I know from my own experience of both drafting documents myself or reading the efforts of others for committees or work that it is very easy to pick holes in style.
It is a given that everybody expresses things differently so with something like this you look at CONTENT and whether the fundamental points of concern are covered in a reasonable but firm way.
The reps had to try and encompass all the fans views which, given that we seem to find it hard to agree on anything, was a very difficult task. I think they have achieved that aim and deserve a big thank you for what has obviously been a lot of hard work for those concerned. The timing was always going to be difficult given the nature of last night's match. But it had to done before the AGM. Shareholders of any company's AGM send shots across the bows just prior to AGM's. It can unsettle directors and force them away from the usual rehearsed company sound bites. In my opinion, that is precisely what was needed here.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]The reps had to try and encompass all the fans views which, given that we seem to find it hard to agree on anything, was a very difficult task. I think they have achieved that aim and deserve a big thank you for what has obviously been a lot of hard work for those concerned. The timing was always going to be difficult given the nature of last night's match. But it had to done before the AGM. Shareholders of any company's AGM send shots across the bows just prior to AGM's. It can unsettle directors and force them away from the usual rehearsed company sound bites. In my opinion, that is precisely what was needed here.
Good point and you're quite right of course, their job is to represent the fan-base and not to just put forward their own agenda's.
Interesting document, well done to those involved for working hard on it.
That said I agree with those who consider it a little bit naive and pompous aggresive in parts.
PS I don't like being told categorically what my opinions must be eg. "Fans do not understand the managerial appointment of and persistence with Phil Parkinson". Actually I do. Perhaps some qualification would help in future. eg. "Many fans do not agree ...."
We would never be so presumptious as to tell you what your opinion is. The document generalises, as inevitably it must, and the view that you have expressed about Parkinson is definitely in the minority (although last night's result may have begun to sway a few doubters). We do not assume that the entire body of fans shares identical views so, in the example you cite, your individual view is not being expressed. However, we believe that we have captured the tone of the majority. Evidence so far on this thread would support that, but we recognise the difference which you have expressed.
Also, as I suggested earlier on this thread, if the document comes over as naive, then maybe that indicates that fans need educating. 'Pompous' and 'aggressive' are subjective terms too. Again, we have tried to reflect the majority.
From the (general) responses so far, it feels like we have managed to do that to a reasonable extent.
I am certainly in the minority, I know that! It is a good starting point for discussions with the board, don't expect them to publicise details of the search for new investors though.
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]Interesting document, well done to those involved for working hard on it.
That said I agree with those who consider it naive, a little bit pompous and aggresive.
In particular I don't like being categorically told what my opinions are eg. "Fans do not understand the managerial appointment of and persistence with Phil". Well personally I fully understand and support both.
The board had a succession plan in place, Parky is a strong character and (I hope) will be proved to be a good manager. In my opinion, the players are to blame for what has happened this season and I don't believe any other realistic appointment (now or then) would represent a significantly better prospect. The players still liked and believed in Pardew so a bounce effect (such as when Spurs sacked Ramos) was not likely. There's no money to spend, whoever is in charge would face the same difficulties in beefing up a group of players lacking in backbone and character.
So in effect it is still an opinion. There are no facts to back up this opinion (or mine). Thus in the truest sense of the word, there is no 'understanding' as there is no knowledge of the real situation.
agreed off-it we need to start somewhere and although we may not all agree how the points have been put across,we do need to let them know that as a forum we what and expect involvement and meaningful dialogue with the powers that be.
There is an update on timings in two other threads:
1) On 606 - RUMOUR re Parky staying come what may. This needs answering
2) Fans Forum letter to board
Here is a cut-and-paste from the first thread:
We would expect a lot of what is being discussed in this thread to be addressed when the Club responds to last week's formal communication from the Fans' Forum representatives. For those who haven't seen it, we have called for a 'Statement of Intent' from the Club, designed to ensure clarity in and communication of the way in which a number of key strategic issues are being dealt with (relegation, administration, financial security etc).
We expect a fairly detailed and well-considered response (not simple one-liners), so we felt it appropriate to give the Board sufficient time to do that. We are currently trying to arrange the next meeting of the Fans' Forum with the Club with the response as the main (only?) agenda item and this is likely to happen during the w/b 23rd Feb, depending on Richard Murray's availability.
[cite]Posted By: Dave Rudd[/cite]
1) On 606 - RUMOUR re Parky staying come what may. This needs answering
But they can't answer that, and in fairness, have no right to answer that IMO.
