| Fans Parliament 17:29 - May 21 with 105353 views | TwelveAngryMen |
Are we looking at the start a Tangerine Spring ?
Or is it an attempt to curb the growing influence of fans groups ?
Applications appear on first read of the announcement to be subject to vetting by the Club
The statement seems to infer that anyone who doesn't renew their ST is unlikely to be considered so that's anyone taking a principled NAPM stance this season to the back of the queue ! That will undoubtedly influence the dynamics of representation
Who elects the Board Rep ? I suspect its within the cabal of hand-picked representatives in which case hardly democratic - more like a Fans Cabinet
Which Club officials will they meet ? It does say to be fair to include Club directors so in reality that's suggesting it will involve Karl or Owen
It will be interesting to see how this pans out
http://www.blackpoolfc.co.uk/news/article/club-announces-launch-of-fans-parliame [Post edited 21 May 2015 17:35]
|  |
| |  |
| Fans Parliament on 13:33 - May 29 with 3974 views | terminallytangerine |
| Fans Parliament on 13:06 - May 29 by Rusty2Stands |
20's it's not a case of not being willing to accept anyone else's pov.
It's a case of my pov being based on a good deal of historical evidence.
Year after year of the same old rhetoric and lies followed by no action.
How anyone can even contemplate KO changing is beyond me.
If somebody is prepared to give money to that family, knowing that it could possibly be used to sue and extract money from fellow supporters, then that's their choice.
Myself I couldn't stomach it.
That was the point of no return for me as far as the Oystons are concerned.
Back to the debate.
Labelling supporters jihadists? And turning it round to try and blame supporters for us not having a successful team.
Dear me. That really is scraping the barrel.
I too am totally opposed to the FP. Why does it need another talking shop for the Oystons to know what needs doing to put things right?
It doesn't. They already know what needs doing, they just aren't prepared to do anything about it. Not now, not ever.
As I've said in a previous post, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
If this FP gets off the ground, let's see in 12 months time what it's actually achieved.
What ground breaking new initiatives have come to fruition.
What radical ideas have been implemented to improve the club?
KO will most likely make some concessions, but they won't be anything that counts or costs much money.
You might get a lick of paint on the rusting (again) steelwork. Stan might get a few extra packets of grass seed.
But I will wager anyone on here whatever sum of money they care to name, that nothing of any importance will come out of it.
So let's wait and see. I can't be fairer than that. |
Then you are clearly not a jihadist.
There are some however who will not only refuse to accept another point of view but will seek to suppress it by force if need be. Clearly there are some with this mind set for whom what happens on the football field and the views of those who want to watch football are irrelevant.
In a democratic society we should tolerate diversity rather than seek to suppress it.
In the end we want the same thing - a successful football team, yes and if possible a change of ownership - but disagree on the means to achieve this.
If you find the term jihadist offensive I apologise but bear in mind it is probably no more offensive than calling a fellow supporter a collaborator or motivated only by self interest because they want to adopt different methods to effect change. |  | | |
| Fans Parliament on 13:36 - May 29 with 3968 views | Lala |
| Fans Parliament on 13:26 - May 29 by BFCx3 |
Not really sure how everything will go to the dogs because fans try and renegotiate the basis of a pretend parliament, but if you seriously think this is the means by which we will get to the Premier League TT, then go for it.... |
BFC,if you still can't see Rusty's posts go into your settings,top right hand corner,this will show you if you have blocked him by mistake. You can remove the block from this page. Happened to me the other day. |  |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 13:39 - May 29 with 3959 views | TwelveAngryMen |
'In a democratic society we should tolerate diversity rather than seek to suppress it. '
Bit rich that when you are advocating dialogue that would suppress the democratic voice of BFC fans | |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 13:53 - May 29 with 3941 views | terminallytangerine |
| Fans Parliament on 13:39 - May 29 by TwelveAngryMen |
'In a democratic society we should tolerate diversity rather than seek to suppress it. '
Bit rich that when you are advocating dialogue that would suppress the democratic voice of BFC fans |
That is the complete opposite of what I am saying Tam.
If by the democratic voice of the fans you mean BST I've already made it clear that I think it is important that they speak to the owners and are listened to. But as I also said their conditions seemed also to be formulated to make dialogue less likely. As a first step to dialogue FP could be a way of persuading the owners they need to talk directly to BST or even better put forward a spokesperson on the FP (if KO was wise he wouldn't block such a person and if he did I would expect the 12 just men (or women) to urge him to do so. Even if on the first round the leaders of BST were not there it would be pretty difficult given their massive membership for them not to be represented by one of their members.
