|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 18:22:52 GMT
I thought that was probably the point you were making. It's not for me to think whether anyone on here would or would not. Just thought it was worth pointing out to anyone who might be thinking about it that there's no quick route to getting anything changed, despite what Padstow might say. (Probably also worth mentioning that, unless things have changed in recent years, joining now does not gain entry to this year's AGM as that will relate to the season just gone.) Interesting Angas that none of this hot air blowing about the SC would have arisen if JC had not had his fit of pique. Hence all of the criticism of JC and the calls for the BRSC critics to go and do the work of the SC themselves is self inflicted. So it goes back to the question asked by another poster ~ what is the real motivation behind JC's criticism of the Board and sudden support of Nicholas? I'll take that up then Cheshire. The obvious conclusion to your point is that no-one had any problem with how BRSC was run before Jim's missives, I mean no-one was talking about it were they?. Strange now how those same people who weren't talking about BRSC now believe it should have a complete roots and all overall (which I don't necessarialy disagree with). So as usual complete apathy by everyone until Jim opened his mouth. A pity that so many care so little don't you agree Terry? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 16:44:23 GMT
Nope - I disagree. We are not going to looking at Relegation battles. (you heard it here) Mid table mediocrity is not decided until the last month because of playoffs. The clubs in L1, on the whole, have larger crowds than in L2. I wont hear another word on the subject. I love your optimism. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 16:15:46 GMT
But we have some bigger clubs coming to the mem, we have just had a double promotion and have momentum; there is a real feel good factor. I guess that is why we did sell out twice! We are going to get bigger crowds and I would have thought the board would do everything they could to test the potential of attendance in L1. We'll get bigger crowds if we're doing well. Let's not kid ourselves that if it's midtable mediocrity (which I'll happily take now) or a relegation battle that we'll still be getting the crowds we saw at the end of the season. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 12:44:22 GMT
If that isn't a sign of intent from Wael and the BoD then what will satisfy the snipers, not only will DC become the best paid manager at the club in it's history but he will also be given a fantastic budget to work with to realise his ambitions as a manager to manage as far up the FL as possible, onwards and upwards, great new, keeps the momentum going IMO. Hopefully they'll up there offer to Billy Bodin to stop him going to Gillingham |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 12:15:49 GMT
CGH: "I'll stand by the view that if that is instigated by the board then any vestige of independence is dead". The only people who can instigate fundamental change is the New Board. They own 92% of the Club and they can do what they like. Until proved otherwise I'll give them 100% support. Your assertion that "any vestige of independence is dead" - is indeed just your opinion. Only time will tell if you are right or wrong. I don't see the Board instigating change and an SC being truly independent are mutually exclusive. We can agree to differ. We're not talking about change in the club, it's their business to do what they want with, we're talking about BRSC which is an entirely separate entity to the club. If the board order changes there now, in personnel or how it operates, then they can do that again in the future ergo the board dictates to BRSC. Anyone involved on change knows you will get a better outcome if you encourage & nurture change than if you dictate change. Now if people are happy that the board runs everything to do with Bristol Rovers then fine but don't pretend they can run everything but somehow some parts can be independent. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 11:53:10 GMT
No idea why you have posted that on this forum angas!! Prompted by your comment above. Unless the SC or the FC instigate change, we will almost certainly be having this conversation in a year's time. You obviously have more, misguided, faith than I do that anyone on this forum would put themselves forward. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 11:35:22 GMT
In terms of SC members driving change, probably worth noting that according to the current constitution:- If anyone wants to stand for a position on the SC committee they have until 30th June to put themselves forward. Only those who were members for the season just gone are eligible. As things stand, anyone joining for the coming season would have to wait a year before being entitled to input of any sort. No idea why you have posted that on this forum angas!! |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 11:34:19 GMT
Wouldn't disagree with your definition of 'hyoocrisy' but I suppose the follow on question is who should decide if the 'old guard' goes? The members or the board (in which case there is no independence)? I think we will get to agreement eventually :-) The New Board needs to decide (quite possibly as we speak) who needs to stay and who needs to go from BRFC SC. In an ideal world (yes, I know) - a fair and open process begins where a new structure is put in place and largely new personnel is installed. The previous constitution needs to be ripped up. Effectively the SC role changed irrevocably on Feb 19th. What will the new "mission statement" be? To be decided. Will anyone with fresh blood come in? I would like to think that all previously disenfranchised fans, existing SC members, splinter groups, and previously banned people will now have a chance to give their input. I think we need to give the new Board at least 6 months to put things in place and in the meantime STOP THE SNIPING. After 6 months if we don't like it - they will know. In the words of The Farm "Altogether now". UTG. I guess we are only disagreeing about who should control change not that change would be a good thing. Though I'll stand by the view that if that is instigated by the board then any vestige of independence is dead. However at present I hope the board is more concerned with making sure DC signs the contract he has agreed and pressing ahead with helping him to assemble a squad for next season. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 11:07:43 GMT
