Board meeting last night.

[Birdy]

Legitimate question MJ

 

At what point do you think the club has to be in for shareholders and fans to question their actions? I am at a loss to understand why we shouldn't be asking vital questions. Can you confirm to me that you think fans should not question the boards actions and credibility and we should ignore all of the off the field and blindly follow?

 

Genuinely interested in what point you would demand answers?

[Braddavaliant]

There was one guy sitting in-between deakin and Lloyd in the director's box that not seen before, this guy deakin and miller left at full time together before the rest of the box and didn't clap the players off.

[grebovale]

I know exactly what you're saying but perhaps it's just because lots of people have the same opinion! It happens on both 'sides' if you like. Pro and anti. If you agree you're a sheep , if you don't your head is stuck in the sand. :rolleyes:

 

Why can't people realise that everyone is entitled to their own opinion without being slated for it!

 

Rant over :D

 

As for you being a naughty boy.....I couldn't possibly say either. :D

 

Sorry CAZ but I wasn't trying to slate any one,I do seem to be the minority no here with the majority having a different opinion which often leads to ME getting slated and mild abuse. Alls fair in war and peace comes to mind. :)

[MagicFlask]

Legitimate question MJ

 

At what point do you think the club has to be in for shareholders and fans to question their actions? I am at a loss to understand why we shouldn't be asking vital questions. Can you confirm to me that you think fans should not question the boards actions and credibility and we should ignore all of the off the field and blindly follow?

 

Genuinely interested in what point you would demand answers?

 

I think we're perfectly entitled to question the board about things - but to do it in a constructive way, in a way that engages with them positively, not to take an "anti-board" position from the outset. That's been my concern all along - the debate around the SC rep was mostly suggesting there was no point because they'd be a lone voice, which was predicated on the assumption that they'd be opposed to whatever was going on.

 

I'm not suggesting we take their answers at face value, but also think we shouldn't automatically assume them to be lies and spin. We need to engage to be able to find out - and then we'd know the point at which we ought to have answers - and at that point we will know whether they can or can't be trusted.

 

At the moment we are all outside the tent, p****ing in, but we don't really know what's going on. Rumours start because various people have agendas - on both sides, and we have no way of finding out the real position. It's more than frustrating.

 

We need to take some things on trust in order to engage, I think that's a given, but intelligent folk can tell the difference when they are inside the tent, and I think we need to be there to do that effectively.

If we find out we are being lied to, and taken for mugs, then we know not to trust them again.

 

Does that answer your question? Engaged scepticism is how I'd describe it.....

[melv]

Well i can say there wasa meeting of some descriptionasi wastold when i asked if Mr Deakin was available for 5mins that he was "locked" in a meeting.

 

Whilst standing around waiting there was a lot of commings and goings including people arriving well after full time and entering VP.

 

Whatever meeting it was seemedto beover by around 10.30ish as i was then able to have ashort chat with 1 director who has offered to arrange a face to face meeting for me with PD at the next home game.

 

This is something i plan to take up as i want to see for myself the whites of PD's eyes when he speaks, im usuallya pretty good judge of character and as i said to the director im very sceptical of both PM & PD and that after years of support & with a baby on the way the renewal of my season ticket depends upon a number of things...

 

1- On field investment

2- The dismantling of the squad in the summer

3- Pricing of tickets

4- Proof of the ligitemacy of the shares.

 

As a non share holder i will leave point 4 to the SC, but the other 3 i want reassurances etc that they will happen.

 

The continuation of keeping this squad together in the summer will mean one less in attendance.

 

10/10 nice one,well done.

[Bede]

I think we're perfectly entitled to question the board about things - but to do it in a constructive way, in a way that engages with them positively, not to take an "anti-board" position from the outset. That's been my concern all along - the debate around the SC rep was mostly suggesting there was no point because they'd be a lone voice, which was predicated on the assumption that they'd be opposed to whatever was going on.

 

I'm not suggesting we take their answers at face value, but also think we shouldn't automatically assume them to be lies and spin. We need to engage to be able to find out - and then we'd know the point at which we ought to have answers - and at that point we will know whether they can or can't be trusted.

 

At the moment we are all outside the tent, p****ing in, but we don't really know what's going on. Rumours start because various people have agendas - on both sides, and we have no way of finding out the real position. It's more than frustrating.

 

We need to take some things on trust in order to engage, I think that's a given, but intelligent folk can tell the difference when they are inside the tent, and I think we need to be there to do that effectively.

If we find out we are being lied to, and taken for mugs, then we know not to trust them again.

 

Does that answer your question? Engaged scepticism is how I'd describe it.....

 

 

Aah, so you were the dude at the end of the sc meeting on Thursday.

