Do The Right Thing

[peasepud 59]

The only time an owner would want secrecy is if they're being underhand, any true well meaning owner would see the benefits of working with the fans alongside you. Plus it takes some of the shit away , fans would have been represented in the decisions that go wrong as well as the good stuff.

 

I don't see why there would be any more arguments or disruption, there's no reason why in almost all decisions the fans rep shouldn't be agreeing with the proposals any more than any other member of the board.

 

Like isaid earlier 60 owners seem to see it as a good thing so far

[Park Life 71]

Simple benefit is you know that at least one person on the board loves the club and wants what is best for it regardless of monetary gain, share price or how they look to the chairman over the road. This person can't be bought because they report to the fans and would have to justify what was done.

 

I have to admit to being totally confused how anyone can't see the benefits of that especially after the shit we've gone through the last two seasons

 

Can't see why any owner would want to do it though. What's in it for them? All I could see if I was an owner would be disruption, arguments and loss of secrecy. Why would they be interested in being accountable and justifying their decisions to a fan representative?

 

Supporter representation on the board is not only good PR, it is a covenant that will grow the club and increase good will and income.

[Guest alex]

Simple benefit is you know that at least one person on the board loves the club and wants what is best for it regardless of monetary gain, share price or how they look to the chairman over the road. This person can't be bought because they report to the fans and would have to justify what was done.

 

I have to admit to being totally confused how anyone can't see the benefits of that especially after the shit we've gone through the last two seasons

 

Can't see why any owner would want to do it though. What's in it for them? All I could see if I was an owner would be disruption, arguments and loss of secrecy. Why would they be interested in being accountable and justifying their decisions to a fan representative?

 

Supporter representation on the board is not only good PR, it is a covenant that will grow the club and increase good will and income.

Throws up a few problems though - Would someone with a bit of nouse be able to hold down their full-time job and still be able to commit enough time to sitting in board meetings? You don't want one of your rent-a-mob types who embarrass us at SJP every time something happens, do you? Not saying every one on the dole is a mong but you can see how it would create a conflict for a lot of suitable candidates. If you make it a paid post then the person loses their independence, so to speak. It's a tricky one.

[Kitman 2207]

The only time an owner would want secrecy is if they're being underhand, any true well meaning owner would see the benefits of working with the fans alongside you. Plus it takes some of the shit away , fans would have been represented in the decisions that go wrong as well as the good stuff.

 

I don't see why there would be any more arguments or disruption, there's no reason why in almost all decisions the fans rep shouldn't be agreeing with the proposals any more than any other member of the board.

 

Like isaid earlier 60 owners seem to see it as a good thing so far

 

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree. Fans and directors have completely different agendas. The directors are there because the shareholder(s) have chosen them to run the club. The fan representative is there to represent fans. Could easily end in a shit fight where money's involved.

 

Ideally everyone would row in the same direction. But often owners and directors are twats, and often fans are unrealistic in expectation. Plus there must be stuff that's highly commercially sensitive, do they ask the fan representative to put their hands over their ears and go la la la?

 

I'm not saying it's a bad idea by the way. I just don't see what's in it for a 100% shareholder. Why make yourself accountable when you don't have to? Why give away any part of your control?

[peasepud 59]

The rep on the board would be accountable as any other board member, commercially sensitive info would be just that, commercially sensitive and bound by the same rules. The fact of the matter is that a huge chunk of the business is tied up in the customers, if they're not happy then they won't spend as much money. So it makes sense to an owner to have their input at the time.

 

Boards are brought in by shareholders, the fans rep is voted on by the fans and would be based on a lot more than wheter they were at scunthorpe in January 76 or could name the fairs cup side. Sensible level headed business type people with a love for the club as a bonus.

 

By default fans would trust the board more knowing they'd elected one of them, that alo e should be enough for any owner that isn't looking to screw the club over and wants it to do well.

[Kitman 2207]

The rep on the board would be accountable as any other board member, commercially sensitive info would be just that, commercially sensitive and bound by the same rules. The fact of the matter is that a huge chunk of the business is tied up in the customers, if they're not happy then they won't spend as much money. So it makes sense to an owner to have their input at the time.

 

Boards are brought in by shareholders, the fans rep is voted on by the fans and would be based on a lot more than wheter they were at scunthorpe in January 76 or could name the fairs cup side. Sensible level headed business type people with a love for the club as a bonus.

 

By default fans would trust the board more knowing they'd elected one of them, that alo e should be enough for any owner that isn't looking to screw the club over and wants it to do well.

 

Thanks, that fills in some gaps for me. I suppose the key thing is that you need a board that actually cares about what their fans think. My sense is most owners would look to have some kind of fan consultation without going as far as representation on the board. Especially at really big clubs.....are any of the 60 clubs in the premier league?