So your view is that BRSC shouldn't be independent of the board and they should correctly cosy up to the board, as they did with the old board? And that's not a trick question just trying to clarify what members of this forum think should happen. It's seems many on here didnt like/agree with BRSC interaction with the old board as it was just a 'Yes' relationship but now seem to be advocating that BRSC dances to the new boards tune. Seems to me to be a very hypocritical stance. Personally think it's time that the SC clarified it's position on whether it's there to be an extension of the club or if it's a stand alone entity that is their to convey supporters interests and concerns. They also need to change their own election procedures to make it more encompassing of its members, have a set time limit on presidency and terms. The standing should be open to all members regardless of whether they are on the executive committee or not, volunteers or not. As long as people have a clear guideline on what is expected of them I see no such need for exclusivity. Wouldn't disagree with any of that but it all needs to be driven by the members. I don't see that there are enough proactive members (and therein is the problem) to make that happen so those people running BRSC (the old guard as epping has called them) will likely carry on as they are. Thus without the input of people who want change (many, maybe the majority of posters on this thread) change won't happen and we can all have this debate again in 6 months or a year's time etc. I can anticipate some of what will come my way so just to clear my position I have deliberately not criticised the running of BRSC as I won't criticise anyone doing a job I wouldn't be willing to do myself, and I'm not willing to do the job of running BRSC. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 10:58:59 GMT
So your view is that BRSC shouldn't be independent of the board and they should correctly cosy up to the board, as they did with the old board? And that's not a trick question just trying to clarify what members of this forum think should happen. It's seems many on here didnt like/agree with BRSC interaction with the old board as it was just a 'Yes' relationship but now seem to be advocating that BRSC dances to the new boards tune. Seems to me to be a very hypocritical stance. My definition of hypocrisy: Jim Chappel cosying up to and never critisizing the TOTALLY DISCREDITED old Board, but now strangely enough finally finding a voice and deciding to take swipes at the new Board. Just when we have genuine success, a feeling of togetherness (wow - that lasted a long time) and a relatively stable, debt-free football club. I hope when we are rid of the ineffectual 'old guard' of Higgs accolytes in the SC - that the new representation will BE INDEPENDENT, reflect ALL fans views and have the balls to stand up and have their say when/if the new Board steps out of line. Before we can get to that point - we need to rid ourselves of the residual old Board support. They are not fit for purpose. My stance is therefore not hypocrtitical. Wouldn't disagree with your definition of 'hyoocrisy' but I suppose the follow on question is who should decide if the 'old guard' goes? The members or the board (in which case there is no independence)? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 9:47:44 GMT
Well if you believe the public statements of BSS it appears that they were wasting their time under the previous board. Then we have Gasincider on the other forum claiming they have been frozen out again. Time for the pair of them to grow a pair if that is the case and say so if they aren't getting anywhere. You were there at the FC AGM when I asked a question about their future role. I've never publicly criticised them but where do they stand on Jim's utterances? Very good point. The old BSS 'excuse' was "better to have representation and some access to the Board, than resign and have none". Fair enough. Right now BSS (and I presume KM) need to publicly distance themselves from JC. It might even be too late for that. If the new owners also see them as "part of the problem and not the part of the solution" - they will be toast as well. A big broom is going to sweep through the SC if people don't align themselves with Steve Hamer and the new regime. Good. So your view is that BRSC shouldn't be independent of the board and they should correctly cosy up to the board, as they did with the old board? And that's not a trick question just trying to clarify what members of this forum think should happen. It's seems many on here didnt like/agree with BRSC interaction with the old board as it was just a 'Yes' relationship but now seem to be advocating that BRSC dances to the new boards tune. Seems to me to be a very hypocritical stance. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 27, 2016 7:06:06 GMT
Think one of the biggest concerns now is time. We're at the end of May with very few players signed up (not that I believe we should be retaining all of them but most I certainly would) and we will lose some more of the close season either to DC's stag do and wedding or on looking for a new manager. So I think it's imperative that the board push for an early resolution to the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 26, 2016 13:07:37 GMT
