Opinion: It’s good to talk, so Port Vale owners listening to fans can only be a good thing
Rob Fielding offers his view on the news that a group of supporters met with club officials, including co-owner Carol Shanahan to “reset their relationship.”
Rob Fielding writes…
Some fans have criticised a “bland” statement with no details on what was said. Well, I would argue there’s a limit to the levels that both supporters groups and the club can be open with the information…
A joint statement on Wednesday confirmed that a meeting between supporters groups and the club had taken place. There seems to be a mixed reaction to the meeting from fans but for me I can only see the positives. Some of you may disagree on these points, in which case feel free to leave a comment, but here goes…
Do some fans have unrealistic expectations from such a meeting? I see this as the start rather than the end of better communications between fans and owners (and vice versa). Many supporters have pointed out a wide range of things that are wrong at the club and, with such a list, it’s hardly realistic that simply sitting down and talking them through is going to resolve everything in the blink of an eye.
However, I see the very fact that the club is willing to listen is a good start. As the statement says “club communication has not been at the level supporters should expect” and the club has acknowledged that has to improve. That can only be a positive thing that this meeting has produced, can’t it?
Ultimately the owners, not the fans, own the club. I think it’s clear from sentences such as a “significant part of the discussion focused on the current football situation and the role of Director of Football” what the fans had to say. However, we are the fanbase, we haven’t put in the millions. We can point out what we think is wrong but we can’t force the owners to make decisions that they may disagree with. However, I do think that by making fans’ discontent clear in a face-to-face meeting, it will have given Carol and co something to think about, to mull over.
Some fans have criticised a “bland” statement with no details on what was said. Well, I would argue there’s a limit to the levels that both supporters groups and the club can be open with the information. The statement mentions “candid” and “open dialogue” – if that conversation is regarding whether someone should remain employed or not then of course the full minutes cannot be released – that would potentially leave the club open to a employment tribunal hearing.
I guess it ultimately comes down to trust. Do you trust the fans present to have conveyed the fanbase’s concerns? Do you trust the club to have listened? I think by the very fact that both parties have released a joint statement, have (in the club’s case) admitted to failings suggests both sides took it seriously and it was worthwhile.
Port Vale’s problems will NOT be solved solely by this meeting but this meeting and the dialogue between fans and owners is a start, a positive one and I’m grateful that both sides took the time to listen and consider each other’s views. It’s good to talk.
Andy
6th March 2024 @ 7:13 pm
It is good to talk as you say. However,we as supporters are left wondering why Ellis Harrison was allowed to leave when he was the only striker who played regularly and was the most mobile, was it for an “undisclosed fee?”
Lewis Cass allowed to go out on loan when Mitch Clarke is out injured? Probably the only player capable of playing full back and with quite a lot of first team experience.
These are just a few of the strange decisions made by the club as we are left to wonder what next?
Ian Mountford
6th March 2024 @ 11:23 pm
I would have been more impressed with Carol and the club if they had held a meeting with normal supporters from the terraces or seats as it is, and not just the same select few which suits them. It’s been more like having a meeting with friends of the family to me and the rest are left in the dark. I understand your comment that certain comments and minutes from the meeting can not be made public, but to me the meeting is lightly to achieve nothing. If Carol, Hancock and co are attending games they can see the mess it is on the pitch and can hear supporters views.
David Brown
7th March 2024 @ 12:39 am
Far better to have the meeting than not at all. That it was deemed necessary highlights the consistent lack of clarification and information initiated by the club. I can’t remember the last time David Flitcroft gave an extensive press conference. As DOF I would have expected regular press and media briefings, especially to explain the thorny issue of the transfer window and squad management. This transparency has been missing. With the club’s declining form and league position, opportunities have been missed by the club’s hierarchy to harness relationships with supporters. The manager’s media briefing about matches, tactics, and team selection is a different matter. Let’s hope that mutual trust and understanding between the parties improve. The last thing the Vale want is a return to average home gates of 3,500.
Ian Mountford
7th March 2024 @ 12:47 am
The problem I have with this meeting is, if Carol, Hancock and co can’t see how dreadful performances are (we didn’t muster a shot on goal Saturday, and that’s not the first time. Two teams below us in the league not only recently beat us, they made us look like a pub team, one of them twice). And if they can’t see that or hear the supporters discontent without holding a meeting with a few chosen fans they must be going to these games and putting their heads in a bucket of sand with their fingers in their ears. I don’t moan at the players for the performances because a lot of them including the loanees and academy lads are being asked to play at a standard they are not good enough for, then other players are being asked to play in positions they can’t play in. The buck stops firmly at Flitcroft’s feet and Carol has done nothing about it and even backs him. To me this is nothing more than a publicity stunt to appease fans and get them off their backs, that is unless they do something about the situation.
Geoff Seabridge
7th March 2024 @ 3:32 pm
A rational and well-balanced article Rob. I have argued somewhat similarly (if not quite as eloquently) in a recent number of posts I’ve put on the forum. As you say, it’s the start of a dialogue and there is still much for the owners to put right, but at least, reading between the lines, it appears to have been a frank, open and honest discussion by both ‘sides’ and hopefully the club will have taken note of the fans’ views.
Again, as you say, any public statement issued had to be in nuanced language. From a number of comments on the forum, I think some fans expected chapter & verse. That was never going to happen! Despite the inevitable slightly opaque nature of statement, I believe that it was a sensible (if slightly overdue) exercise in two-way communication and even with the nature of the nuances, I got the feeling that there will be outcomes to prove this in time.
As fans, we are all impatient for improvement on-pitch and, as you’ve said on a number of occasions, those responsible for playing matters have to be ultimately accountable! Let’s give Carol and the club’s executives a little space to take on board and react to the fans’ firmly stated concerns.
David raftery
8th March 2024 @ 6:42 pm
It’s good to talk but is carol listening or is she taking supporters for mugs after so-called revamping the toilets in the railway paddock which lasted a couple of games before the roof gave way the paying supporters can make do with a couple of portaloos if she thinks that is acceptable spend a game in the railway paddock and see how appalling the conditions are they are nearly as bad as the team