"Blue Sky or Blue Square"

[Jacko51]

Very good piece by Phil "the Statto" Sherwin in today's Sentinel.

 

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Port-Vale-fan-zone-progress/story-13910042-detail/story.html

[tisdeano]

thats a great article and summary of key points

[Birches Head Fred]

If this is a poll with the options being :

 

a) Blue Sky and League 2

 

b) Blue Square and Mo/Mark

 

I would choose b.

[NellyTheValiant]

Good to see 'Vale for Real' making an **** of himself in public again.

[Tone]

These are fair questions for Phil to pose on behalf of supporters.

 

Are they not ones which the SC could have discussed prior to an open meeting, at which point they could have reported to the fans? Why cancel meeting (and don't tell me because the fans voted to do so) when there was an agreed channel of communication? And why would the Sentinel decline an opportunity to meet the club?

 

I don't understand.

[Tosh]

Good to see 'Vale for Real' making an **** of himself in public again.

 

Haha, yes I noticed that...wonder who he is?

[Birdy]

Good to see 'Vale for Real' making an **** of himself in public again.

 

It's not worth debating with him, I think he has some sort of disability in understanding rational thinking.

[The_godfather]

I don't think it should be an either or - they are hardly mutually exclusive, are they!?

[Thats Entertainment]

These are fair questions for Phil to pose on behalf of supporters.

 

Are they not ones which the SC could have discussed prior to an open meeting, at which point they could have reported to the fans? Why cancel meeting (and don't tell me because the fans voted to do so) when there was an agreed channel of communication? And why would the Sentinel decline an opportunity to meet the club?

 

I don't understand.

 

These questions WERE debated at the last meeting & HAVE been put to the club.

The club are refusing to answer these questions & fans concerns at an open meeting.

[Heatwave]

The Sentinel article didn't have a name on its byline.

 

Was Phil the author? And, if he was, did he want you to 'out' him Jean?

[Jacko51]

The Sentinel article didn't have a name on its byline.

 

Was Phil the author? And, if he was, did he want you to 'out' him Jean?

 

His name is on the print version, Mel. It is his weekly column.

[Jacko51]

These are fair questions for Phil to pose on behalf of supporters.

 

Are they not ones which the SC could have discussed prior to an open meeting, at which point they could have reported to the fans? Why cancel meeting (and don't tell me because the fans voted to do so) when there was an agreed channel of communication? And why would the Sentinel decline an opportunity to meet the club?

 

I don't understand.

 

My understanding was that only two members of the SC committee were asked to meet the Board. Mr Deakin and Mr Lloyd promised all the supporters at Baddeley Green that they would meet with them and respond to their questions once the deal was announced. All the fans want is for them to keep this promise. It would also be nice for Mr Miller to make himself known to the supporters of the club of which he is now chairman.

[Tone]

These questions WERE debated at the last meeting & HAVE been put to the club.

The club are refusing to answer these questions & fans concerns at an open meeting.

 

Are the club refusing to answer the questions or could they have been answered in a meeting that could have taken place?

[NLVMalc]

Tone

Having met with Deakin, Lloyd and Oliver I can fully understand the decision taken by the SC. I would not trust them one inch.

 

During the NLV meeting with them they asked us to keep confidential about the SC representative role on the board, as opposed to the disingenuous full board offer. They then used this information to attack NLV. They can not be trusted.

 

They have made several promises down the line including an open meeting on their return from America, their inability to live up to these promises means they cannot be trusted.

 

They now have to prove themselves to be open, honest and transparent. Until that happens they must expect that they will be treated with distrust.

 

IMO - the only reason they wanted the SC to be the only conduit of communication between the club and the fans is that they assumed they would be able to control it. Thankfully they have been proved wrong.

 

If the current board remain in place there is absolutely no reason to continue discussions about a SC rep as any Rep will be isolated and misinformed and thus used to feed the fans the boards propaganda.

[Tone]

Having a meeting with the board and an opinion as to whether individual people cannot be trusted are two separate things. Do you honestly think that in the commercial world or in politics every meeting that takes place is between people who totally trust each other? The world would get nowhere on that basis.