|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 11, 2021 15:53:15 GMT
I’ll admit I’ve not tried to reach out to him in person, only via email, which has had no success. Now isn’t the right time to do so as he has just lost his grandson which must be devastating for him and his family and I’m sure he’s got lots more to worry about than the SC. I’ll leave it a few weeks and maybe try and speak to him. I’ve never thought of Jim as an ogre, he’s probably a very nice bloke, and dare I say it, we might both understand each other if we had the chance to sit down and talk. I simply see him as someone who backed the wrong horse, but rather than admit his failing and then act in good judgement by condemning the behaviour of KM and the rest of them, and then change the course of the SC, he continued support it and work with the agenda against the club. Perhaps there is some other peer pressure there. But that’s showing strong leadership as a chairman if you stand up for what is right rather following the rest. The only bit that's not quite right for me is being critical of his strength of character. The SC Executive Committee is a democratic thing, the EC members, and possibly a few other people, will meet to discuss topics and decisions will be made based on majority opinion, (obviously only EC members have voting rights, but in my experience others can sometimes be in attendance and whilst there are naturally encouraged to give their opinion) with the Chair having the deciding vote in the event of the rest of those eligible to vote being unable to reach a decision. The rest of what you've said above, I'm with you completely. I don't want to labour this point, but don't want confusion either, I strongly disapprove of and disagree with both how the SC has been run in recent years and the fact that they've got involved in a very unpleasant and public dispute with the FC owners, that benefits nobody. Well that is how his leadership has been perceived by many. As chairman of the SC he should be able to control those under him and not succumb to the influence of others no matter how long you have known them. It seems to have started right from the takeover because we didn’t get an open top bus for finishing 3rd in the league and relations have deteriorated from there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2021 16:07:17 GMT
The only bit that's not quite right for me is being critical of his strength of character. The SC Executive Committee is a democratic thing, the EC members, and possibly a few other people, will meet to discuss topics and decisions will be made based on majority opinion, (obviously only EC members have voting rights, but in my experience others can sometimes be in attendance and whilst there are naturally encouraged to give their opinion) with the Chair having the deciding vote in the event of the rest of those eligible to vote being unable to reach a decision. The rest of what you've said above, I'm with you completely. I don't want to labour this point, but don't want confusion either, I strongly disapprove of and disagree with both how the SC has been run in recent years and the fact that they've got involved in a very unpleasant and public dispute with the FC owners, that benefits nobody. Well that is how his leadership has been perceived by many. As chairman of the SC he should be able to control those under him and not succumb to the influence of others no matter how long you have known them. It seems to have started right from the takeover because we didn’t get an open top bus for finishing 3rd in the league and relations have deteriorated from there. I honestly don't know what Jim's issue was surrounding that promotion, if it was that Wael barged to the front and appeared to want to take credit for a promotion which was pretty much signed, sealed and delivered by the outgoing regime, and as far as I can recall, Wael didn't say much about Higgs in the immediate aftermath of the Daggers game, then, in all honesty, Jim may well have a point. To the other point, obviously I'm failing to get this across to you. SC policy and decision making doesn't reflect the opinion of just one person. If you go into the SC thinking you are going to impose your will and opinion onto everybody then prepare for resistance, in exactly the same way as you would meet resistance in any other club or organisation. It's beginning to feel as if I need to explain to you that politics is about getting people to see the merit of your ideas and then getting them sufficiently motivated to be willing to assist with implementation. It's not about dictating terms. But I'm sure that doesn't need saying.
|
|
|
Post by gastower on Sept 11, 2021 16:38:52 GMT
Examples to follow next weekNAPAB I am busy attacking a bottle of red which is far more satisfying than attacking ITB Apart from the staunch defence of Wael, who i believe is as close to a friend to Steve, i find him fine tbh, i used to get a bit agitated but his ability to reason and not get mad is a good thing plus i sort of admire sticking up for a friend, its very rare nowadays. I will make it a mission to meet up and introduce myself in person, much nicer to post when you know the other person. I have warmed to him if honest but it wasn’t always so then i found myself thinking, why am i getting agitated by a bloody forum post and poster. A true friend is someone who walks through the door when everyone else is putting their coats on to leave I have a feeling our manager will need some true friends come November/December
|
|
gasprom
Joined: January 2016
Posts: 335
|
Post by gasprom on Sept 11, 2021 17:00:35 GMT
I find it interesting to watch Bridgwater United as, just like our board, they are working hard behind the scenes. The owner bought the club in November 2020, they bought their ground 2 months later, 9 months on and the plans are drawn up for a new training ground, which includes a smaller stadium, and the first phase of redevelopment of their main stadium.
