Ok, I never had a second term as supporters director. I was offered one but declined as I felt that was wrong as I was only elected for one two year term. So you are totally wrong there. Wendy and Sue did take unelected 2nd terms, I never did. As one person I can't suffer from Groupthink. Be wrong, yes and I often was but my mistakes were all my own. Ancient history and not really relevant now but you raised the SD role. I rarely think about it now other than on the day we remember those fans who died in the previous year as that was something I did while in the role. And that took over a year to convince the other board members (and Alan Pardew) that is was a good idea. Just an example that things sometimes take a long time to achieve but you have to keep going.
When the SD role was abolished by the board, despite protest and argument by me and a few others, I proposed an alternative of a Fans Forum. The FF is still going and is in many ways stronger and better than a SD.
It is more than one person so a more diverse range of views.
The members are not directors so unlike the SD they are not constrained by the legal obligations of a company director. Mainly this was that no matter what view was taken in board meetings etc or arguments made once a decision was made there is a rule of collective responsibility. Very frustrating sometimes but that was the trade off between access and influence at board level (and it was only FC board not the PLC which was another limitation) and what could be said in public.
The FF is independent. The SD could never be fully independent for those reasons and because it was in the gift of the Club, not a right as it had been in the early days of the VIP scheme.
So the trade off was FF as a bigger and more diverse group versus losing the influence directly at board level. In reality there was no choice as the PLC board wanted to sell the Club and saw the SD as a possible impediment to that. I disagreed but there you go. I can't win every argument but there was an argument, there were papers submitted and minutes written that I still have somewhere in the loft. Maybe I should give them to the Museum.
As you are a member of the Fans Forum you know how well it works and its limitations. It is not ideal but it gives a large group of representatives of many fans direct access to club staff and directors on a regular basis. It now also runs the Player of the year do and the Back to the Valley dinner. Personally i think the Club is missing a trick in not making better use of it as a sounding board and means of communicating with the fan base (something I told the communication consultant who I understand will be at the meeting tomorrow).
So I'm quite happy that we now have the Fans Forum. I'm not a member but there are plenty of good people on it.
In an ideal world the fans via a Trust would have shares in the Club and so have a director or directors with real clout. But we don't. Yet.
That is why it is important that the Trust grow and thrive and why I have supported this effort to start one from the very early days. I said when there was an attempt to start a trust the summer after we went down to League 1 that I would arrange a meeting, get supporters Direct along, chair the meeting etc etc but I didn't feel I was the best or right person to lead the Trust or be a board member. I have constantly said the same thing to you and to Kevin/SR when you have constantly asked me to join the Trust board.
You say that 90% of my "sniping" is based on incorrect speculation but it is not. It is based on what you and other board members have told me and interactions we have had. You may see letting the board edit your articles as OK, I don't but it was you and the other board members who told me it happened and have confirmed it on this very thread.
The shame here is that some of you are allowing your groupthink to stop you reflecting on what you do? Rather than looking at what happened, and it did happen, with allowing the Club to edit the article and saying "OK, we got that wrong, how do we do it better next time, how can we avoid that trap?" you are convincing each other that nothing happened, it's all OK and we can ignore Ben and his comments as he is not one of us, he's a "sniper" so rather than face the uncomfortable truth you dismiss the outsider.
Right, work to do and as others have said this needs time to cool off. The personal attacks from you, Kevin and Prague weren't needed, i don't like them but I will survive and I'm not going to say the Trust is a bad idea just because some of the people running it have made mistakes
can someone put up pics of the 3 please. I know what slater looks like, thought I did TJ but then was confused and have no idea on MP. Would be helpful
I think the FF is a good thing the reasons you mention, but it is also a gift of the club, and does not have that vital access to the Board.
My point about the SD is an example of how you were given the benefit of the doubt, and how bullshit negativity can twist things if you want them to.
The shame Ben is that you have allowed a personal agenda to dictate your approach, your comments are deeply personal dressed up in management speak bullshit, and a deep insult to our group.
Barnie - We are constantly amazed by the amount of time and energy you are prepared to commit to the Trust. You have enduring respect both for your hard work and vision.
We are trying to be a critical friend of the club. We need to allow Henry to be a critical friend of the Trust.
I fully support The Trust, and I think its officers are doing a bloody good job. But I'm not sure why people are taking Henry's contribution so badly. It looks as though his points are just being written off as a load of cantankerous mischief. It seems to me though that he's offering valid criticism, the sort of which is unlikely to be unearthed with any number of surveys.
