The future for SEO/B&G

[MarkB2]

AVIM and his ilk keep posing these questions, but have no answers.

 

My questions to those who are anti-SEO, anti-B&G, and yet still maintain they are pro-change is this: -

 

How do you think this change will be achieved? Set out a strategy for us all to consider.

 

In other words, put up or shut the **** up. Even I am now tired of these non-football threads, 90% of which are started by pro-boarders, fellow travellers and those pro-change people who don't agree with anything that has been done so far in the cause of change.

 

The B&G position is clear - the club needs to be sold for the reasons that have been put forward many times. The belief is that Mo Chaudry is the best bet to buy the club.

 

The SEO position is more of a strategy than a vision - to force the above sale by starving out the current owners. Customer power. Many do not like it, as they don't really understand it and fear it actually working.

 

Other approaches have been made and continue to be made, including negotiation with the current board (even though 3 quarters of that board will not negotiate), plus seeking out other potential investors (such as Mark Sims), seeking recourse through the democratic processes of the club (such as they are) and raising awareness in whatever way.

 

I am not sure that more needs to be said and am not sure why the pro-board/fellow traveller/apathetic/pro-change but anti-everything that smacks of change groups want and why they keep on raking over this I do not know.

[Tosh]

I think the protests and campaigns under whatever names or acronyms they have are coming to an end but they have made their point and overall have proved to be successful.===

 

SEO is nothing new really, it's just been given a title, it's always happened, do well and it's 6/7/8 thousand home fans, do poor it could be 3/4 thousand, same at all clubs. Unfortunately under this present board I see poor crowds being the main as the season goes on!:(

[Guest potalot1]

Yes, but it would have been better with another 500 absent vale fans cheering us on. Who knows, might have made the difference. ;)

 

Me too, it was a decent game. Good football, great atmosphere, good point, good bit of banter, good food. Missing fans ?..There choice...:D

[melv]

Me too, it was a decent game. Good football, great atmosphere, good point, good bit of banter, good food. Missing fans ?..There choice...:D

 

Great atmosphere

[valiantms]

Future ?? lol.

Think it started to weaken a while ago and finally died this week...RIP..

IMO of course..

 

I actually agree. SEO was a mistake, or to be more specific, the way it has be done. It is far too public and far too vocal and has split the pro-change movement, as well as confused non-OVFers. It has given a direction for pro-board and pro-change-anti-SEO to aim their abuse.

 

The idea of SEO was the right thing to do though. If a customer is unhappy, they are more than in their rights to walk away, and that is something us unhappy Vale fans should continue to do. I just think making a song and dance about it has rocked the boat too much and hindered the pro-change group.

 

So I agree with SEO in principal, just not with how it has been conducted and put across to the general public. I mean, we could have all not gone the game yesterday if we didn't want to, still had a pro-change march, which would have been better attended, and no trouble would have happened. If we had all quietly slipped away one by one and no longer went the games, all the flak SEO is catching now would be aimed directly at the board. But because we have organised a mass boycott we have made a rod for our own backs.

 

I hope now that SEO will begin to take a back seat, if you don't want to attend the games then don't, I won't be there either. I just feel B&G and its principals have a much better match to the man in the stand than SEO does.

 

So basically, continue to Starve em Out, just let B&G re-take the limelight and cut down on the SEO propaganda. This will hopefully see future protests and marches backed by higher numbers as it will prevent confusion between pro-change and pro-SEO (which is what I believe happened yesterday).

[Timothius]

On the patented AVIM scale of -10 to +10 board love/hate, SEO has positioned the protest movement at -9 or -10. Quite predictably, this has alienated the majority of fans, who are "anti board" rather than "pro board", but far less extreme, say -3. I have posted this before, nothing new here (except now SEO might listen).

 

SEO is a huge mistake. Its is a very very bad strategy, illogical and a failure. You have wasted a massive opportunity to unite the fanbase behind a movement for change. Whoever dreamt it up as a campaign is an idiot.

 

Now what? Do you continue with a failed strategy, even though you know it is doomed to failure, is anti change (by its results, not its intentions) and anti port vale? Or do you come out and say you got it wrong, and get back supporting the club whilst trying to reposition the protest movement more towards the middle ground (say -3/-4 on the AVIM scale)?

 

You thread title is SEO/B&G but then you just slag of SEO. The fact is B&G are nothing to do with SEO, SEO is a separate intiative started by another person who is not on the B&G "committee".

 

B&G still has a part to play, I believe but, as with your title, we need to differentiate B&G from starve em out and reitterate what we stand for and that is a visual show that you want change at boardroom level. As I have posted on another thread, I didn't go yesterday, not so much because I fully support SEO but because I am unwilling to give my money to Bratt and Oliver to keep them in the boardroom, (that is my own SEO if you like based on my own principles) but I met with fellow B&G supporters before and after the game who went into the game and that is their choice which I respect.

[Twitters]

Me too, it was a decent game. Good football, great atmosphere, good point, good bit of banter, good food. Missing fans ?..There choice...:D

 

Good football? Vale were awful for 60 minutes and the fans were on the players back! Had Richards not scored we'd have been booed off!

[Guest Tony Dyche]

I actually agree. SEO was a mistake, or to be more specific, the way it has be done. It is far too public and far too vocal and has split the pro-change movement, as well as confused non-OVFers. It has given a direction for pro-board and pro-change-anti-SEO to aim their abuse.

 

The idea of SEO was the right thing to do though. If a customer is unhappy, they are more than in their rights to walk away, and that is something us unhappy Vale fans should continue to do. I just think making a song and dance about it has rocked the boat too much and hindered the pro-change group.