On the other hand where is the democratic voice of Blackpool fans who aren't enamoured of the pitch invasion for instance and who perhaps haven't joined an organisation. Don't they also deserve a voice?
CS's statement seem to rule out any dialogue but you and BFC3 seem to be saying otherwise. If so then perhaps positions are not as entrenched as they first seem, but there are some who would regard any contemplation of dialogue as selling out.
My plan B was not BSA's: I only ever speak for myself on here. What is yours Tam? [Post edited 29 May 2015 13:53]
| | | |
| Fans Parliament on 14:15 - May 29 with 3921 views | straightatthewall |
| Fans Parliament on 13:02 - May 29 by terminallytangerine |
I think I also asked you the same question Tam.
Having only read the gazette article today it seems that GB has voiced the hopes of many supporters. CS's reported viewpoint who I always thinks speaks well fills me with despair. I speak for myself here rather than as a representation of any organisation.
It's because I believe that a repetition is less likely if we back the manager and the players that my plan B would be: to work towards a takeover if there is one forthcoming but make the most of any opportunities that may exist to foster direct talks between the largest supporters organisation and the owners (who may realistically even be the owners if the war does continues). The FP would be a means to that end. This isn't capitulation; it's real politick. This would give an opportunity for supporters to support, supporters representatives a chance to urge the sale of the club or direct change and the owners a chance to rethink about ownership and / or a new approach given the experience of the last season. And if after a season of truce we were still in the same mess as now I'd join BST!
And your plan B if the war leads to another relegation and the Os are still here? |
"It's because I believe that a repetition is less likely if we back the manager and the players"
Why do you think we were so utterly awful under Riga then? He and his players were certainly backed by a large swathe of supporters from where I was looking. Aside from a few on here as it goes who were insistent that he could be doing more with what he had. There's no evidence to suggest that we will get better with support and I suspect this notion is driven by hope, not a willingness to stare the facts full in the face.
Your sentiment is fine and there's a time when it will be the right way forward. But I don't think this is that time, because every bit of evidence that has emerged over the last few years in particular shows you exactly what their 'game' is. |  |
| We got Bogdanovic, Oyston got very rich |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 15:00 - May 29 with 3884 views | TwelveAngryMen |
| Fans Parliament on 13:53 - May 29 by terminallytangerine |
That is the complete opposite of what I am saying Tam.
If by the democratic voice of the fans you mean BST I've already made it clear that I think it is important that they speak to the owners and are listened to. But as I also said their conditions seemed also to be formulated to make dialogue less likely. As a first step to dialogue FP could be a way of persuading the owners they need to talk directly to BST or even better put forward a spokesperson on the FP (if KO was wise he wouldn't block such a person and if he did I would expect the 12 just men (or women) to urge him to do so. Even if on the first round the leaders of BST were not there it would be pretty difficult given their massive membership for them not to be represented by one of their members.
On the other hand where is the democratic voice of Blackpool fans who aren't enamoured of the pitch invasion for instance and who perhaps haven't joined an organisation. Don't they also deserve a voice?
CS's statement seem to rule out any dialogue but you and BFC3 seem to be saying otherwise. If so then perhaps positions are not as entrenched as they first seem, but there are some who would regard any contemplation of dialogue as selling out.
My plan B was not BSA's: I only ever speak for myself on here. What is yours Tam? [Post edited 29 May 2015 13:53]
|
I am talking about the democratic voice not just BST's voice
12 MP's pre-selected by the owners isn't democratic full stop
From what I saw there was overwhelming support for those who entered the field of play but whether that's a true reflection or not the BST proposal provides for a full election and an interim Parliament selected by an independent panel comprising of two supporters chairs and one non-aligned rep
I really can't see what the objection is there - the full spectrum of opinions will be covered
My personal plan B if the owners won't sell to BST or a third party will ultimately be to sever ties with what was BFC
I hope that day doesn't come [Post edited 29 May 2015 15:01]
| |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 15:14 - May 29 with 3871 views | BiggieSeasider |
| Fans Parliament on 14:15 - May 29 by straightatthewall |
"It's because I believe that a repetition is less likely if we back the manager and the players"
Why do you think we were so utterly awful under Riga then? He and his players were certainly backed by a large swathe of supporters from where I was looking. Aside from a few on here as it goes who were insistent that he could be doing more with what he had. There's no evidence to suggest that we will get better with support and I suspect this notion is driven by hope, not a willingness to stare the facts full in the face.