I know it's an extremely fine line between working with the club's ownership and battling against them and that you don't wan't to make enemies of people that you'll be asking favours of. But I think that when someone has given you a very coherent and logical explanation of their criticism, it would pay dividends to listen rather than to have a pop at something they did (or didn't do) in the past.
I agree fully with stonemuse.
Hi Stig Your support for the Trust is well known and your graphics were an inspiration at the start as we moved from 100 to 200 members and kept going all the way to May when we were able to print and distribute 5,000 copies of Trust News which included stories on the club losing £7M...a number which turned out to be accurate apart from the additional bonusses received due to Palace and Cardiff getting promoted. Henry is winding people up by using words like "club veto" and "club edit trust article"which is an extremely loaded statement. He either doesn't know the meaning of the word "veto" or is being deliberately provocative in its use. If you look at his posts for the last month he has spent time attacking the management team of the club and the Trust...no balance, no respect for people putting a shift in... I could go on but this is not about Henry... It is far more important ... about the direction of the club and how a Trust with nearly 1,000 members and 4,000 fan contacts has been built in less than a year. This didn't happen because we spent weeks choosing what size rock to throw at the club we support... this thread started as one about board watching and has now become one about Trust board watching - an interesting shift! Unlike the club board the Trust has a fully accountable structure and even had an AGM just last week where we announced a tie up with Valley Gold - something that has taken 6 months to bring to the table. Several meetings, a couple of delays etc etc but we are in this for the long haul SR
I also notice not one comment from Ben about yesterdays potentially very serious news that the council prevaricating on ACV, we know exactly where his priorities are - putting the boot in on the trust.
But no comments from any of the other 5000+ CL members either.
So why did you pick on me only? No comments from the other Trust members and Trust board members either? No comment from the many people who say that would stop going if we left the Valley. So why is it only me who has to comment to prove that I care. I signed the petition, I think ACV is the best thing the Trust has done so far. Maybe it would have helped if you said that that was what the link was about.
Seems like you are looking for reasons to put the boot in on me.
Pico is spot on and he is a Trust Board member but even his contribution is dismissed.
Seth, AFKA and others many thanks for your perspective on this...we should continue with delivery of Trust activity as we have done for the last 12 months. The Trust didn't get to 4,000 fan contacts by accident and it needs time and effort to continue at this rate. We can only take it as a complement that some wish to comment on Trust activity. SR
Its an example Ben of how you only focus on your personal campaign of negativity against the Trust (and you live on here) to the exclusion of all else
OK, you're just being silly now. No one posts on your ACV thread and that is my fault and part of a personal campaign against you and the Trust. Really?
Remember I didn't raise the Trust issue on this thread, Prague did.
You'll notice that there is another auction thread that I started. Nothing to do with the trust. I also commented on the Smoking thread, nothing to do with the trust.
Going to leave it now as it is just silly and whatever I do or say you will say that I'm out to get you.
I have mental pictures of CAFC directors rubbing their hands in glee. Divide and rule boys, divide and rule. I wouldn't want to lose Henry's contributions, and yes he can be provocative but that is his how he is with everyone and despite his somewhat robust challenging style, his ability to see untruths and tease out arguments is invaluable. He has no-one to answer to but himself, he is not standing for an organisation and that allows him a great deal of freedom. I disagree that he has spent a lot of time attacking the Trust, but that is just my opinion. He has asked questions which I and others find valid, others find the questions over critical and unfair.
The Trust's work is also invaluable and the amount of hard work put in by many individuals is to be applauded and acknowledged by everyone. It does have to tread a fine line with many people to answer to and I think we are all capable of understanding that. The degree to which people trust the board varies considerably and that does make life much more difficult for the Trust. Those that feel antipathy to the board will obviously be suspicious that the board is trying to control what the Trust says. Those who support the board will be much more inclined to accept that the board has a right to manage information that goes out to CAFC supporters.
It is about perceptions, viewing things through one's own personal belief filters. When the arguments become personal, it is time to draw breath and stand back. Or, if the testosterone compels that you hit the 'post comment' button, perhaps it is best argued out in private, or ideally face to face? No-one is doing themselves any favours at the mo. and I want you all to be around for a long time.
Back in 1987, the supporters' club newsletter, later Valiants' Viewpoint, published an article that was critical of Peter Burrowes as press officer and some critical comments by Steve Dixon about the fact we were playing at Selhurst Park or suchlike.
This led to a row with the club and CASC agreeing that future issues would by read by a director for approval before publication. This was the trigger for Voice of The Valley. So there is nothing new in the world.
