irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Dec 4, 2019 21:55:15 GMT
The AQ's are clearly deliberately obscuring intentions and treating fans as merely consumers. This is a fair criticism. However, on the other side of the coin there is also an issue with fans representation.
The SC has always been an effective money raising and administrational body but it's never been effective in actually representing the views of Rovers fans to the owners. During the Higgs regime when many wanted it to adopt a more critical stance that reflected growing discontent among many in the fanbase, it instead became a cheerleading body for the board. It has clearly been trying to re-position itself to a more critical stance towards the present owners but it's not credible or effective in that role and is therefore easily dismissed.
If the SC does control of away travel arrangement it is difficult to see what purpose it has anymore.
That's not a fair criticism. For several years, leading up to 2006 it was highly effective doing this. Was it though or was it just an era in which the interests of owners and fans were more aligned? That's a geniuine question not a leading one.
My understanding was that for a whole generation of senior SC members the issue was the survival of the club and the need to generate a 'we're all in it together' mentality to achieve that, which suited the situation at the time and was completely understandable. But when a significant gap opened between the board and certain bits of the fanbase the SC ultimately lacked the sufficient will to shift from that culture despite admirable efforts by some to get it to do so. I stand to be corrected though - are you saying there was a period where the SC recognised a rift between fans and board, and represented those views effectively to the board? Or are you referring to the early days of the share scheme before it all got watered down etc?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 22:08:17 GMT
That's not a fair criticism. For several years, leading up to 2006 it was highly effective doing this. Was it though or was it just an era in which the interests of owners and fans were more aligned? That's a geniuine question not a leading one. It's a good one. I wasn't there in 2006. Bambi's told me a bit. I was around from 1999 to 2004, then returned around 2010. In 2004 there was a rising share scheme. In 2004 there was a rising demand for representation. In 2004 there was also opposition to both. But there was the agenda for change. And alphabetti spaghetti. A perfectly admirable Supporters Club faction held the Dunford board increasingly to account, and made boardroom allies to this effect. Then everything went mental.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 23:07:06 GMT
That's not a fair criticism. For several years, leading up to 2006 it was highly effective doing this. Was it though or was it just an era in which the interests of owners and fans were more aligned? That's a geniuine question not a leading one.
My understanding was that for a whole generation of senior SC members the issue was the survival of the club and the need to generate a 'we're all in it together' mentality to achieve that, which suited the situation at the time and was completely understandable. But when a significant gap opened between the board and certain bits of the fanbase the SC ultimately lacked the sufficient will to shift from that culture despite admirable efforts by some to get it to do so. I stand to be corrected though - are you saying there was a period where the SC recognised a rift between fans and board, and represented those views effectively to the board? Or are you referring to the early days of the share scheme before it all got watered down etc?
I'm talking about pre-mid 2006, before the FC boardroom split, that lead to a share issue, which effectively scuppered the Share Scheme. I can expand if that would help? Edit. I should say though, for chapter and verse, probably John Malyckyj would be the best person to comment on what happened from the SC side of things, Philton to give the FC perspective. I'm a nobody here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 1:11:06 GMT
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 5, 2019 11:02:23 GMT
Was it though or was it just an era in which the interests of owners and fans were more aligned? That's a geniuine question not a leading one.
My understanding was that for a whole generation of senior SC members the issue was the survival of the club and the need to generate a 'we're all in it together' mentality to achieve that, which suited the situation at the time and was completely understandable. But when a significant gap opened between the board and certain bits of the fanbase the SC ultimately lacked the sufficient will to shift from that culture despite admirable efforts by some to get it to do so. I stand to be corrected though - are you saying there was a period where the SC recognised a rift between fans and board, and represented those views effectively to the board? Or are you referring to the early days of the share scheme before it all got watered down etc?