[peasepud 59]

There doesn't seem to be a defitive list, just numbers.

[Howmanheyman 33829]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

[Park Life 71]

Simple benefit is you know that at least one person on the board loves the club and wants what is best for it regardless of monetary gain, share price or how they look to the chairman over the road. This person can't be bought because they report to the fans and would have to justify what was done.

 

I have to admit to being totally confused how anyone can't see the benefits of that especially after the shit we've gone through the last two seasons

 

Can't see why any owner would want to do it though. What's in it for them? All I could see if I was an owner would be disruption, arguments and loss of secrecy. Why would they be interested in being accountable and justifying their decisions to a fan representative?

 

Supporter representation on the board is not only good PR, it is a covenant that will grow the club and increase good will and income.

Throws up a few problems though - Would someone with a bit of nouse be able to hold down their full-time job and still be able to commit enough time to sitting in board meetings? You don't want one of your rent-a-mob types who embarrass us at SJP every time something happens, do you? Not saying every one on the dole is a mong but you can see how it would create a conflict for a lot of suitable candidates. If you make it a paid post then the person loses their independence, so to speak. It's a tricky one.

 

I shouldn't imagine there will be more than 2-3 meetings a year.

[Park Life 71]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

 

Yup.

[snakehips 0]

I just found that a bit, I don't know, 6th form-ish tbh.

 

Ashley will sell when, and only when, it suits him.

 

 

How do you know? Do you know Ashley?

 

He might just be spurred into a deal because the national media are telling him to fuck off.

 

The i've just had four pints of Kronnenburg at the pub aggressive post!

 

No offence intended.

 

Crikey, none even noticed.

 

Keep off that lager shite and drink some real beer, man.

[snakehips 0]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

 

To a degree, that post does inspire me. I guess I'm just bewildered at the true effectiveness of having 'one of us' at the table.

 

Picture this:

 

Board meeting to hire a new manager. Chairman says, "The names we have are w, x, y and z." Now then, does 'our man in Africa' dispute those names? Does he report back to us? That would just be plain daft.

 

This is where I'm confused about it all. How much does he/she become 'one of them' due to all the confidentiality ?? He/she cannot possibly tell the board to hold on whilst he consults the supporters on every nuance of running the club.

 

The principal of having one of our friends as part of the decision making process sounds, of course, brilliant, but I just have my doubts as to real benefit. However, I guess I will support the calls for this plan to have our fellow fans on the board, and remain hopeful that the true worth will be demonstrated, thus making my Doubting Thomas sentiments unfounded.

[Park Life 71]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

 

To a degree, that post does inspire me. I guess I'm just bewildered at the true effectiveness of having 'one of us' at the table.

 

Picture this:

 

Board meeting to hire a new manager. Chairman says, "The names we have are w, x, y and z." Now then, does 'our man in Africa' dispute those names? Does he report back to us? That would just be plain daft.

 

This is where I'm confused about it all. How much does he/she become 'one of them' due to all the confidentiality ?? He/she cannot possibly tell the board to hold on whilst he consults the supporters on every nuance of running the club.

 

The principal of having one of our friends as part of the decision making process sounds, of course, brilliant, but I just have my doubts as to real benefit. However, I guess I will support the calls for this plan to have our fellow fans on the board, and remain hopeful that the true worth will be demonstrated, thus making my Doubting Thomas sentiments unfounded.

 

It's a start.

[snakehips 0]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

 

To a degree, that post does inspire me. I guess I'm just bewildered at the true effectiveness of having 'one of us' at the table.

 

Picture this:

 

Board meeting to hire a new manager. Chairman says, "The names we have are w, x, y and z." Now then, does 'our man in Africa' dispute those names? Does he report back to us? That would just be plain daft.

 

This is where I'm confused about it all. How much does he/she become 'one of them' due to all the confidentiality ?? He/she cannot possibly tell the board to hold on whilst he consults the supporters on every nuance of running the club.

 

The principal of having one of our friends as part of the decision making process sounds, of course, brilliant, but I just have my doubts as to real benefit. However, I guess I will support the calls for this plan to have our fellow fans on the board, and remain hopeful that the true worth will be demonstrated, thus making my Doubting Thomas sentiments unfounded.

 

It's a start.

 

I'll go with that .

[Howmanheyman 33829]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

 

To a degree, that post does inspire me. I guess I'm just bewildered at the true effectiveness of having 'one of us' at the table.

 

Picture this:

 

Board meeting to hire a new manager. Chairman says, "The names we have are w, x, y and z." Now then, does 'our man in Africa' dispute those names? Does he report back to us? That would just be plain daft.

