(I'll try to be brief)
...is mainly that it replaces the Supporter's Director. It may well be effective in sorting out a lot of the little things that irritate people. If it was there in addition to the SD, I'd have welcomed it. But strategic decisions are taken at Board level (in any company). Valley Express was a strategic decision because it involved the Club in a significant and complex new area - transportation. Another example of a strategic decision would be groundsharing with Crystal Palace....
0
Comments
I too, although more distant from the specific events of the time, feel a sense of forboding. What frightens me is how quickly things have fallen this time. The 1980's situation came about after years of gradual and sustained decline and most fans, in my view, were just cowed by that process. I well remember end of season demonstrations in the 1970's and 80's calling for the heads of the Board but we had no focal point, until along came the Voice, the Mercury and all that.
In terms of whether the fans can mobilise to defend the fundamentals of the club, are we back to those bad old days? No, in my view we are not. Fans are far more organised now than they were through sites like this. The club is much more open than in those days. We are though deep in the smelly stuff and the first thing fans need to hear is a cogent and united view of the clubs future direction from those at the helm. Frankly I think that has been wanting although clearly some attempts have been made very recently to remedy that.
Turning now to the specifics of the SD v FF roles. Let me say that I have always felt that the loss of the SD role is regrettable. I think there was something reassuring about having "one of us" sat at the top table, ensuring the biggest stakeholders in the club, the fans, were being represented. There was also a sense of the "specialness" of the role emboding the feelings that we had of being part of something, itself special. There is sense of loss coupled with a fear that what replaces it is just a glorified talking shop for discussion about potholes, warm beer or smoking areas. Would you not concede though that it could be a forum for raising much more fundamental issues and to some extent that is up to us to ensure that the right questions are put by our representatives to those in authority?
I realise there are some rules around what can and cannot be raised but those appear to be specifically about team management affairs. That doesn't preclude searching questions about the stewardship and direction of the club.
I know Rothko/Sacha well enough to know that he ain't no shrinking violet or cap doffer. I don't know the other FF reps but I assume they've all got tongues in their heads.
For me then the test of the FF's effectiveness and thus its legitamacy is whether it can
a) act as advocate of the fans perspective in helping to shape the clubs direction and policies (As was the SD role)
b) hold the directors to account for their action/inaction
c) champion the cause of the fundamentals of our great club if they are threatened by such action or inaction
If it's able to do these things, it will fulfil a vital role in the clubs affairs and may indeed exceed the effectiveness of the SD role.
If it is merely a toothless talking shop for tittle tattle, then I will be campaigning for a return to the situation ante.
Of course the amount of shares held outside the board members is a tiny fraction and they would stand no chance of wining a vote, but just asking for a no confidence vote could have the desired affect.
As a shareholder i would be 100% AGAINST asking. It is not the time to drive wedges in this club.
Both mediums can/did put ideas and proposals forward but in the end the Board will decide.
I don't of course suggest that our directors are anything like those from the 80's and earlier. I do though think the abolition of the SD is a step backwards, and makes us look no better than virtually every other club. Under the Murray-Varney regime we were indeed more than just a football club. Now we have Steve Waggott spouting the phrase and presiding over the undoing of all that good work.
I also have thought more about the Fans Forum, especially after reading Rothko/Sasha. It may well do a lot of good, and while I have never met Sasha Zarb, I am sure that if the others show half of his passion and energy, then it will get a lot done.
My point is that it is not an adequate substitute for an SD. I do take the point that it will take the load off a single SD, regarding a lot of the little issues that bug people. But the reason to have an SD is to influence and represent the supporters on big decisions. "Big' meaning things which involve significantly changing the way the club operates. Sasha, with respect to him, has underestimated the complexity and the financial bravery behind initiatives such as Target 10000 and Valley Express. They had to be pushed through at Board level. And I mean, PUSHED.
Goonerhater is right, the Forum has no mandate to hold anybody to account. Fans who have played the role we did in bringing this club back to life in the period 1989-1998 have earned the right to some accountability from their Board. It has been taken away.