Your sentiment is fine and there's a time when it will be the right way forward. But I don't think this is that time, because every bit of evidence that has emerged over the last few years in particular shows you exactly what their 'game' is. |
SATW makes a fair point about how we were under Riga. It really doesn't matter how much support we offer team and manager if the owners don't back the team and manager. That old chestnut that was quoted 'if we win the first 5 they'll all come running back'. Football supporters are just fickle enough that there's probably some truth in that. But we're back to the issue of money again. | |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 15:21 - May 29 with 3865 views | 20togo |
| Fans Parliament on 13:06 - May 29 by Rusty2Stands |
20's it's not a case of not being willing to accept anyone else's pov.
It's a case of my pov being based on a good deal of historical evidence.
Year after year of the same old rhetoric and lies followed by no action.
How anyone can even contemplate KO changing is beyond me.
If somebody is prepared to give money to that family, knowing that it could possibly be used to sue and extract money from fellow supporters, then that's their choice.
Myself I couldn't stomach it.
That was the point of no return for me as far as the Oystons are concerned.
Back to the debate.
Labelling supporters jihadists? And turning it round to try and blame supporters for us not having a successful team.
Dear me. That really is scraping the barrel.
I too am totally opposed to the FP. Why does it need another talking shop for the Oystons to know what needs doing to put things right?
It doesn't. They already know what needs doing, they just aren't prepared to do anything about it. Not now, not ever.
As I've said in a previous post, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
If this FP gets off the ground, let's see in 12 months time what it's actually achieved.
What ground breaking new initiatives have come to fruition.
What radical ideas have been implemented to improve the club?
KO will most likely make some concessions, but they won't be anything that counts or costs much money.
You might get a lick of paint on the rusting (again) steelwork. Stan might get a few extra packets of grass seed.
But I will wager anyone on here whatever sum of money they care to name, that nothing of any importance will come out of it.
So let's wait and see. I can't be fairer than that. |
rusty
Going back to the start of your 13:06 post, I agree with what you say.
But this is my point. I apply that to BST as well. Yet people are perfectly happy for them to sit round the negotiating table when as you say history has proven that nothing changes. People are perfectly happy for BST to do that yet slate BSA for doing the same. In fact Christine has issued a statement in the gazette about getting rid of the Oystons and she said the same on TV last night. Yet BST's last official statement suggested they were prepared to talk. Complete contradiction.
No one should be prepared to talk to the Oystons. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fans Parliament on 15:28 - May 29 with 3855 views | TwelveAngryMen |
20's I think BST's position is borne out of the fact they are mandated by the membership to speak to the owners about fan representation on the Board
It's one of the two/three bases upon which dialogue is to take place
Haven't the time to source the resolution just now but that's what I recall | |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 15:55 - May 29 with 3832 views | 20togo |
| Fans Parliament on 15:28 - May 29 by TwelveAngryMen |
20's I think BST's position is borne out of the fact they are mandated by the membership to speak to the owners about fan representation on the Board
It's one of the two/three bases upon which dialogue is to take place
Haven't the time to source the resolution just now but that's what I recall |
I accept that TAM.
But when was that mandate agreed? Maybe a lot of things have happened since. Maybe that needs to be put out to the members again. Because as I will continue to say , there is hypocricy on AVFTT on what BSA should or shouldn't do compared to what some think is acceptable for BST to do. | | | |
| Fans Parliament on 16:18 - May 29 with 3818 views | TwelveAngryMen |
Think its recent
It's tied in with the refusal to respond to the open letter
I'll have a look later | |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 16:27 - May 29 with 3811 views | 20togo |
| Fans Parliament on 16:18 - May 29 by TwelveAngryMen |
Think its recent
It's tied in with the refusal to respond to the open letter
I'll have a look later |
TAM
No problem. I do support BST in what they do. It's just the hypocricy of people that I have a problem with. | | | |
| Fans Parliament on 18:06 - May 29 with 3785 views | terminallytangerine |
| Fans Parliament on 15:00 - May 29 by TwelveAngryMen |
I am talking about the democratic voice not just BST's voice
12 MP's pre-selected by the owners isn't democratic full stop
From what I saw there was overwhelming support for those who entered the field of play but whether that's a true reflection or not the BST proposal provides for a full election and an interim Parliament selected by an independent panel comprising of two supporters chairs and one non-aligned rep
I really can't see what the objection is there - the full spectrum of opinions will be covered
My personal plan B if the owners won't sell to BST or a third party will ultimately be to sever ties with what was BFC
I hope that day doesn't come [Post edited 29 May 2015 15:01]
|
Tam
I think for some your plan B is already the accepted view.
