Jacko51

Sorry, I should have added the three guys on Zoom. So it was actually 11 folk. My better half were quite a lot he saw his first game in 1950 and mine was 1972.

My response was because a poster suggested those at the meeting weren't genuine fans. There were young people there as well. Take myself and my better half away and the average age is dramatically reduced! I'm not sure why Joe Biden is relevant in this debate - is he a closet Vale fan??

My better half is in his 74th season. The club chose who came from their side - the fans had no control over that. Not all of those there were old fogeys.

I would be delighted if this happened but I think the meeting last Monday demonstrated clearly to the club that it was necessary. If we get a forum, that meeting will have been largely responsible in my opinion.

The 8 fans who attended the meeting in person had nearly 500 years of Vale support between them. Is that genuine enough for you?

Mighten.

I never understand this. Bring out one of our quicker players to the halfway Line and they will bring out two. So with their keeper back, a guy taking the corner and two marking our speed merchant they will only have 7 In our box instead of 9. Does that make sense or am I being daft?

Flitcroft brought in 5 players in the January window. One never made it onto the pitch before he was sent back to his parent club. Of the others only one started today. That is simply pathetic and he should be on his bike.

Why do we need a DOF, especially in League 2. We have a manager, a head of recruitment, dozens of other support staff, a CEO and a COO. We could put the DOF salary towards a package for a decent striker?

He started one league game for Plymouth last year.

Excellent post Tony and I concur with every word.

You mean they aren’t funny?

That last question is key. You can question whilst still supporting.

I don’t think bad mouthing Mark Porter was funny.

Read Granville’s post on the first page of the thread as an example.

The problem was that some fans were not just expressing opinions but were actually making assumptions about various aspects of the meeting then reporting as if they were true.

I would say that if you produced a word cloud of the meeting “accountability”‘ would be front and centre in large letters.

Have you read Bede’s post above?

I would say the rift is probably smaller if the club has actually sat down with fans and listened to their concerns. As I asked another poster above, what more did you want to know about the meeting?

If dialogue has been opening the status quo has not been maintained.

I would suggest that those doing that are not the folk who had the meeting.

I think you should give them more than two days before you judge.

I can't understand why folk are saying the statement gave a total lack of information. It says that a considerable amount of the discussion was about the Director of Football. It says there was an acknowledgment from the club that communication with fans had been poor. It says there was a robust debate about accountability for football performance. What else did you want to know??

So do you just accept the problem or do you try to turn the ship round?

"If you were there, and by the way I would have loved to be there, I would have just gone, “David Flitcroft. Sack him” No politics. Just rhyme off every failure on the pitch he has made. Dropped my pint and walk out." And do you think the meeting would have lasted for approximately 3 hours if you had adopted that attitude? No it wouldn't and the various other matters that the supporters were concerned about would never have been raised. You say you would have loved to be there but you say you work nights so that was not an option for you.