 | Forum
Reply | Hey June!
at 17:40 2 Jun 2015
The patron saint of lost causes.
A bit like..... |
| Forum
Reply | Hey June!
at 00:10 2 Jun 2015
... don't make it bad.
Sing a sad song and make it better.
Remember to let her into your heart.
Then you can start.
To make it better. |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 11:56 1 Jun 2015
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. |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 01:10 1 Jun 2015
Better to be a talker rather than a stalker, Mr Bond.
You ought to try it.
[Post edited 1 Jun 2015 1:18]
|
| Forum
Reply | Is McDonald Sam A,s last Laugh???
at 16:07 31 May 2015
You may be right BS but as Blackpool supporters we should surely be hoping that he does.
I can't see a better possibility at the moment. |
| Forum
Thread | Chris Hull
at 11:41 31 May 2015
"Gutted to hear the news Chris Hull has passed away. A lifelong Pool fan, one of life's good guys. My thoughts are with his family."
From Will Watt.
Also sorry to hear this: Blackpool fans will always remember his pre-match commentator role - especially putting one visiting Swindon manager in his place, one Steve McMahon - and of course his instrumental role in raising the Mortensen statue.
R.I.P. |
| Forum
Reply | Lets get Kidder on here...
at 11:25 31 May 2015
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Welcome to Tony Ellis island if he's coming. |
| Forum
Reply | Is McDonald Sam A,s last Laugh???
at 11:23 31 May 2015
I think when the alternative is Mr Westley we should reach for a Big Mac whether Big Sam is out to get revenge or not!
I remember when Big Sam was appointed we were all asking for a big name and his was only so if you play Scrabble. He did all right for us though (the Bradford at home nightmare excepted) and it was a time when there was actually some serious investment in players.
Live in hope or wallow in misery. |
| Forum
Reply | Who the Hell is Neil McDonald?
at 15:49 30 May 2015
I think the Graham Westley threat has prepared us to get our sighs of relief well honed in preparation, whoever it is - provided it isn't the wild man of Deepdale.
Whoever it is we need to back them if we want to avoid another relegation. |
| Forum
Reply | What do we think of the BFC alternative shirt?
at 15:30 30 May 2015
That was a joke rather than a jaundiced dig.
The protesters do have a lot of creative people on their side with the music and videos.
(Edited for spelling correction not because I said anything even more jaundiced!) [Post edited 30 May 2015 15:45]
|
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 18:06 29 May 2015
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. |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 13:53 29 May 2015
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]
|
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 13:33 29 May 2015
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. |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 13:02 29 May 2015
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? |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 12:35 29 May 2015
It works both ways Rusty.
There is plenty made up on message boards though which makes them such frustrating reading. |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 12:27 29 May 2015
This is bigger than whether we support a parliament or not.
Supporters will need to choose - have already chosen - their priorities.
So be it. |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 11:54 29 May 2015
Do we really think that the Oystons will just be driven away by more jihad and another relegation?
You don't have to support the Oystons record to see that not backing the manager, not backing the players will inevitably lead to another relegation and little likelihood that the Oystons will go. The Osytons not backing the manager would be unforgivable but what about the supporters?
This time last year there were those of the same mindset as the jihadists who were partying at the thought of Riga turning the club down after a week because for them kicking the Oystons was more important than the survival of our football club.
There seems to be a clear rift between those who want to see the football club succeed - yes and be taken over - and those who only want to see the Oystons punished for their sins and sod the consequences.
Which of these two groups is putting football first?
Which is motivated by self gratification?
I'm sure you have already made your mind up - but I beg to differ. |
| Forum
Reply | Fans Parliament
at 11:31 29 May 2015
And meanwhile the manager, the players,the supporters who want to see some success can go to the dogs - and anyone who opposes this is only acting out of self gratification.
Now I see. |
| | terminallytangerine
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | -92 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | -92 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.