I disagree that the largest supporters organisation shouldn't be talking to the owners: not to do so seems to be putting populism over responsible leadership (not a criticism of BST as a whole but of this one decision).
I would be happy to accept BST's proposal en masse (but only if Lala could represent the non-season ticket holders!) but presenting an ultimatum isn't really what happens in war situations unless you want unconditional surrender (which for someone with a laager mentality, as opposed to a lager one isn't going to agree to).
So maybe I am clutching at straws - and, unlike some of those for whom this would be a disaster, I do want our manager and football team to succeed - but when the alternative is the end of our football club (yes, and I know people will say it is already dead, but I want to keep pumping away until rigor mortis sets in) we have to look at all possibilities.
I'll try to make this my last post on this thread as I'm unlikely to change anyone's opinion: from the evidence I saw Riga wasn't a very good manager and was also having to manage under the cloud of a political rally so we will perhaps never know how good he might have been if backed by the owners as we all have liked to see. But I wouldn't like to say anything controversial!
Over and out. | | | |
| Fans Parliament on 18:23 - May 29 with 3773 views | Lala |
Good post TT, as for not saying anything controversial........ah go on  | |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 08:58 - May 30 with 3693 views | wizard_wes |
| Fans Parliament on 18:23 - May 29 by Lala |
Good post TT, as for not saying anything controversial........ah go on |
Isn't the largest supporters association only the largest supporters association because it's free to join TT? | |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 10:38 - May 30 with 3679 views | TwelveAngryMen |
| Fans Parliament on 08:58 - May 30 by wizard_wes |
Isn't the largest supporters association only the largest supporters association because it's free to join TT? |
It's not free to join BST
The cheapest membership is £5 pa
Many have taken up lifetime membership and some are patrons | |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 17:59 - May 31 with 3619 views | Happy_Satsuma |
| Fans Parliament on 10:38 - May 30 by TwelveAngryMen |
It's not free to join BST
The cheapest membership is £5 pa
Many have taken up lifetime membership and some are patrons |
You can tell from this thread that the Fans Parliament won't achieve or please anyone other than Karl Oyston who will see it one in the eye for BST and his half hearted attempt to get fans back on board. |  |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 09:12 - Jun 1 with 3549 views | BFCx3 |
| Fans Parliament on 01:10 - Jun 1 by terminallytangerine |
Better to be a talker rather than a stalker, Mr Bond.
You ought to try it.
[Post edited 1 Jun 2015 1:18]
|
Talk shouldn't come at any price though TT. What we seem to have here is the reformation of the exclusive gentlemans club approach to communication with the Club, whereby 12 Neville Chamberlains will be hand picked by Karl to receive the fabled piece of paper.
By supporting the approach in its present form, you are supporting engagement which seeks to exclude certain viewpoints, stifle opposition to the Oyston family and at the same time tries to apply an element of pressure to purchase Season Tickets.
I can fully appreciate that we may well have supporters who would wish to engage with Karl Oyston, but you have had more than enough opportunity to do so and you will have adequate opportunity to do so in future.
In addition and particularly in your position TT, you know that BST has sought to renegotiate terms for this engagement that will assure the credibility of the process and ensure that engaging with the process has some value for us all. Therefore to engage prior to Oyston even reponding to BST, would be an act of defiance on the part of some, whereby as individuals you are essentially saying that you feel that your individual viewpoint takes precedence over the only collective, independent and democratically appointed voice we have available at the present time.
For me the supporters need to be represented by our democratically appointed representatives, who all supporters can feel they can stand behind with a degree of confidence that their viewpoint has been considered. We have already had this closed shop approach to communication with the club via BSA in the past and we know it failed to work.
What gets me is when we have a fantastic organisation like the Trust, why instead of bickering between ourselves or acting rashly to either capitulate on the one hand or throw smoke bombs into Oystons garden on the other hand, people do not seek to express themselves properly through the democratic organisation available to them in order that our own appointed representatives are fully mandated to act and engage with the Club on terms that are acceptable to us as supporters.