 

So I agree with SEO in principal, just not with how it has been conducted and put across to the general public. I mean, we could have all not gone the game yesterday if we didn't want to, still had a pro-change march, which would have been better attended, and no trouble would have happened. If we had all quietly slipped away one by one and no longer went the games, all the flak SEO is catching now would be aimed directly at the board. But because we have organised a mass boycott we have made a rod for our own backs.

 

I hope now that SEO will begin to take a back seat, if you don't want to attend the games then don't, I won't be there either. I just feel B&G and its principals have a much better match to the man in the stand than SEO does.

 

So basically, continue to Starve em Out, just let B&G re-take the limelight and cut down on the SEO propaganda. This will hopefully see future protests and marches backed by higher numbers as it will prevent confusion between pro-change and pro-SEO (which is what I believe happened yesterday).

 

Good points, and I agree.

[Timothius]

SEO is more than that. It is/was a movement. With websites and forums and stickers and walls of doom!

 

Again you are lumping two separate groups together as one, you are factually incorrect. Two groups, two different approaches but with the same end goal a new board an brighter future for PVFC.

[MarkB2]

Good football? Vale were awful for 60 minutes and the fans were on the players back! Had Richards not scored we'd have been booed off!

 

He meant Crawley when he said that....

[geosname]

SEO is more than that. It is/was a movement. With websites and forums and stickers and walls of doom!

 

Read my post again.....

[valetillidye]

You thread title is SEO/B&G but then you just slag of SEO. The fact is B&G are nothing to do with SEO, SEO is a separate intiative started by another person who is not on the B&G "committee".

 

B&G still has a part to play, I believe but, as with your title, we need to differentiate B&G from starve em out and reitterate what we stand for and that is a visual show that you want change at boardroom level. As I have posted on another thread, I didn't go yesterday, not so much because I fully support SEO but because I am unwilling to give my money to Bratt and Oliver to keep them in the boardroom, (that is my own SEO if you like based on my own principles) but I met with fellow B&G supporters before and after the game who went into the game and that is their choice which I respect.

 

I agree with SEO, however some fans appear to have twisted what it stands for. Because of that I agree with what you are saying here.

 

SEO still has its place, fans are supporting by staying away, however the focus needs to be on B&G

 

I'm going to the game on Tuesday (its through work so I won't be paying) and I really want to wear my B&G scarf however I have to say I'm slightly nervous about doing so in case I get a load of grief - I'll be with a customer who is a huge Huddersfield fan - which is not what I want

 

======

[bennymole]

On the patented AVIM scale of -10 to +10 board love/hate, SEO has positioned the protest movement at -9 or -10. Quite predictably, this has alienated the majority of fans, who are "anti board" rather than "pro board", but far less extreme, say -3. I have posted this before, nothing new here (except now SEO might listen).

 

SEO is a huge mistake. Its is a very very bad strategy, illogical and a failure. You have wasted a massive opportunity to unite the fanbase behind a movement for change. Whoever dreamt it up as a campaign is an idiot.

 

Now what? Do you continue with a failed strategy, even though you know it is doomed to failure, is anti change (by its results, not its intentions) and anti port vale? Or do you come out and say you got it wrong, and get back supporting the club whilst trying to reposition the protest movement more towards the middle ground (say -3/-4 on the AVIM scale)?

 

 

I do have to say thank you to you, making sure there is still a team for us to watch when we come back after the board have gone

 

 

====================================

[Jacko51]

Me too, it was a decent game. Good football, great atmosphere, good point, good bit of banter, good food. Missing fans ?..There choice...:D

 

Did you enjoy the first half, potalot? Personally I thought it was dire.

[N.kent]

AVIM and his ilk keep posing these questions, but have no answers.

 

My questions to those who are anti-SEO, anti-B&G, and yet still maintain they are pro-change is this: -

 

How do you think this change will be achieved? Set out a strategy for us all to consider.

 

In other words, put up or shut the **** up. Even I am now tired of these non-football threads, 90% of which are started by pro-boarders, fellow travellers and those pro-change people who don't agree with anything that has been done so far in the cause of change.

 

The B&G position is clear - the club needs to be sold for the reasons that have been put forward many times. The belief is that Mo Chaudry is the best bet to buy the club.

 

The SEO position is more of a strategy than a vision - to force the above sale by starving out the current owners. Customer power. Many do not like it, as they don't really understand it and fear it actually working.

 

Other approaches have been made and continue to be made, including negotiation with the current board (even though 3 quarters of that board will not negotiate), plus seeking out other potential investors (such as Mark Sims), seeking recourse through the democratic processes of the club (such as they are) and raising awareness in whatever way.

 

I am not sure that more needs to be said and am not sure why the pro-board/fellow traveller/apathetic/pro-change but anti-everything that smacks of change groups want and why they keep on raking over this I do not know.

 

You keep asking the same question over and over and making the assumption that because some off us have different views than yourself we are "pro board".

I am pro Port Vale nothing more nothing less i don't agree with SEO but i do agree with change for the better.How do we do this ?

We get Mark Sims apointed as a Director we get a fans Rep also joining the board as a Director representing Port Vale supporters ( what i did learn yesterday was NLV are as widely disliked as SEO by some fans)Micky then steps down as a director leaving 5 with Mike Lloydd having a casting vote in any changes to be made.Don't for one minute think that the present board will still have a monopoly on any decisions as i do think Mike Lloydd is coming on side.

Even that scenario is not good enough for some extremists though