Finally don't believe this tosh about the change in company law. The problem has been greatly exaggerated. The question is, why? Ben Hayes claims the law prohibits him from even discussing the decision. What a load of arse. I voted for Ben Hayes, I wanted to give him a mandate to continue the progress of co-operation between Board and fans. I never gave him a mandate to abolish the bloody thing without even consulting the people who voted for him in the first place
I don't have too much of an opinion yet re SW(as I assume most of us), as he's only been in the job 5 minutes by comparison....give the guy a break FFS!
By pure coincidence I decided to have a lunch in one of Birmingham Cities lounges at St Andrews and low and behold he and Steve Sutherland were on my table.....no doubt as Birmingham wanted to keep the Addicks people together.
I don't profess to have spoken to him very much but on first impression he seemed like an OK guy.
Oh and by the way...yes we all know what a great fella Peter was/is but he too had to spout the party line presented to him a lot of the time..... as indeed would anyone in that position.
I have said that the shareholders AGM re voting is hog wash. If every shareholder voted the opposite to ANY member of the Board it wouldnt matter a gnats gonad. I doubt if all the small shareholders added together (that attend or use their proxy vote) have 10,000 shares. Mr Murray for example has 2 million plus.
Where the sharehlders could and should possibly input is asking questions that can be tabled at the AGM. These cant be questions re the playing side but could be questions re funds etc etc. I have sat and felt my toes curl when people at a shareholders meeting ask about the pot holes in the car park.
SoundAs. I've got nothing against SW as a person, and I believe everyone who says he's a good bloke. My problem is with the process and criteria by which he was selected. He has neither senior level business experience nor business management experience (i.e. leading and managing commercial managers). He shouldn't have been chosen, and I don't believe there would have been a shortage of better candidates at the time (though there might be now). Its a criticism of the Board, and I've levelled it fair and square on the mailing list. And so far David Sumners hasn't responded to it, though he has to other issues I raised such as why we are such a pooh and Sheffield United are not.
I'm sad to see the supporters' director position go, but then I remember the very low turnouts for the elections - those of us that feel strongly about this are, sadly, in a minority.
At the end of the day Prague...and I'm trying to be as polite as possible here...it's really got F all to do with you, me or anyone else outside of the boardroom who holds that or indeed any other administrative position within the club....I don't go there because as a simple fan it's not my business quite frankly; if I come across someone whom I don't like I'll 'perhaps' say so....and conversely if I come across someone whom I really like I'll 'perhaps' say so...but apart from that it's not mine or anyone elses business when you come to think about it.....folks livlehoods and all that entails are at stake here and you should be just a tad more respectful of that I think.
I do take your point that there are folks livelihoods at stake, and I need to respect that. Not least because that's why I would never boo a player in a Charlton shirt, and even try to restrain myself with referees. So you've hauled me up there correctly.
But I'm afraid I'm going to strongly differ with you on whether people in such positions have f all to do with me or you. You are doing yourself a disservice if you think that. Fans come from all kinds of backgrounds, including business in all its many forms, and this is a business too (although I know many people find that hard to swallow). If they don't take an interest in how the club is run, their club ends up in dark places, such as Selhurst Park.
Now I actually don't want to describe why I don't agree that Steve Waggott has done "nowt wrong", because to do so would be to continue down the path you warned me off. Certainly he hasn't done anything disastrous, and I can't fault him for putting himself about at recent meetings. He's not short of bottle. My point was that his appointment may- may - be a symptom of the 'divided Board' that this thread is about.
I don't know whether you know Peter Varney personally. I will not be so presumptious as to pretend that I am a 'friend' of his - more a fan, I would say - but i do know him well enough to have his cellphone number, and my understanding is that Steve Waggott was NOT his candidate; had he been so, I would not have mentioned him. Please don't think I have any 'names' for a better candidate - I am way out of the loop and the country, but yes I do have an idea as to 'what', and top of the list of "what" would be that the person is approved amongst others by the massively successful person he is to replace. But I'm not after him. I am "after" the question of how this Board handled such an important appointment and what it tells us about the Board's unity and direction. That was what this thread was about and the only reason I mentioned SW.
Did I get the half-time job of eating a veggie pie,drinking apint and smoking a fag on the pitch ?