By breaking rank all that we do is weaken our position and in doing so limit our chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome. | | | |
| Fans Parliament on 11:56 - Jun 1 with 3536 views | terminallytangerine |
| Fans Parliament on 09:12 - Jun 1 by BFCx3 |
Talk shouldn't come at any price though TT. What we seem to have here is the reformation of the exclusive gentlemans club approach to communication with the Club, whereby 12 Neville Chamberlains will be hand picked by Karl to receive the fabled piece of paper.
By supporting the approach in its present form, you are supporting engagement which seeks to exclude certain viewpoints, stifle opposition to the Oyston family and at the same time tries to apply an element of pressure to purchase Season Tickets.
I can fully appreciate that we may well have supporters who would wish to engage with Karl Oyston, but you have had more than enough opportunity to do so and you will have adequate opportunity to do so in future.
In addition and particularly in your position TT, you know that BST has sought to renegotiate terms for this engagement that will assure the credibility of the process and ensure that engaging with the process has some value for us all. Therefore to engage prior to Oyston even reponding to BST, would be an act of defiance on the part of some, whereby as individuals you are essentially saying that you feel that your individual viewpoint takes precedence over the only collective, independent and democratically appointed voice we have available at the present time.
For me the supporters need to be represented by our democratically appointed representatives, who all supporters can feel they can stand behind with a degree of confidence that their viewpoint has been considered. We have already had this closed shop approach to communication with the club via BSA in the past and we know it failed to work.
What gets me is when we have a fantastic organisation like the Trust, why instead of bickering between ourselves or acting rashly to either capitulate on the one hand or throw smoke bombs into Oystons garden on the other hand, people do not seek to express themselves properly through the democratic organisation available to them in order that our own appointed representatives are fully mandated to act and engage with the Club on terms that are acceptable to us as supporters.
By breaking rank all that we do is weaken our position and in doing so limit our chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome. |
This looks like a reasoned argument BFC3 but contains the usual spin and prejudiced assumptions about other people's motives and judgement which just polarises debate.
"Talk shouldn't come at any price though TT." True. But neither should continued protest on the scale which leads to the abandonment of matches and quite possibly points deduction. As I've said before in my view this is putting the desire to punish the Oystons before the good of our football club. It's my belief that having reached this point the alternative to attempting to resolve some of the issues through talk is to accept the destruction of our football club by the supporters as well as the owners. I don't see anything democratic in pitch invasions or tennis ball throwing even though this may be endorsed by many justifiably frustrated supporters. I also would like to see the Oystons sell up but don't think they are more likely to so because of pitch invasions. Clearly you disagree. In the meantime some supporters would like to try to encourage the changes we want to see and not discourage potential managers, players and future owners by only offering the prospect of a war zone.
"What we seem to have here is the reformation of the exclusive gentlemans club approach to communication with the Club, whereby 12 Neville Chamberlains will be hand picked by Karl to receive the fabled piece of paper."
This is just cheap stereotyping BFC3 and I think you know it. I've never been a fan of Neville Chamberlain but Irish history, for instance, shows examples of those who have been prepared to think the unthinkable and resolve issues by dialogue. I've already said that I would much prefer full engagement with the idea of dialogue with the biggest organisation and would be very surprised given the extent of the membership if among these 12 just men they weren't represented. If the 'reformation' is another veiled reference to another supporters organisation which encouraged frank and open discussion with owners, which was open to all who wanted dialogue and whose dialogue was openly reported, then I think you are swapping historical accuracy for populist spin. I don't see a fans parliament (awful term) as the solution to all our problems but it is a small step in the right direction and doesn't fill me with as much despair as the mindset that says we shouldn't engage in dialogue at all because a few more torches and pitchfork pitch invasions will make our club more likely to succeed. So it's not about a parliament; it's about a refusal to seek for a solution that will secure the future of our club which doesn't involve making it even more unsupportable than it is already.
"By supporting the approach in its present form, you are supporting engagement which seeks to exclude certain viewpoints, stifle opposition to the Oyston family and at the same time tries to apply an element of pressure to purchase Season Tickets." Not so. As I've said I see it as a small step towards resolution. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage other buyers - and if the trust has the backing to make a realistic bid I will be more than pleased. It's not an attempt to be exclusive but there would be no point in including people in discussion who see talk as weakness and shouting as strength. The largest organisation has some very articulate people within its ranks. These are the people who I want to see seeking resolution. But the contrary view also applies. You would seem to want to exclude those who want to put football first - even above protest.