The Trust is trying to do a number of things and it may not be realistic to do all of them at once. I don't personally think its financial comments are anything that needs to come from the trust or add anything to what can and has been derived independently by others, despite the endless significance attached to them by the author(s).
To my knowledge every single supporters' director was asked to extend their term, because the board always feared (or couldn't be bothered with) having an election. I don't think it's fair to say that Wendy and Sue agreed - the club just dragged its feet as long as it could. I agree that the club's explanation for dropping the role was bullshit. It came down to the fact that some who had invested didn't see why fans who hadn't (in their terms) should have a seat on the board.
Way back when Harold Wilson famously stated that one man's pay increase was another man's price increase.
I can't help wondering whether or not one man's veto is another man's consultation.
Henry himself has rightly observed earlier on the thread the tightrope that is reflecting the views of the whole fan base.
I'm in no position to state whether the article in question was "vetoed" by the Board or "edited" as a constructive decision of the Trust and the Trust alone following consultation.
My opinion as someone who has paid his five quid and not a lot more? I "trust" the Trust but that said Henry has flagged up a valid potential danger for the future which needs consideration and I hope that everyone can move forward now.
'Defines "groupthink" as a psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision making groups.'
Henry do you really mean the above?
That semi trust activists like myself are suppressed in any way, and that alternatives are not/have not been considered all along the way? You use the phrase 'suffer from Groupthink' so to throw out the idea of groupthink is a bit of a put down would you not agree? Like we are tortured or brainwashed or something. Yet when it comes to collective activity with Fans Forums or board responsibility (with regard to confidential matters) you seem to recognise that a group dynamic is what is occurring. Collective action by Boards of directors, or groups of supporters is a reality, not an exercise in self brainwashing, not sinister, not something 'suffered', but the nature of the beast when people get together.
I fully accept your main point regarding independence, fully accept that.
I just think your reference to 'groupthink' is a bit of a snide put down, and as a supporter who has helped out with the trust, it is a snide put down of me as well as others.
I really shouldn't post so much, I am sweating the asset with little effect.
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
The question is, if the Trust proposes to publish an article commenting on the Clubs finances, is it a good tactic or not to show a draft to the Club first?
1. Trust News is not VOTV. Personally I welcome the return of VOTV and I welcome the publication of "that" article. However a number of people didn't like that article, and that includes people who are active supporters of the Trust. There is one important point about editorial policy here: VOTV is a polemic. Nothing wrong with that, but if the story was in the BBC or the FT, those guys would have sought a comment from the club before publishing. You hear it all the time: " we asked the club for a comment but non one was available..."
It's way too simplistic to argue that VOTV is (just) a polemic. For example, from 1991-1998 I had what I suggest was a much closer working relationship with Richard Murray and Martin Simons than the trust has or is likely to achieve in different times with the current board, in part because I was both writing for the Mercury and secretary of the supporters' club. I never ran articles past them, but I did write with the advantage of having access to them and in the context of relationships that existed.
I don't write now in a vacuum, but in the context of many friendships with people still inside the club as well as those on the periphery, because it is the board and senior management which is isolated, not those who have left.
In addition, VOTV has always been a platform for a diversity of views and still is now, despite the lazy or in some cases self-serving assumption that any view contained in it is mine. Nobody running the leak article in any publication would have been able to balance it. In the unlikely event Mark had published it in a neutral medium then he would simply have gone to the formality of getting the "no comment" response and adding it. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that article should have been published and little chance the trust would have done so, which goes back to my point that the trust cannot do everything at once.
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
precisely
I tried to put that sketch on here, but was a bit sweary....
If ever there was a thread that shows why supporters shouldn't be on a board of a football business it's this one.
I think it should be made clear that the Fans Forum Agenda consists of various items put forward by the members of the Fans Forum and that the Club then adds any further matters for discussion. The Agenda is co-ordinated by myself on behalf of the Fans Forum and I can honestly say that during my time of performing this task, the Club have never sought to prevent anything from being included.
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
Splitter!
Just hope that the Judean Popular Peoples Front don't get involved! Don't think there'll be enough popcorn for us if that mob get involved too!!
This thread makes depressing reading and explains why most supporters prefer football to politics. It's all a bit The People's Front of Judea versus the Judean People's Front, isn't it, chaps?
I totally agree and I've had enough of it.. we have enough difficulty dealing with a Board who largely aren't interested in the supporters, yet we've made some progress.. but get constant negative sniping from someone who should know better, its totally undermining. No one will step up and fight our corner if this is how they are treated, it goes way beyond constructive criticism.