I'm talking about pre-mid 2006, before the FC boardroom split, that lead to a share issue, which effectively scuppered the Share Scheme. I can expand if that would help? Edit. I should say though, for chapter and verse, probably john malyckyi would be the best person to comment on what happened from the SC side of things, @philton to give the FC perspective. I'm a nobody here. I hope you don’t mind that I tagged your post, to maybe get the attention of both poster BG
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 5, 2019 11:05:10 GMT
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 5, 2019 11:06:54 GMT
Was it though or was it just an era in which the interests of owners and fans were more aligned? That's a geniuine question not a leading one.
My understanding was that for a whole generation of senior SC members the issue was the survival of the club and the need to generate a 'we're all in it together' mentality to achieve that, which suited the situation at the time and was completely understandable. But when a significant gap opened between the board and certain bits of the fanbase the SC ultimately lacked the sufficient will to shift from that culture despite admirable efforts by some to get it to do so. I stand to be corrected though - are you saying there was a period where the SC recognised a rift between fans and board, and represented those views effectively to the board? Or are you referring to the early days of the share scheme before it all got watered down etc?
I'm talking about pre-mid 2006, before the FC boardroom split, that lead to a share issue, which effectively scuppered the Share Scheme. I can expand if that would help? Edit. I should say though, for chapter and verse, probably johnmalyckyj would be the best person to comment on what happened from the SC side of things, Philton to give the FC perspective. I'm a nobody here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 13:34:26 GMT
I'm talking about pre-mid 2006, before the FC boardroom split, that lead to a share issue, which effectively scuppered the Share Scheme. I can expand if that would help? Edit. I should say though, for chapter and verse, probably john malyckyi would be the best person to comment on what happened from the SC side of things, @philton to give the FC perspective. I'm a nobody here. I hope you don’t mind that I tagged your post, to maybe get the attention of both poster BG John hardly ever reads this forum, Philton, I think reads most threads anyway. But the point stands, under John the SC had a proper relationship with the BoD and was utilising all existing channels of communication to engage with supporters. Were things perfect? No, it was a work in progress. What people like Harry miss when they spout their nonsense about 'if you don't like the SC then become active and change it from within' is that it's now back in the hands of 'the old guard', these people tried every trick in the book to resist change, including bussing in people to vote for their own candidate in elections when that person was opposed to John's reforms. The chances of 1 person being able to talk sense to Jim and his cronies are non-existent. He's still ploughing on with his 1970's model and with every single passing day his SC becomes less and less relevant.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 13:37:41 GMT
It dawned on me how unimportant I was when I realised that even your vote on Dec 12th counted for as much as mine.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 6, 2019 12:20:21 GMT
It dawned on me how unimportant I was when I realised that even your vote on Dec 12th counted for as much as mine. You’re a very naughty boy, picking on a duck like that lol
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 6, 2019 12:23:46 GMT
I hope you don’t mind that I tagged your post, to maybe get the attention of both poster BG John hardly ever reads this forum, Philton, I think reads most threads anyway. But the point stands, under John the SC had a proper relationship with the BoD and was utilising all existing channels of communication to engage with supporters. Were things perfect? No, it was a work in progress. What people like Harry miss when they spout their nonsense about 'if you don't like the SC then become active and change it from within' is that it's now back in the hands of 'the old guard', these people tried every trick in the book to resist change, including bussing in people to vote for their own candidate in elections when that person was opposed to John's reforms. The chances of 1 person being able to talk sense to Jim and his cronies are non-existent. He's still ploughing on with his 1970's model and with every single passing day his SC becomes less and less relevant. I would hope that old guard would now be redoubling their efforts due to the owners now disengaging with the SC. Hamer got a lot of stick for that yet, when I talked with him, it was clear that he was used to tell people things that the owners didn’t want to say themselves. We really need some palpable answers or I really fear for our existence
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 12:27:52 GMT
It dawned on me how unimportant I was when I realised that even your vote on Dec 12th counted for as much as mine. You’re a very naughty boy, picking on a duck like that lol Please Sir, Shoveler started it.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 6, 2019 12:31:52 GMT