"I can fully appreciate that we may well have supporters who would wish to engage with Karl Oyston, but you have had more than enough opportunity to do so and you will have adequate opportunity to do so in future." It's not a question of engaging with the owners for the sake of it. It is a means to effect change and without going into the 'What have the Romans done for us?" sketch there were a lot of things achieved during a time of dialogue though not the sort of forward thinking and long term investment we would all have liked to see. Still a work in progress. Maybe this will only be achieved when the Oystons have sold up but that could be years and years in the future, and in the meantime?
"In addition and particularly in your position TT, you know that BST has sought to renegotiate terms for this engagement that will assure the credibility of the process and ensure that engaging with the process has some value for us all. Therefore to engage prior to Oyston even reponding to BST, would be an act of defiance on the part of some, whereby as individuals you are essentially saying that you feel that your individual viewpoint takes precedence over the only collective, independent and democratically appointed voice we have available at the present time."
Well I don't actually think that BST should be the only voice of the fans, particularly if they have decided not to use that voice. There are many supporters who don't join organisations and many who may support the trust's long term aims but don't feel able to support the pitch invasions and tennis ball throwing which are not organised by them but receive the organisation's support. Yes in a ideal world the owners would agree to the conditions laid down by BST for dialogue but as I've suggested in an earlier post I think some of the demands are unrealistic and may even have been included to discourage dialogue ( I hope not but that does seem the position adopted in the recently reported Gazzette quote.)
"For me the supporters need to be represented by our democratically appointed representatives, who all supporters can feel they can stand behind with a degree of confidence that their viewpoint has been considered. We have already had this closed shop approach to communication with the club via BSA in the past and we know it failed to work." Nothing closed shop about BSA. Open to all, including BST members. The implication though that all Blackpool supporters views are represented by those who condone the direct action of the kind we have seen is I think mistaken. I also think people who have invested in the future of the club through buying season tickets should have priority on those who have decided that they don't want to attend home games anymore. (Many NAPM are lifelong supporters who have just had enough but I would guess not all.)
"What gets me is when we have a fantastic organisation like the Trust, why instead of bickering between ourselves or acting rashly to either capitulate on the one hand or throw smoke bombs into Oystons garden on the other hand, people do not seek to express themselves properly through the democratic organisation available to them in order that our own appointed representatives are fully mandated to act and engage with the Club on terms that are acceptable to us as supporters." But those who want to throw smoke bombs into people's gardens have found a home in BST. That is unfortunately the reality (or fortunately depending on your point of view.) I would be more convinced if statements like 'things will only change when the Oystons have gone' didn't suggest an unwillingness to engage in dialogue. 'End of' as you might say. Again I hope I'm proved wrong. To describe those who want to take their arguments directly to the owners as capitulators - and have these openly reported - is to stereotype all those who think direct action is damaging as lickspittle bum spiders whose only desire is to gain some kudos by jumping into bed with the owners. Some kudos! Some self gratification! It may however be a necessary evil for those brave individuals willing to put their own beliefs above the pressure of the undemocratic (as they see it) many.
"By breaking rank all that we do is weaken our position and in doing so limit our chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome."
Arguably. This is opinion though rather than fact. You may be right, but if you are wrong we have, in my view, another season of internecine warfare to look forward to when all we want to do is watch football. Another season where nothing changes. Another season where the smoke bombs are given tacit support. Another season where dialogue is seen as weakness and shouting a sign of strength. Maybe I am the only one who didn't think Huddersfield was our finest hour, and that we should all be looking at ways to find solutions which doesn't involve more pitchforks and flaming torches. It may work in Shrek but I can't see where it has worked at a football club.
I think I've already said all that lot before so get the feeling we are going round in circles. So really over and really out this time. | | | |
| Fans Parliament on 13:14 - Jun 1 with 3512 views | straightatthewall |
| Fans Parliament on 11:56 - Jun 1 by terminallytangerine |
This looks like a reasoned argument BFC3 but contains the usual spin and prejudiced assumptions about other people's motives and judgement which just polarises debate.
"Talk shouldn't come at any price though TT." True. But neither should continued protest on the scale which leads to the abandonment of matches and quite possibly points deduction. As I've said before in my view this is putting the desire to punish the Oystons before the good of our football club. It's my belief that having reached this point the alternative to attempting to resolve some of the issues through talk is to accept the destruction of our football club by the supporters as well as the owners. I don't see anything democratic in pitch invasions or tennis ball throwing even though this may be endorsed by many justifiably frustrated supporters. I also would like to see the Oystons sell up but don't think they are more likely to so because of pitch invasions. Clearly you disagree. In the meantime some supporters would like to try to encourage the changes we want to see and not discourage potential managers, players and future owners by only offering the prospect of a war zone.