Comments
When the SD role was abolished by the board, despite protest and argument by me and a few others, I proposed an alternative of a Fans Forum. The FF is still going and is in many ways stronger and better than a SD.
It is more than one person so a more diverse range of views.
The members are not directors so unlike the SD they are not constrained by the legal obligations of a company director. Mainly this was that no matter what view was taken in board meetings etc or arguments made once a decision was made there is a rule of collective responsibility. Very frustrating sometimes but that was the trade off between access and influence at board level (and it was only FC board not the PLC which was another limitation) and what could be said in public.
The FF is independent. The SD could never be fully independent for those reasons and because it was in the gift of the Club, not a right as it had been in the early days of the VIP scheme.
So the trade off was FF as a bigger and more diverse group versus losing the influence directly at board level. In reality there was no choice as the PLC board wanted to sell the Club and saw the SD as a possible impediment to that. I disagreed but there you go. I can't win every argument but there was an argument, there were papers submitted and minutes written that I still have somewhere in the loft. Maybe I should give them to the Museum.
As you are a member of the Fans Forum you know how well it works and its limitations. It is not ideal but it gives a large group of representatives of many fans direct access to club staff and directors on a regular basis. It now also runs the Player of the year do and the Back to the Valley dinner. Personally i think the Club is missing a trick in not making better use of it as a sounding board and means of communicating with the fan base (something I told the communication consultant who I understand will be at the meeting tomorrow).
So I'm quite happy that we now have the Fans Forum. I'm not a member but there are plenty of good people on it.
In an ideal world the fans via a Trust would have shares in the Club and so have a director or directors with real clout. But we don't. Yet.
That is why it is important that the Trust grow and thrive and why I have supported this effort to start one from the very early days. I said when there was an attempt to start a trust the summer after we went down to League 1 that I would arrange a meeting, get supporters Direct along, chair the meeting etc etc but I didn't feel I was the best or right person to lead the Trust or be a board member. I have constantly said the same thing to you and to Kevin/SR when you have constantly asked me to join the Trust board.
You say that 90% of my "sniping" is based on incorrect speculation but it is not. It is based on what you and other board members have told me and interactions we have had. You may see letting the board edit your articles as OK, I don't but it was you and the other board members who told me it happened and have confirmed it on this very thread.
The shame here is that some of you are allowing your groupthink to stop you reflecting on what you do? Rather than looking at what happened, and it did happen, with allowing the Club to edit the article and saying "OK, we got that wrong, how do we do it better next time, how can we avoid that trap?" you are convincing each other that nothing happened, it's all OK and we can ignore Ben and his comments as he is not one of us, he's a "sniper" so rather than face the uncomfortable truth you dismiss the outsider.
Right, work to do and as others have said this needs time to cool off. The personal attacks from you, Kevin and Prague weren't needed, i don't like them but I will survive and I'm not going to say the Trust is a bad idea just because some of the people running it have made mistakes
Would be helpful
My point about the SD is an example of how you were given the benefit of the doubt, and how bullshit negativity can twist things if you want them to.
The shame Ben is that you have allowed a personal agenda to dictate your approach, your comments are deeply personal dressed up in management speak bullshit, and a deep insult to our group.
We are trying to be a critical friend of the club. We need to allow Henry to be a critical friend of the Trust.
Your support for the Trust is well known and your graphics were an inspiration at the start as we moved from 100 to 200 members and kept going all the way to May when we were able to print and distribute 5,000 copies of Trust News which included stories on the club losing £7M...a number which turned out to be accurate apart from the additional bonusses received due to Palace and Cardiff getting promoted.
Henry is winding people up by using words like "club veto" and "club edit trust article"which is an extremely loaded statement. He either doesn't know the meaning of the word "veto" or is being deliberately provocative in its use. If you look at his posts for the last month he has spent time attacking the management team of the club and the Trust...no balance, no respect for people putting a shift in... I could go on but this is not about Henry...
It is far more important ... about the direction of the club and how a Trust with nearly 1,000 members and 4,000 fan contacts has been built in less than a year. This didn't happen because we spent weeks choosing what size rock to throw at the club we support... this thread started as one about board watching and has now become one about Trust board watching - an interesting shift! Unlike the club board the Trust has a fully accountable structure and even had an AGM just last week where we announced a tie up with Valley Gold - something that has taken 6 months to bring to the table. Several meetings, a couple of delays etc etc but we are in this for the long haul
SR
So why did you pick on me only? No comments from the other Trust members and Trust board members either? No comment from the many people who say that would stop going if we left the Valley. So why is it only me who has to comment to prove that I care. I signed the petition, I think ACV is the best thing the Trust has done so far. Maybe it would have helped if you said that that was what the link was about.