By stating publicly either Parky is here till the summer, or what is the other option, that he is given the next 4 games ?, gains nothing from publicly stating, and if anything would create a rod for their own back.
Everyone knows my views on the Parkinson decision, but that to me is an unrealistic question to demand a public answer to.
I was simply indicating the threads which contain the update on timings for the Board to respond to the Fans' Forum communication - not asking the question.
"On 606 - RUMOUR re Parky staying come what may. This needs answering" is the title of one of the threads.
A very well crafted set of questions to The Board.
Clearly they can't answer the Parkinson question without further damaging Parkinsons fragile position.
But they have to answer the other points and in so doing , make clear there is
some element of shared direction and clear policy.
This Board have to remember that despite some boos and a few protests most
supporters still offer their 'goodwill' to this Board at most other clubs there would have been far stronger criticisms and actions. This will not last forever and patience is running out.
Murray and Co. cannot hide behind the past achievements and accept the decline, without
giving an indication that they have a recovery plan.
Confirmation that the next meeting of the Fans' Forum and the Board is scheduled for Thursday 26th February. We are told that both Richard Murray and Derek Chappell will be in attendance. We expect discussion of our communication and the 'Statement of Intent' to form the main part of the agenda.
Comments
It is a given that everybody expresses things differently so with something like this you look at CONTENT and whether the fundamental points of concern are covered in a reasonable but firm way.
In my view this document meets those parameters.
Good point and you're quite right of course, their job is to represent the fan-base and not to just put forward their own agenda's.
That said I agree with those who consider it a little bit naive and pompous aggresive in parts.
PS I don't like being told categorically what my opinions must be eg. "Fans do not understand the managerial appointment of and persistence with Phil Parkinson". Actually I do. Perhaps some qualification would help in future. eg. "Many fans do not agree ...."
We would never be so presumptious as to tell you what your opinion is. The document generalises, as inevitably it must, and the view that you have expressed about Parkinson is definitely in the minority (although last night's result may have begun to sway a few doubters). We do not assume that the entire body of fans shares identical views so, in the example you cite, your individual view is not being expressed. However, we believe that we have captured the tone of the majority. Evidence so far on this thread would support that, but we recognise the difference which you have expressed.
Also, as I suggested earlier on this thread, if the document comes over as naive, then maybe that indicates that fans need educating. 'Pompous' and 'aggressive' are subjective terms too. Again, we have tried to reflect the majority.
From the (general) responses so far, it feels like we have managed to do that to a reasonable extent.
It is a good starting point for discussions with the board, don't expect them to publicise details of the search for new investors though.
Would you mind explaining them to me please?
1) On 606 - RUMOUR re Parky staying come what may. This needs answering
2) Fans Forum letter to board
Here is a cut-and-paste from the first thread:
We would expect a lot of what is being discussed in this thread to be addressed when the Club responds to last week's formal communication from the Fans' Forum representatives. For those who haven't seen it, we have called for a 'Statement of Intent' from the Club, designed to ensure clarity in and communication of the way in which a number of key strategic issues are being dealt with (relegation, administration, financial security etc).
We expect a fairly detailed and well-considered response (not simple one-liners), so we felt it appropriate to give the Board sufficient time to do that. We are currently trying to arrange the next meeting of the Fans' Forum with the Club with the response as the main (only?) agenda item and this is likely to happen during the w/b 23rd Feb, depending on Richard Murray's availability.
But they can't answer that, and in fairness, have no right to answer that IMO.
By stating publicly either Parky is here till the summer, or what is the other option, that he is given the next 4 games ?, gains nothing from publicly stating, and if anything would create a rod for their own back.
Everyone knows my views on the Parkinson decision, but that to me is an unrealistic question to demand a public answer to.
I was simply indicating the threads which contain the update on timings for the Board to respond to the Fans' Forum communication - not asking the question.
"On 606 - RUMOUR re Parky staying come what may. This needs answering" is the title of one of the threads.
i'll dismount from my high horse now !
;-)
No he's always looked like that ........
Clearly they can't answer the Parkinson question without further damaging Parkinsons fragile position.
But they have to answer the other points and in so doing , make clear there is
some element of shared direction and clear policy.
This Board have to remember that despite some boos and a few protests most
supporters still offer their 'goodwill' to this Board at most other clubs there would have been far stronger criticisms and actions. This will not last forever and patience is running out.
Murray and Co. cannot hide behind the past achievements and accept the decline, without
giving an indication that they have a recovery plan.