You’re a very naughty boy, picking on a duck like that lol Please Sir, Shoveler started it. Ah, the one eye that started it defence , one of my teachers who loathed the Bristolian accent used to write it as we spoke it. One eye sir
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 12:35:09 GMT
John hardly ever reads this forum, Philton, I think reads most threads anyway. But the point stands, under John the SC had a proper relationship with the BoD and was utilising all existing channels of communication to engage with supporters. Were things perfect? No, it was a work in progress. What people like Harry miss when they spout their nonsense about 'if you don't like the SC then become active and change it from within' is that it's now back in the hands of 'the old guard', these people tried every trick in the book to resist change, including bussing in people to vote for their own candidate in elections when that person was opposed to John's reforms. The chances of 1 person being able to talk sense to Jim and his cronies are non-existent. He's still ploughing on with his 1970's model and with every single passing day his SC becomes less and less relevant. I would hope that old guard would now be redoubling their efforts due to the owners now disengaging with the SC. Hamer got a lot of stick for that yet, when I talked with him, it was clear that he was used to tell people things that the owners didn’t want to say themselves. We really need some palpable answers or I really fear for our existence It's a fundamental question KP; what is the function of the SC? Unless Jim has changed his mind, and there's no evidence of this, he thinks it exists to support the FC, but that creates a problem as, from where I'm stood it appears that the FC don't seem to think that the SC have anything worthwhile to bring to the party, so the steady decline of the SC continues. When the FC take away travel from the SC it's hard to see where they go from there?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 12:36:23 GMT
Please Sir, Shoveler started it. Ah, the one eye that started it defence , one of my teachers who loathed the Bristolian accent used to write it as we spoke it. One eye sir I'm going to superglue his daps to the changing room floor.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,236
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Dec 6, 2019 12:39:57 GMT
I would hope that old guard would now be redoubling their efforts due to the owners now disengaging with the SC. Hamer got a lot of stick for that yet, when I talked with him, it was clear that he was used to tell people things that the owners didn’t want to say themselves. We really need some palpable answers or I really fear for our existence It's a fundamental question KP; what is the function of the SC? Unless Jim has changed his mind, and there's no evidence of this, he thinks it exists to support the FC, but that creates a problem as, from where I'm stood it appears that the FC don't seem to think that the SC have anything worthwhile to bring to the party, so the steady decline of the SC continues. When the FC take away travel from the SC it's hard to see where they go from there? A friend of mine was running coaches, to away games and it was near enough a door to door service. Hamer was used to tell him to stop. Now, I don’t know about the legalities but surely a private person should be able to do this, as long as they don’t use official channels to do so ? It’s very sad that the club have decided they know best, on everything yet losing money, hand over fist
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Dec 6, 2019 15:17:23 GMT
Was it though or was it just an era in which the interests of owners and fans were more aligned? That's a geniuine question not a leading one.
My understanding was that for a whole generation of senior SC members the issue was the survival of the club and the need to generate a 'we're all in it together' mentality to achieve that, which suited the situation at the time and was completely understandable. But when a significant gap opened between the board and certain bits of the fanbase the SC ultimately lacked the sufficient will to shift from that culture despite admirable efforts by some to get it to do so. I stand to be corrected though - are you saying there was a period where the SC recognised a rift between fans and board, and represented those views effectively to the board? Or are you referring to the early days of the share scheme before it all got watered down etc?
I'm talking about pre-mid 2006, before the FC boardroom split, that lead to a share issue, which effectively scuppered the Share Scheme. I can expand if that would help? Edit. I should say though, for chapter and verse, probably John Malyckyj would be the best person to comment on what happened from the SC side of things, Philton to give the FC perspective. I'm a nobody here. No - that's fine thanks. I think I understand as much as I need to about that era from people involved who have posted on here or who I've spoken to over the years.
We're basically in agreement here and I stand corrected. To be honest, I wasn't in Bristol at the time and I think I'd just forgotten that there was a brief period where the SC did genuinely take a different direction (or it had never really sunk in).
