By necessity it's had to do the first, rather than the second. What a lot of us are saying though is that it might do better to concentrate on the second, particularly given the change in circumstances over the last 6 months.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2016 16:03:11 GMT
And there we are, right back through the full 360 degrees. Should Jim just sit there and say that in doing so he's fulfilled his duty? (I don't know if that's what he does by the way) In 2005 David Brain was elected with something like 44 votes from a membership of 3000. That's the question right there, if you are OK with that then leave well alone, if you think it should maybe look at itself and ask if it's doing all it can to be representative then maybe Jim and his foot soldiers (including the ones not trying to win votes so that they can sit in Box 1) need to get out and about more? Well going 360 why don't you pop in the clubhouse next season and ask / tell Jim that? Or let apathy continue to reign. Ah, now we get right down to it. Either join and effect change from within or don't have an opinion or ask questions. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on May 25, 2016 16:07:25 GMT
It seems to me the huge change in our circumstances has come as a shock to some, things are different all of a sudden and they had a very good relationship with NH (please, no need to argue about it, its gone) the SC Directors being moved from Box 1 to Box 3 will have hurt some understandablly and i think we can all sympathise with that, an organisation that if nothing else has been there helping financially through some bloody tough times with the fundraising efforts being carried out by a hard working bunch of volunteers and i think i speak for everyone saying they do a great job at it and we're all grateful.
The other side of it is the politics etc which i'm not gonna go into cause i think it should now be a fresh start for all. So, its all about moving forward and the quicker the SC and the football club sit down and discuss how they can benefit each other the better.
The SC have to decide where they want to go next and how they want to go about it, hopefully with some help and encouragement from all supporters of our club so more people join, get involved and get behind whatever it is they become. Modernisation will be needed in all areas imo and who knows with some new ideas etc they could even become bigger than before.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,263
|
Post by kingswood Polak on May 25, 2016 16:26:36 GMT
I've not been checking the forum regularly for a while because I've not had time but bloody hell that was a depressing read from start to finish.
1. The original comments seem unfortunate and out of touch with the mood of the fanbase. It wasn't the points made so much as the way they were made. It's amazing how people move into line though - if this had been last year and Higgs had said we won't have an open top bus tour I'm quite confident a lot of the people who claimed this was 'a sensible move' would have been saying it was another example of a board with no sense of PR and no respect for the supporters. As it happens I kind of think there should have been one really and it might have been quite nice. But that's about it - to use what is a reasonable expression of disappointment as a jumping off point to criticise not just the new owners but aspects of our own supporters (Gloucester Road Drinkers) sticks in the claw. Especially as I can never remember that tone ever being adopted in relation to the previous board who, to the best of my knowledge, rarely received so much as a rebuke in that column despite overseeing relegation out of the league and record debts. It's that obvious inconsistency which I think upsets and the 'better supporters than you' tone.
2. Having said that the actual issue is an absurd storm in a teacup - it's an argument over whether or not to have an open top bus tour for crying outloud! May I suggest those who would like to watch an open top bus tour go and spend the afternoon in Bath where they can observe plenty of them to their hearts content (some of them may even be blue and white) - whereas those who appear to violently object to open top bus tours could perhaps spend the afternoon in Swindon where they will be largely unbothered by this hitherto underrated menace to society. The idea that this should be on some level a resigning issue for the Supporters Club Chairman or a line in the sand moment for anyone is ridiculous. I think a lot has been inferred here from very little in order to rake over a load of old grudges.
3. A constructive conversation about the future of the Supporters Club is, I think, quite important but unfortunately that is not really what has been had here. Instead there has been on the one hand some over the top reaction to an ill-judged piece on the one hand and some ludicrous hyper-defensive sniping on the other.
4. I think a lot of the criticism of the SC on this thread has come from a position of condemning past actions rather than thinking about future ones which is disappointing. On the flip side the reactions of those defending the SC kind of conforms to the stereotype that it was linked to the bunker 'with us or against us' mentality of the Higgs era. The idea that the SC represents the supporters views is a new one on me to be honest - I have been a member for 10 years and never had my views canvassed or particularly expected them to be. For most of that time my experience of the SC has been as a quietly efficient voluntary fundraising organisation that provided well run services for supporters and carried out a substantial number of (generally more minor but nevertheless important) matchday operations - which it does very well and largely thanklessly (Jim Chappel's point there was entirely fair). But I think that if the Supporters Club Chairman is going to claim that his opinion represents the views of supporters then he should have a mechanism for listening to those supporters views as a whole rather than just the people who come up to talk to him before the game because that is a long chalk short of a general view of Rovers fans on anything. If on the other hand who he is really speaking for is the volunteers on matchday and the views of his committee then he is fully entitled to do so but shouldn't claim it in any way represents a general opinion. Again what sticks in the claw I suppose is the fact that there has been little official acknowledgement by the SC in these type of pieces of the anger and alienation of large parts of the fanbase during years when many were extremely disillusioned with the previous regime. In fact the message was always constructive and 'we are supporting Nick Higgs etc'. But a small issue like this promotes that kind of reaction - I don't remember sarky comments and club titles put in italics when we were relegated out of the league but denying an open top bus tour - well that truly is the final straw......
5. The comments by Padstow and HarryBuckle are really noticeable. They are basically along the lines of 'no one appreciates what the SC does' so 's*** or get off the pot' with a fair amount of snipey 'youngsters don't know their born' attitude thrown in for good measure. The thing is though it's looking at the issue the wrong way round. The questions should surely be 'how can we attract more gasheads to be members?' and 'how do we adapt to the new circumstances?' instead it seems to be 'how can we carry on doing what we've always done and why the hell don't people appreciate it anymore?'. I agree that 3,500 SC members is lower than it should be for a club of Rovers size but too often the position seems to be 'my shop is going under because no one is coming to buy my things anymore - what a bunch of b******s they are'. The SC needs to evolve somewhat and the new owners should be a catalyst and it should be seen as a positive thing for everybody involved - not as something to be worried about and threatened by or that requires some sort of clearing out of good people who work extremely hard on behalf of supporters and the club. The SC seems like a somewhat outdated organisation stuck in a different era to many people but it still clearly has a major role to play. It is indeed archaic that you can't join online (although the website itself has massively improved over the last 18 months). I joined an organisation of 40 members through an online set-up the other day; it's just the way the modern world works works. Young people deal in web pages, online engagement and mobile phone apps. Not cheques, newsletters and public meetings - and the reason they do that is that those things save everybody shedloads of money, time and effort and can reach larger numbers of people much more quickly and efficiently. Things that don't do that are actively off putting and appear increasingly distant and irrelevant to younger generations. Many people do many wonderful things for the football club through the SC but they would be better appreciated if the organisation itself recognised that the nature, expectations and mechanisms for being a supporter have changed drastically over the last 20 years, that people expect active 2 way engagement with organisations they are a part of and that the role of the SC seems likely to be pretty different in the future and that maybe a wider conversation with the whole fanbase about what it is they might want from the organisation might be quite a good start. That should be a positive thing not a stand off row with people being stupidly defensive on the one hand and unnecessary sniping at good people on the other. I didn't know you had Talons
|
|