 

This is where I'm confused about it all. How much does he/she become 'one of them' due to all the confidentiality ?? He/she cannot possibly tell the board to hold on whilst he consults the supporters on every nuance of running the club.

 

The principal of having one of our friends as part of the decision making process sounds, of course, brilliant, but I just have my doubts as to real benefit. However, I guess I will support the calls for this plan to have our fellow fans on the board, and remain hopeful that the true worth will be demonstrated, thus making my Doubting Thomas sentiments unfounded.

Who knows if the rep would become 'one of them'? Obviously, if he was consulted on a new manager he couldn't say, 'hang on there, lads, ah'm just ganning doon the three bulls to see what the lads reckon first', I suppose it's where trust comes into it, that and getting a suitable person voted on in the first place, put it this way, I've been involved in redundancy meetings/disputes before with a former employer, the shoppies who went in couldn't always give you an exact answer on certain things but I'd have rather had them there in the first place, and we certainly got a lot more info than we would have got without them, every rep won't be great, not every shop steward is going to be good, but all you can do is vote the best candidate in.

[peasepud 59]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

 

To a degree, that post does inspire me. I guess I'm just bewildered at the true effectiveness of having 'one of us' at the table.

 

Picture this:

 

Board meeting to hire a new manager. Chairman says, "The names we have are w, x, y and z." Now then, does 'our man in Africa' dispute those names? Does he report back to us? That would just be plain daft.

 

This is where I'm confused about it all. How much does he/she become 'one of them' due to all the confidentiality ?? He/she cannot possibly tell the board to hold on whilst he consults the supporters on every nuance of running the club.

 

The principal of having one of our friends as part of the decision making process sounds, of course, brilliant, but I just have my doubts as to real benefit. However, I guess I will support the calls for this plan to have our fellow fans on the board, and remain hopeful that the true worth will be demonstrated, thus making my Doubting Thomas sentiments unfounded.

 

The rep wouldnt be consulting the rest of us though, maybe thats where this isnt clear.

 

They would be a fully eligible member of the board with the same rights as the rest of the board members.

 

The supporters trust members would elect the member to sit on the board and that would be it (until their term was up), they would be responsible for what they do and accountable to the supporters. We (the supporters) would have to trust them to make the right decisions.

 

its the same as electing an MP, they dont consult us as to which way to vote in Parliament, we trust them to make the right decisions.

 

More importantly though, they are the voice of reason in there, the person who, should things be going dodgy will turn round and say "hold on a minute, this is shit".

[TheMoog 0]

To be honest all we need is a decent owner. The successful teams don't have all this sort of thing so why would we? Our biggest problem is we've had knobends running the show for too long and no chief exec of any worth either.

[peasepud 59]

I can see a lot of the 'what ifs' that are being asked about supporter involvement on the board, a lot of them are good questions, however, have we as supporters not got the bottle to go for this idea? Have we as a supporter base not got anyone with some kind of financial/business credentials? Would we be incapable as a body of support of managing to elect a representative from our numbers? The reps remit would come from the supporters, he would be visible and acting on our behalf, if power went to his head and the ego got in the way he simply gets voted off by the supporters.

 

At the minute it's all hypothetical, but I'm sure ground rules would be laid down by the club and the supporters trust, if either was unreasonable then it wouldn't get off the ground in the first place, I'd still like to see us have a go, though. Who wants the situation where AGM's get moved to London at short notice just to avoid any questions that the owners might not want to hear/be heard? Who's happy at the current radio silence/half-truths/plain bullshit that are doing the rounds at the minute? A board representative wouldn't be the answer to all our prayers but it's a big step forward in my opinion. I'm not being funny, but businesses was sending young boys up chimmneys over a hundred years ago, should the common man just have carried on tugging his forelock? Lets have a bit of confidence in ourselves, there's enough of us, for every knacker there's got to be a lot more with a bit of common sense.

 

To a degree, that post does inspire me. I guess I'm just bewildered at the true effectiveness of having 'one of us' at the table.

 

Picture this:

 

Board meeting to hire a new manager. Chairman says, "The names we have are w, x, y and z." Now then, does 'our man in Africa' dispute those names? Does he report back to us? That would just be plain daft.

 

This is where I'm confused about it all. How much does he/she become 'one of them' due to all the confidentiality ?? He/she cannot possibly tell the board to hold on whilst he consults the supporters on every nuance of running the club.

 

The principal of having one of our friends as part of the decision making process sounds, of course, brilliant, but I just have my doubts as to real benefit. However, I guess I will support the calls for this plan to have our fellow fans on the board, and remain hopeful that the true worth will be demonstrated, thus making my Doubting Thomas sentiments unfounded.