Seems like you are looking for reasons to put the boot in on me.
Pico is spot on and he is a Trust Board member but even his contribution is dismissed.
We can only take it as a complement that some wish to comment on Trust activity.
SR
all SHG wanted to know was were MS or TJ at the game - haha
Remember I didn't raise the Trust issue on this thread, Prague did.
You'll notice that there is another auction thread that I started. Nothing to do with the trust. I also commented on the Smoking thread, nothing to do with the trust.
Going to leave it now as it is just silly and whatever I do or say you will say that I'm out to get you.
I will leave it there too
The Trust's work is also invaluable and the amount of hard work put in by many individuals is to be applauded and acknowledged by everyone. It does have to tread a fine line with many people to answer to and I think we are all capable of understanding that. The degree to which people trust the board varies considerably and that does make life much more difficult for the Trust. Those that feel antipathy to the board will obviously be suspicious that the board is trying to control what the Trust says. Those who support the board will be much more inclined to accept that the board has a right to manage information that goes out to CAFC supporters.
It is about perceptions, viewing things through one's own personal belief filters. When the arguments become personal, it is time to draw breath and stand back. Or, if the testosterone compels that you hit the 'post comment' button, perhaps it is best argued out in private, or ideally face to face? No-one is doing themselves any favours at the mo. and I want you all to be around for a long time.
This led to a row with the club and CASC agreeing that future issues would by read by a director for approval before publication. This was the trigger for Voice of The Valley. So there is nothing new in the world.
The Trust is trying to do a number of things and it may not be realistic to do all of them at once. I don't personally think its financial comments are anything that needs to come from the trust or add anything to what can and has been derived independently by others, despite the endless significance attached to them by the author(s).
To my knowledge every single supporters' director was asked to extend their term, because the board always feared (or couldn't be bothered with) having an election. I don't think it's fair to say that Wendy and Sue agreed - the club just dragged its feet as long as it could. I agree that the club's explanation for dropping the role was bullshit. It came down to the fact that some who had invested didn't see why fans who hadn't (in their terms) should have a seat on the board.
I can't help wondering whether or not one man's veto is another man's consultation.
Henry himself has rightly observed earlier on the thread the tightrope that is reflecting the views of the whole fan base.
I'm in no position to state whether the article in question was "vetoed" by the Board or "edited" as a constructive decision of the Trust and the Trust alone following consultation.
My opinion as someone who has paid his five quid and not a lot more? I "trust" the Trust but that said Henry has flagged up a valid potential danger for the future which needs consideration and I hope that everyone can move forward now.
'Defines "groupthink" as a psychological drive for consensus at any cost that suppresses dissent and appraisal of alternatives in cohesive decision making groups.'
Henry do you really mean the above?
That semi trust activists like myself are suppressed in any way, and that alternatives are not/have not been considered all along the way? You use the phrase 'suffer from Groupthink' so to throw out the idea of groupthink is a bit of a put down would you not agree? Like we are tortured or brainwashed or something.
Yet when it comes to collective activity with Fans Forums or board responsibility (with regard to confidential matters) you seem to recognise that a group dynamic is what is occurring. Collective action by Boards of directors, or groups of supporters is a reality, not an exercise in self brainwashing, not sinister, not something 'suffered', but the nature of the beast when people get together.
I fully accept your main point regarding independence, fully accept that.
I just think your reference to 'groupthink' is a bit of a snide put down, and as a supporter who has helped out with the trust, it is a snide put down of me as well as others.
I really shouldn't post so much, I am sweating the asset with little effect.
I don't write now in a vacuum, but in the context of many friendships with people still inside the club as well as those on the periphery, because it is the board and senior management which is isolated, not those who have left.
In addition, VOTV has always been a platform for a diversity of views and still is now, despite the lazy or in some cases self-serving assumption that any view contained in it is mine. Nobody running the leak article in any publication would have been able to balance it. In the unlikely event Mark had published it in a neutral medium then he would simply have gone to the formality of getting the "no comment" response and adding it. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that article should have been published and little chance the trust would have done so, which goes back to my point that the trust cannot do everything at once.
If ever there was a thread that shows why supporters shouldn't be on a board of a football business it's this one.