It’s like they have a plan. How many more years do we have to hear our board are “working hard behind the scenes” before we see a shred of evidence of it?
Frosty the newsman keeps reporting our plans are frozen due to covid. Did covid not reach Bridgwater?
I have no idea about the politics around the supporters club and I don’t care who thinks what of whom, but from the outside looking in it seems any individual or organisation critical of Wael doesn’t seem to last long.
And anyone know what happened to the chap who built Wembley? I remember the publicity when he joined but don’t remember any announcement that he left. Family reasons I expect
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2021 19:51:49 GMT
I find it interesting to watch Bridgwater United as, just like our board, they are working hard behind the scenes. The owner bought the club in November 2020, they bought their ground 2 months later, 9 months on and the plans are drawn up for a new training ground, which includes a smaller stadium, and the first phase of redevelopment of their main stadium. It’s like they have a plan. How many more years do we have to hear our board are “working hard behind the scenes” before we see a shred of evidence of it? Frosty the newsman keeps reporting our plans are frozen due to covid. Did covid not reach Bridgwater? I have no idea about the politics around the supporters club and I don’t care who thinks what of whom, but from the outside looking in it seems any individual or organisation critical of Wael doesn’t seem to last long. And anyone know what happened to the chap who built Wembley? I remember the publicity when he joined but don’t remember any announcement that he left. Family reasons I expect To be fair, Wembley was a massive project involving a huge number of people, and there were significant issues. It was late being completed, the sewers collapsed, the site was evacuated when a steel rafter supporting the roof fell down, of course it went over budget, and how many times was the pitch laid before they got it right, I think it was 10 times. So maybe when someone next comes knocking using having been involved in that thing as a selling point on their CV we should treat them with a little bit of suspicion?
|
|
gasprom
Joined: January 2016
Posts: 335
|
Post by gasprom on Sept 11, 2021 20:06:42 GMT
I find it interesting to watch Bridgwater United as, just like our board, they are working hard behind the scenes. The owner bought the club in November 2020, they bought their ground 2 months later, 9 months on and the plans are drawn up for a new training ground, which includes a smaller stadium, and the first phase of redevelopment of their main stadium. It’s like they have a plan. How many more years do we have to hear our board are “working hard behind the scenes” before we see a shred of evidence of it? Frosty the newsman keeps reporting our plans are frozen due to covid. Did covid not reach Bridgwater? I have no idea about the politics around the supporters club and I don’t care who thinks what of whom, but from the outside looking in it seems any individual or organisation critical of Wael doesn’t seem to last long. And anyone know what happened to the chap who built Wembley? I remember the publicity when he joined but don’t remember any announcement that he left. Family reasons I expect To be fair, Wembley was a massive project involving a huge number of people, and there were significant issues. It was late being completed, the sewers collapsed, the site was evacuated when a steel rafter supporting the roof fell down, of course it went over budget, and how many times was the pitch laid before they got it right, I think it was 10 times. So maybe when someone next comes knocking using having been involved in that thing as a selling point on their CV we should treat them with a little bit of suspicion? Maybe we gave the guy the job of installing a new big screen to test his capabilities before giving him a stadium to build
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2021 20:22:21 GMT
To be fair, Wembley was a massive project involving a huge number of people, and there were significant issues. It was late being completed, the sewers collapsed, the site was evacuated when a steel rafter supporting the roof fell down, of course it went over budget, and how many times was the pitch laid before they got it right, I think it was 10 times. So maybe when someone next comes knocking using having been involved in that thing as a selling point on their CV we should treat them with a little bit of suspicion? Maybe we gave the guy the job of installing a new big screen to test his capabilities before giving him a stadium to build We already have one of those that doesn't work properly, why would we allow someone involved in constructing Wemberley to put in a second defective one?