 

The rep wouldnt be consulting the rest of us though, maybe thats where this isnt clear.

 

They would be a fully eligible member of the board with the same rights as the rest of the board members.

 

The supporters trust members would elect the member to sit on the board and that would be it (until their term was up), they would be responsible for what they do and accountable to the supporters. We (the supporters) would have to trust them to make the right decisions.

 

its the same as electing an MP, they dont consult us as to which way to vote in Parliament, we trust them to make the right decisions.

 

More importantly though, they are the voice of reason in there, the person who, should things be going dodgy will turn round and say "hold on a minute, this is shit".

 

 

Still think the most workable step would be for a "decent owner" to employ a "Fans Liasson officer" who would chair a monthly fans forum where ALL fans groups (Disabled, Juniors Family etc etc and not just NUSC) would get to provide input.

 

This Fans liassion officer would then be the go between for the fans and the directors.

 

To think an owner is going to allow a non employee to attend full board meetings is pie in the sky IMO

 

How can it be pie in the sky when 60 clubs already do it successfully?

 

Weve had fans liasons they failed, we had the Supporters Panel, it was used to see how tasty the mince pies were and what would make someone buy another shirt....It failed.

[peasepud 59]

When you say 60 clubs, are any of these premier league clubs?

 

And when you say supporters panels have failed, i think that depends on who owns / runs the club and what you want your supporters rep to be discussing / championing.

 

I see there input as been with regard to facilities (including pies), special interest groups kids etc, problems that arise home and away etc etc.

 

I dont know what your view of what the fan would be getting involved with at board level on a privately run club.

 

I have made the view totally clear above,

 

they would be a full member of the board, same as all the other members of the board.

 

I really am at a loss to see how any fan can think that would be a bad thing, to know that someone they elected and trusted was there in the boardroom?????

 

 

And as for the Premiership question, Im not sure if there are any, like I say Im having problems locating a list of the 60 clubs on the SD website but the word Premiership gives it away, we're not a Premiership side. We play in the Championship, none of the big boys have been in the problems we are in and facing. Many of these smaller clubs with fans representation have been and its only when they got to the worst part of the shit that they gained the rep.

 

Heres hoping we never need get to that stage eh?

[The Fish 10963]

I can't see a down side to be honest. It's not like it's going to remove us further from the machinations of the club, now is it?

 

Simply saying it wont work is daft, because in the past of everything that does work, there was a point where it didn't.

[peasepud 59]

Not bad as such, just never going to happen at a big club.

 

Then lets all go home now then, its a waste of time having the dream.

 

 

 

oh hold on though, give it another year or so and we wont be a "big club", what then?

 

Its time you got along to a roadshow and listened to Colin Whittle talking about what he believes and how it can be achieved.

[peasepud 59]

...Heckles starting to rise...

 

You been on the sauce again?

 

 

fuck me kidda it wasnt a go at you, I was merely pointing out that when you listen to what he has to say you'll realise it is very doable.

[snakehips 0]

...Heckles starting to rise...

 

You been on the sauce again?

 

 

fuck me kidda it wasnt a go at you, I was merely pointing out that when you listen to what he has to say you'll realise it is very doable.

 

Peter, if Moat does get control of the club, does he constitute 'one of us' ? After all, he is a supporter. Or would any fan on the board have to come from NUSC ?

 

Please don't think I'm having a go, as I'm not (although it probably looks like it ).

[peasepud 59]

The thing is though, fans representation is the long term aim of the NUST.

 

Its what we're working toward and you rightly point out that it often (but not always) requires purchasing a stake in the club. You say that though as if its not doable. It is, we already have a number of major people who are willing to back us should the possibility arise. On top of that would be whatever could be raised from the members and you're looking at a serious possibility.

 

 

What you propse is all well and good and in itself would be a good thing but the way you're putting it you seem to be saying that we should bin the idea of getting a seat on the board and lower our expectations.

 

How do you know that the idea wouldnt be seen favourably by Moat (especially as he doesnt have the necessary readies to do this) or anyone else for that matter?

 

Shy bairns get nowt as they say, more importantly though, as a kid what did you do when you wanted to borrow a fiver off your dad?

 

Did you ask for a fiver?

 

Or were you smart and ask for a tenner knowing that whatever you requested would be met with "howwwww much?!?!?!" only to have him barter you down to 6 quid!

 

Go in there looking for board representation and who knows, you may just hit lucky, if not though then maybe you'll get the consolation prize of a Supporters Panel.

 

Go asking for a Supporters Panel and you could get offered a five minute chat and a coffee once every six months.

[The Fish 10963]

CT is your argument that we shouldn't try to get board representation (in some form), or that a fan-representative in board meetings wouldn't work?