You've spoken to all of the other EC members to confirm this, or is it just an assumption presented as fact? In fairness to CGH, I led him along that path based on my memories. If no-one gets round to it before, I may have a look back later to see if I can find any detail on who has stood against JC over the years. Didn't really lead me anywhere Angas, though I appreciate you saying that, whilst I've only been a member of BRSC for one season recently it isn't hard to follow and see that Jim has a free run at the gig every year. Now if he goes we (or brsc) will have to hope there is someone who wants the job but out of politeness hasn't stood against Jim. Or perhaps BRSC is just allowed to die. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 26, 2016 10:52:22 GMT
So it seems like it's me and you who realises that no-one apart from Jim (maybe reluctantly) wants the job, it's almost reminiscent of the old calls to sack the board. Still if as some seem to think that this is Steve Hamer calling for Jim to resign then there goes any chance of BRSC being an independent organisation. And there was me thinking that one of the common gripes through this thread was that BRSC had been to cosy with the old board. Still a time for change and time for people who don't like how BRSC is run to step forward and build the organisation in their own image. I expect Jim to be reelected unopposed, again. If the SC continues as it is, then I agree with you. The 'old guard' committee members will stand behind their man and it will be business as usual. I would like to see the SC executive committee hold a meeting to discuss where they go from here. Followed by an open meeting inviting supporters to get involved, join up and stand for election. Many years back, some members worked long and hard to modernise the SC constitution as it then stood. I would like to think there are people out there who could and would do the same again, but this time taking into account the very different position the FC now appears to be in and pretty much starting from scratch. There are many talented and skilled supporters among the fan base. This is the ideal time for them to come forward with fresh new ideas which they are able and willing to put into action and carry forward. Having read Jim's thoughts this week, if I were an SC member my reaction would be to write to him requesting that a general meeting be set up sooner rather than later giving anyone who wishes to the chance to air their views on the way forward for the SC. Jim has spoken for himself, he now should give supporters the opportunity to speak for themselves. Can't disagree with most of that. Be interesting if any BRSC members request a general meeting, it will entail a level of involvement that no-one on this thread has so far shown. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 26, 2016 10:49:09 GMT
So it seems like it's me and you who realises that no-one apart from Jim (maybe reluctantly) wants the job, it's almost reminiscent of the old calls to sack the board. Still if as some seem to think that this is Steve Hamer calling for Jim to resign then there goes any chance of BRSC being an independent organisation. And there was me thinking that one of the common gripes through this thread was that BRSC had been to cosy with the old board. Still a time for change and time for people who don't like how BRSC is run to step forward and build the organisation in their own image. I expect Jim to be reelected unopposed, again. You've spoken to all of the other EC members to confirm this, or is it just an assumption presented as fact? Nope I'm going on the basis that none of them seem to have challenged Jim for the job. Of course you've been assuming all through this thread that as Jim hasn't spoken to you he hasn't spoken to any unwashed supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 26, 2016 7:02:22 GMT
So is who going to do the job of BRSC Chairman? A good question. Rules say it has to be someone who has served at least one year on the executive committee. Memory tells me that after stepping down once, due to ill health, he reluctantly took up the role again some time later because no-one else wanted to do it. Given that I believe that was several years ago and several re-elections later he is still in the chair, it seems to me that in recent times there has never been a great deal of enthusiasm from other EC members to take the job on. Adding Steve Hamer's response to JC's article into the mix, the case for a complete shake up of the SC seems stronger than ever imo. So it seems like it's me and you who realises that no-one apart from Jim (maybe reluctantly) wants the job, it's almost reminiscent of the old calls to sack the board. Still if as some seem to think that this is Steve Hamer calling for Jim to resign then there goes any chance of BRSC being an independent organisation. And there was me thinking that one of the common gripes through this thread was that BRSC had been to cosy with the old board. Still a time for change and time for people who don't like how BRSC is run to step forward and build the organisation in their own image. I expect Jim to be reelected unopposed, again. |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 25, 2016 21:11:33 GMT
Jim has just been told that it would be best, for the relationship between the SC and the FC if he resigned. Wonder if he'll understand? So is who going to do the job of BRSC Chairman? |
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on May 25, 2016 16:37:01 GMT
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. Just stick with the apathy. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