All of which makes the SC's recent half-hearted efforts to recast itself as a proper pressure group for Rovers fans particularly non-credible. Many, including myself, might have disagreed with the SC's 'back the club' position during the Higgs era but at least you could understand the logic and sympathise somewhat with motivations of people who had been through the hand to mouth period of the 80s and early 90s. But the culture and perception of the entire organisation has set this in stone making it hard to trust a sudden switch to a more critical stance (and that's without even touching on the historical politics of it all). Put simply as a Rovers fan I don't really recognise BRSC as having represented my interests or spoken on my behalf over the years. Engaging with senior figures during the Higgs era (when I was a member) left me thinking that most of them saw their job as representing the board to the fans not the other way round. So what is its purpose other than arranging away travel?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 18:19:06 GMT
I'm talking about pre-mid 2006, before the FC boardroom split, that lead to a share issue, which effectively scuppered the Share Scheme. I can expand if that would help? Edit. I should say though, for chapter and verse, probably John Malyckyj would be the best person to comment on what happened from the SC side of things, Philton to give the FC perspective. I'm a nobody here. No - that's fine thanks. I think I understand as much as I need to about that era from people involved who have posted on here or who I've spoken to over the years.
We're basically in agreement here and I stand corrected. To be honest, I wasn't in Bristol at the time and I think I'd just forgotten that there was a brief period where the SC did genuinely take a different direction (or it had never really sunk in).
All of which makes the SC's recent half-hearted efforts to recast itself as a proper pressure group for Rovers fans particularly non-credible. Many, including myself, might have disagreed with the SC's 'back the club' position during the Higgs era but at least you could understand the logic and sympathise somewhat with motivations of people who had been through the hand to mouth period of the 80s and early 90s. But the culture and perception of the entire organisation has set this in stone making it hard to trust a sudden switch to a more critical stance (and that's without even touching on the historical politics of it all). Put simply as a Rovers fan I don't really recognise BRSC as having represented my interests or spoken on my behalf over the years. Engaging with senior figures during the Higgs era (when I was a member) left me thinking that most of them saw their job as representing the board to the fans not the other way round. So what is its purpose other than arranging away travel?
Totally understand how / why you form that view, but there's a huge problem. The SC represent well over one million pounds of our money invested via the Share Scheme. They have a duty to engage with supporters and ask what people want us to be saying to whoever owns and whoever runs the club. Lay over the top of that, it's always been the SC's notional stance that they represent all supporters, not just SC members, and you can see why people get frustrated with Jim, and even more frustrated with people like Harry saying that we shouldn't criticise how 'our' SC is run.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Dec 8, 2019 19:59:48 GMT
No - that's fine thanks. I think I understand as much as I need to about that era from people involved who have posted on here or who I've spoken to over the years.
We're basically in agreement here and I stand corrected. To be honest, I wasn't in Bristol at the time and I think I'd just forgotten that there was a brief period where the SC did genuinely take a different direction (or it had never really sunk in).
All of which makes the SC's recent half-hearted efforts to recast itself as a proper pressure group for Rovers fans particularly non-credible. Many, including myself, might have disagreed with the SC's 'back the club' position during the Higgs era but at least you could understand the logic and sympathise somewhat with motivations of people who had been through the hand to mouth period of the 80s and early 90s. But the culture and perception of the entire organisation has set this in stone making it hard to trust a sudden switch to a more critical stance (and that's without even touching on the historical politics of it all). Put simply as a Rovers fan I don't really recognise BRSC as having represented my interests or spoken on my behalf over the years. Engaging with senior figures during the Higgs era (when I was a member) left me thinking that most of them saw their job as representing the board to the fans not the other way round. So what is its purpose other than arranging away travel?
Totally understand how / why you form that view, but there's a huge problem. The SC represent well over one million pounds of our money invested via the Share Scheme. They have a duty to engage with supporters and ask what people want us to be saying to whoever owns and whoever runs the club. Lay over the top of that, it's always been the SC's notional stance that they represent all supporters, not just SC members, and you can see why people get frustrated with Jim, and even more frustrated with people like Harry saying that we shouldn't criticise how 'our' SC is run. Can't disagree with that -they are ultimately presenting a circular argument. '
|
|