"What we seem to have here is the reformation of the exclusive gentlemans club approach to communication with the Club, whereby 12 Neville Chamberlains will be hand picked by Karl to receive the fabled piece of paper."
This is just cheap stereotyping BFC3 and I think you know it. I've never been a fan of Neville Chamberlain but Irish history, for instance, shows examples of those who have been prepared to think the unthinkable and resolve issues by dialogue. I've already said that I would much prefer full engagement with the idea of dialogue with the biggest organisation and would be very surprised given the extent of the membership if among these 12 just men they weren't represented. If the 'reformation' is another veiled reference to another supporters organisation which encouraged frank and open discussion with owners, which was open to all who wanted dialogue and whose dialogue was openly reported, then I think you are swapping historical accuracy for populist spin. I don't see a fans parliament (awful term) as the solution to all our problems but it is a small step in the right direction and doesn't fill me with as much despair as the mindset that says we shouldn't engage in dialogue at all because a few more torches and pitchfork pitch invasions will make our club more likely to succeed. So it's not about a parliament; it's about a refusal to seek for a solution that will secure the future of our club which doesn't involve making it even more unsupportable than it is already.
"By supporting the approach in its present form, you are supporting engagement which seeks to exclude certain viewpoints, stifle opposition to the Oyston family and at the same time tries to apply an element of pressure to purchase Season Tickets." Not so. As I've said I see it as a small step towards resolution. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage other buyers - and if the trust has the backing to make a realistic bid I will be more than pleased. It's not an attempt to be exclusive but there would be no point in including people in discussion who see talk as weakness and shouting as strength. The largest organisation has some very articulate people within its ranks. These are the people who I want to see seeking resolution. But the contrary view also applies. You would seem to want to exclude those who want to put football first - even above protest.
"I can fully appreciate that we may well have supporters who would wish to engage with Karl Oyston, but you have had more than enough opportunity to do so and you will have adequate opportunity to do so in future." It's not a question of engaging with the owners for the sake of it. It is a means to effect change and without going into the 'What have the Romans done for us?" sketch there were a lot of things achieved during a time of dialogue though not the sort of forward thinking and long term investment we would all have liked to see. Still a work in progress. Maybe this will only be achieved when the Oystons have sold up but that could be years and years in the future, and in the meantime?
"In addition and particularly in your position TT, you know that BST has sought to renegotiate terms for this engagement that will assure the credibility of the process and ensure that engaging with the process has some value for us all. Therefore to engage prior to Oyston even reponding to BST, would be an act of defiance on the part of some, whereby as individuals you are essentially saying that you feel that your individual viewpoint takes precedence over the only collective, independent and democratically appointed voice we have available at the present time."
Well I don't actually think that BST should be the only voice of the fans, particularly if they have decided not to use that voice. There are many supporters who don't join organisations and many who may support the trust's long term aims but don't feel able to support the pitch invasions and tennis ball throwing which are not organised by them but receive the organisation's support. Yes in a ideal world the owners would agree to the conditions laid down by BST for dialogue but as I've suggested in an earlier post I think some of the demands are unrealistic and may even have been included to discourage dialogue ( I hope not but that does seem the position adopted in the recently reported Gazzette quote.)
"For me the supporters need to be represented by our democratically appointed representatives, who all supporters can feel they can stand behind with a degree of confidence that their viewpoint has been considered. We have already had this closed shop approach to communication with the club via BSA in the past and we know it failed to work." Nothing closed shop about BSA. Open to all, including BST members. The implication though that all Blackpool supporters views are represented by those who condone the direct action of the kind we have seen is I think mistaken. I also think people who have invested in the future of the club through buying season tickets should have priority on those who have decided that they don't want to attend home games anymore. (Many NAPM are lifelong supporters who have just had enough but I would guess not all.)