|
|
gasprom
Joined: January 2016
Posts: 335
|
Post by gasprom on Sept 11, 2021 20:30:21 GMT
Maybe we gave the guy the job of installing a new big screen to test his capabilities before giving him a stadium to build We already have one of those that doesn't work properly, why would we allow someone involved in constructing Wemberley to put in a second defective one? Sorry, I was referring to our current scoreboard which was late and defective but my attempts at irony don’t always come across as intended
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 12, 2021 7:17:51 GMT
Well that is how his leadership has been perceived by many. As chairman of the SC he should be able to control those under him and not succumb to the influence of others no matter how long you have known them. It seems to have started right from the takeover because we didn’t get an open top bus for finishing 3rd in the league and relations have deteriorated from there. I honestly don't know what Jim's issue was surrounding that promotion, if it was that Wael barged to the front and appeared to want to take credit for a promotion which was pretty much signed, sealed and delivered by the outgoing regime, and as far as I can recall, Wael didn't say much about Higgs in the immediate aftermath of the Daggers game, then, in all honesty, Jim may well have a point. To the other point, obviously I'm failing to get this across to you. SC policy and decision making doesn't reflect the opinion of just one person. If you go into the SC thinking you are going to impose your will and opinion onto everybody then prepare for resistance, in exactly the same way as you would meet resistance in any other club or organisation. It's beginning to feel as if I need to explain to you that politics is about getting people to see the merit of your ideas and then getting them sufficiently motivated to be willing to assist with implementation. It's not about dictating terms. But I'm sure that doesn't need saying. I’m aware the decision making isn’t down to one person and there must be a collective decision to go forward but you would like to think that good decisions can come from a multitude of bright people who also know what is right. The club shouldn’t be political in dynamic, you shouldn’t have to curry favour or peer pressure anyone to lead someone down a path, perhaps they don’t want to go down when the beneficiaries of that decision are only those individuals involved. When making decisions the execs view should be 1. What’s the benefit to the FC? 2. What’s the benefit to the SC? 3. What’s the benefit to the wider fanbase? 4. How can the SC help and work with the FC to achieve it? Anything else or involving anyone else proves that you’re not focused on the FC but on themselves. Whoever thought it was a good idea to release inaccurate statements regarding directors liabilities when serving on the board of the football club? I mean, someone with half a bit of common sense must stick their hand up and say, this is a really bad idea lads and this is why. But it seems a bit of a Hot Fuzz community where everyone is brainwashed into making any decision good or otherwise “for the greater good”.
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,295
|
Post by trymer on Sept 12, 2021 8:06:12 GMT
I honestly don't know what Jim's issue was surrounding that promotion, if it was that Wael barged to the front and appeared to want to take credit for a promotion which was pretty much signed, sealed and delivered by the outgoing regime, and as far as I can recall, Wael didn't say much about Higgs in the immediate aftermath of the Daggers game, then, in all honesty, Jim may well have a point. To the other point, obviously I'm failing to get this across to you. SC policy and decision making doesn't reflect the opinion of just one person. If you go into the SC thinking you are going to impose your will and opinion onto everybody then prepare for resistance, in exactly the same way as you would meet resistance in any other club or organisation. It's beginning to feel as if I need to explain to you that politics is about getting people to see the merit of your ideas and then getting them sufficiently motivated to be willing to assist with implementation. It's not about dictating terms. But I'm sure that doesn't need saying. I’m aware the decision making isn’t down to one person and there must be a collective decision to go forward but you would like to think that good decisions can come from a multitude of bright people who also know what is right. The club shouldn’t be political in dynamic, you shouldn’t have to curry favour or peer pressure anyone to lead someone down a path, perhaps they don’t want to go down when the beneficiaries of that decision are only those individuals involved. When making decisions the execs view should be 1. What’s the benefit to the FC? 2. What’s the benefit to the SC? 3. What’s the benefit to the wider fanbase? 4. How can the SC help and work with the FC to achieve it? Anything else or involving anyone else proves that you’re not focused on the FC but on themselves. Whoever thought it was a good idea to release inaccurate statements regarding directors liabilities when serving on the board of the football club? I mean, someone with half a bit of common sense must stick their hand up and say, this is a really bad idea lads and this is why. But it seems a bit of a Hot Fuzz community where everyone is brainwashed into making any decision good or otherwise “for the greater good”. You have mentioned these grooming allegations several times,what actually happened ? You say that Hamer was involved in reporting allegations to the Police,if he thought that there was a problem surely he was right to do that ? is this why he was sacked ? Did the Police investigate ? if these allegations were malicious then surely the complainant could be in trouble for vexatious complaint ? How were the supporters club involved in this ? and why havent they made a statement ?