"What gets me is when we have a fantastic organisation like the Trust, why instead of bickering between ourselves or acting rashly to either capitulate on the one hand or throw smoke bombs into Oystons garden on the other hand, people do not seek to express themselves properly through the democratic organisation available to them in order that our own appointed representatives are fully mandated to act and engage with the Club on terms that are acceptable to us as supporters." But those who want to throw smoke bombs into people's gardens have found a home in BST. That is unfortunately the reality (or fortunately depending on your point of view.) I would be more convinced if statements like 'things will only change when the Oystons have gone' didn't suggest an unwillingness to engage in dialogue. 'End of' as you might say. Again I hope I'm proved wrong. To describe those who want to take their arguments directly to the owners as capitulators - and have these openly reported - is to stereotype all those who think direct action is damaging as lickspittle bum spiders whose only desire is to gain some kudos by jumping into bed with the owners. Some kudos! Some self gratification! It may however be a necessary evil for those brave individuals willing to put their own beliefs above the pressure of the undemocratic (as they see it) many.
"By breaking rank all that we do is weaken our position and in doing so limit our chances of reaching a satisfactory outcome."
Arguably. This is opinion though rather than fact. You may be right, but if you are wrong we have, in my view, another season of internecine warfare to look forward to when all we want to do is watch football. Another season where nothing changes. Another season where the smoke bombs are given tacit support. Another season where dialogue is seen as weakness and shouting a sign of strength. Maybe I am the only one who didn't think Huddersfield was our finest hour, and that we should all be looking at ways to find solutions which doesn't involve more pitchforks and flaming torches. It may work in Shrek but I can't see where it has worked at a football club.
I think I've already said all that lot before so get the feeling we are going round in circles. So really over and really out this time. |
Protests began in earnest this season when the club was at an (apparent) nadir. Dialogue - as it was - ended this season when the club reached that nadir.
Have we seen anything between then and now that tells us things have changed sufficiently to return to dialogue?
The answer is categorically NO. Yet, you're proposing that 'we' go back to where we were without a hint of change being shown by the club. That is the simple, but massive, flaw in your logic TT. You're apparently willing to give a little ground for them without any assurance of any compromise from the other side. It just plays directly into the hands of those who are willing to operate at a much lower level of moral standards than you.
Do what you need to do. We're all Blackpool fans and we all want the same end result. But don't be surprised when things don't work and you look daft. I've held back on saying this as I've tried to give people some slack. But I TOLD YOU SO before. And I'm TELLING YOU SO now. You'll be wrong. People like X3 and I will be right. | |
| We got Bogdanovic, Oyston got very rich |
| |
| Fans Parliament on 09:44 - Jun 2 with 3468 views | BFCx3 |
| Fans Parliament on 13:14 - Jun 1 by straightatthewall |
Protests began in earnest this season when the club was at an (apparent) nadir. Dialogue - as it was - ended this season when the club reached that nadir.
Have we seen anything between then and now that tells us things have changed sufficiently to return to dialogue?
The answer is categorically NO. Yet, you're proposing that 'we' go back to where we were without a hint of change being shown by the club. That is the simple, but massive, flaw in your logic TT. You're apparently willing to give a little ground for them without any assurance of any compromise from the other side. It just plays directly into the hands of those who are willing to operate at a much lower level of moral standards than you.
Do what you need to do. We're all Blackpool fans and we all want the same end result. But don't be surprised when things don't work and you look daft. I've held back on saying this as I've tried to give people some slack. But I TOLD YOU SO before. And I'm TELLING YOU SO now. You'll be wrong. People like X3 and I will be right. |
I'd love to respond in more detail TT, but I'm struggling to actually read and digest that to be honest, plus I'm not keen on having my words manipulated.
I'm inclined to believe it wouldn't matter anyway and in fairness that would be reciprocal.
For my part, I am simply glad that we have a competent 'middle ground' organisation in BST who manage to hold it altogether.
I don't agree with throwing smoke bombs in Oystons garden any more than I agree with wandering aimlessly into dialogue on his terms and I suspect the majority will feel the same way.
Desperation led to the Tennis Ball protest and also to the peaceful pitch protest and there is a huge difference between supporting those actions and standing by your fellow supporters by an understanding of what drove them to act.
There is no question of the fans being to blame for the despicable actions of our owners, which pre-date any fan action, pre-dare the formation of both SISA, BST and the Knight and which were the sole reason that BISA itself was formed way back when.
This is not the first time we have found ourselves floundering through lack of intent or investment and given the nature of our owners it undoubtedly will not be the last. There is no future for Blackpool FC, whilst the Oyston family remain at the helm...the chance to invest and build on success has long since gone (along with the tens of millions taken or loaned).
Regime change is necessary and the only way to bring that about is to pressurise the current incumbents to sell.
We know that viable alternatives exist, our President has clarified his position more than once...I'm really not sure what you feel you have left to talk with Mr Oyston about...taking a chainsaw to the JA statue perhaps? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