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,499
|
Post by eppinggas on Sept 12, 2021 8:23:17 GMT
I’m aware the decision making isn’t down to one person and there must be a collective decision to go forward but you would like to think that good decisions can come from a multitude of bright people who also know what is right. The club shouldn’t be political in dynamic, you shouldn’t have to curry favour or peer pressure anyone to lead someone down a path, perhaps they don’t want to go down when the beneficiaries of that decision are only those individuals involved. When making decisions the execs view should be 1. What’s the benefit to the FC? 2. What’s the benefit to the SC? 3. What’s the benefit to the wider fanbase? 4. How can the SC help and work with the FC to achieve it? Anything else or involving anyone else proves that you’re not focused on the FC but on themselves. Whoever thought it was a good idea to release inaccurate statements regarding directors liabilities when serving on the board of the football club? I mean, someone with half a bit of common sense must stick their hand up and say, this is a really bad idea lads and this is why. But it seems a bit of a Hot Fuzz community where everyone is brainwashed into making any decision good or otherwise “for the greater good”.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 12, 2021 8:25:19 GMT
I’m aware the decision making isn’t down to one person and there must be a collective decision to go forward but you would like to think that good decisions can come from a multitude of bright people who also know what is right. The club shouldn’t be political in dynamic, you shouldn’t have to curry favour or peer pressure anyone to lead someone down a path, perhaps they don’t want to go down when the beneficiaries of that decision are only those individuals involved. When making decisions the execs view should be 1. What’s the benefit to the FC? 2. What’s the benefit to the SC? 3. What’s the benefit to the wider fanbase? 4. How can the SC help and work with the FC to achieve it? Anything else or involving anyone else proves that you’re not focused on the FC but on themselves. Whoever thought it was a good idea to release inaccurate statements regarding directors liabilities when serving on the board of the football club? I mean, someone with half a bit of common sense must stick their hand up and say, this is a really bad idea lads and this is why. But it seems a bit of a Hot Fuzz community where everyone is brainwashed into making any decision good or otherwise “for the greater good”.
|
|
gasprom
Joined: January 2016
Posts: 335
|
Post by gasprom on Sept 12, 2021 8:33:30 GMT
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,697
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 12, 2021 8:35:37 GMT
To be fair, Wembley was a massive project involving a huge number of people, and there were significant issues. It was late being completed, the sewers collapsed, the site was evacuated when a steel rafter supporting the roof fell down, of course it went over budget, and how many times was the pitch laid before they got it right, I think it was 10 times. So maybe when someone next comes knocking using having been involved in that thing as a selling point on their CV we should treat them with a little bit of suspicion? Wembley £800mln vs Millennium [now Principality] £121mln Built inner city by a river and a great stadium with a fully closing roof Wael obviously spoke to the wrong people.... Wimbledon's cost £30+mln for a 9,000 capacity I think. Costs are rising while construction is buzzing with a growing labour shortage and steel prices rocketing significantly since mid 2020. Better get a move on.....
|
|
|
Post by a more piratey game on Sept 12, 2021 8:37:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 12, 2021 8:38:12 GMT
|
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,295
|
Post by trymer on Sept 12, 2021 8:38:14 GMT
|
|
bondigas
Joined: December 2017
Posts: 393
|
Post by bondigas on Sept 12, 2021 9:24:17 GMT
Surely you don't involve the police or the FA if it is a malicious accusation, there must be some foundation in the allegation. These are mature people, not 5th formers playing a prank. Crewe paid a heavy price for ignoring signs of this nature as did the BBC.
|
|
|
Post by irenestoyboy on Sept 12, 2021 9:33:24 GMT
.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2021 9:47:40 GMT
I honestly don't know what Jim's issue was surrounding that promotion, if it was that Wael barged to the front and appeared to want to take credit for a promotion which was pretty much signed, sealed and delivered by the outgoing regime, and as far as I can recall, Wael didn't say much about Higgs in the immediate aftermath of the Daggers game, then, in all honesty, Jim may well have a point. To the other point, obviously I'm failing to get this across to you. SC policy and decision making doesn't reflect the opinion of just one person. If you go into the SC thinking you are going to impose your will and opinion onto everybody then prepare for resistance, in exactly the same way as you would meet resistance in any other club or organisation. It's beginning to feel as if I need to explain to you that politics is about getting people to see the merit of your ideas and then getting them sufficiently motivated to be willing to assist with implementation. It's not about dictating terms. But I'm sure that doesn't need saying. I’m aware the decision making isn’t down to one person and there must be a collective decision to go forward but you would like to think that good decisions can come from a multitude of bright people who also know what is right. The club shouldn’t be political in dynamic, you shouldn’t have to curry favour or peer pressure anyone to lead someone down a path, perhaps they don’t want to go down when the beneficiaries of that decision are only those individuals involved. When making decisions the execs view should be 1. What’s the benefit to the FC? 2. What’s the benefit to the SC? 3. What’s the benefit to the wider fanbase? 4. How can the SC help and work with the FC to achieve it? Anything else or involving anyone else proves that you’re not focused on the FC but on themselves. Whoever thought it was a good idea to release inaccurate statements regarding directors liabilities when serving on the board of the football club? I mean, someone with half a bit of common sense must stick their hand up and say, this is a really bad idea lads and this is why. But it seems a bit of a Hot Fuzz community where everyone is brainwashed into making any decision good or otherwise “for the greater good”.
|
|