 

I agree with your post above. The problem is that we've spent a year engaging with them on a very regular basis and have seen more than enough lies in order to not trust them.

 

You may think we're all less intelligent than you and that's your call. But there's a collection of individuals behind the scenes with a high level of collective intelligence that have done everything from every angle.

 

The answer we have all come to is that they cannot be trusted. It's not just based on Internet gob*****ry.

[MarkB2]

Aah, so you were the dude at the end of the sc meeting on Thursday.

 

I agree with your post above. The problem is that we've spent a year engaging with them on a very regular basis and have seen more than enough lies in order to not trust them.

 

You may think we're all less intelligent than you and that's your call. But there's a collection of individuals behind the scenes with a high level of collective intelligence that have done everything from every angle.

 

The answer we have all come to is that they cannot be trusted. It's not just based on Internet gob*****ry.

 

What he said - you're as negative as anyone on here, MagicFlask, except that your negativity is aimed at those real fans who are trying to sort a way out of this mess. Yet, you give the Board the benefit of the doubt at every single turn in the name of positivity...very wrong.

[the old bycars tea bar]

Aah, so you were the dude at the end of the sc meeting on Thursday.

 

I agree with your post above. The problem is that we've spent a year engaging with them on a very regular basis and have seen more than enough lies in order to not trust them.

 

You may think we're all less intelligent than you and that's your call. But there's a collection of individuals behind the scenes with a high level of collective intelligence that have done everything from every angle.

 

The answer we have all come to is that they cannot be trusted. It's not just based on Internet gob*****ry.

 

i agree

 

this mistrust has been bred over a long period not just a few months, it was made quite plain to lloyd and deakin at the bgwmc meeting that this was the main problem they agreed that this was the case and that the best way to regain this trust was to be honest and transparent and meet again with supporters at a open meeting following their return from america

 

i'm sorry but they fell at the first hurdle and have done little to remedy this situation since

 

i still hope that this investment happens, hank and miller with deakin are the real deal, but as a member of staff told me last night and i quote "it's like working for a bunch of clowns" so i am not building my hopes up

[Toby]

Great minds think a like.

 

Grebo, I'm sure you've been called a lot of things but I don't think "a great mind" will have been on the list, :D

[mbycars]

I think we're perfectly entitled to question the board about things - but to do it in a constructive way, in a way that engages with them positively, not to take an "anti-board" position from the outset. That's been my concern all along - the debate around the SC rep was mostly suggesting there was no point because they'd be a lone voice, which was predicated on the assumption that they'd be opposed to whatever was going on.

 

I'm not suggesting we take their answers at face value, but also think we shouldn't automatically assume them to be lies and spin. We need to engage to be able to find out - and then we'd know the point at which we ought to have answers - and at that point we will know whether they can or can't be trusted.

 

At the moment we are all outside the tent, p****ing in, but we don't really know what's going on. Rumours start because various people have agendas - on both sides, and we have no way of finding out the real position. It's more than frustrating.

 

We need to take some things on trust in order to engage, I think that's a given, but intelligent folk can tell the difference when they are inside the tent, and I think we need to be there to do that effectively.

If we find out we are being lied to, and taken for mugs, then we know not to trust them again.

 

Does that answer your question? Engaged scepticism is how I'd describe it.....

 

MF ithink that is a very fair assessment of what is going on at the moment and i have to agree with much of your analogy of the present situation.

[Valiant Haze]

nothing like positivity is there? Why did I expect anything else on here? I really think some posters on here only bother to come on to shout abuse at a hate figure they have created in their own mind.....it's like you're having an argument with your own evil twin.....or maybe it's a demand for some sort of human sacrifice, I'm waiting for the wickerwork to start or the burning of effigies......you missed your chance, that was three weeks ago.....I get the distinct impression that if Deakin wasn't in charge, you'd have to find another hate figure to hurl abuse at.....I don't honestly see what the point of it is, it's not remotely constructive.

 

There's positivity or their is reality.

 

5200 @ £5 =£26,000

 

or

 

4000 @ £20.50 = £82,000

 

Need i say more?.....

[melv]

There's positivity or their is reality.

 

5200 @ £5 =£26,000

 

or

 

4000 @ £20.50 = £82,000

 

Need i say more?.....

 

In Perry we trust.:rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

[Thats Entertainment]

There's positivity or their is reality.

 

5200 @ £5 =£26,000

 

or

 

4000 @ £20.50 = £82,000

 

Need i say more?.....

 

But PD would report a 30% increase in attendance ;)

[Birdy]

I think we're perfectly entitled to question the board about things - but to do it in a constructive way, in a way that engages with them positively, not to take an "anti-board" position from the outset. That's been my concern all along - the debate around the SC rep was mostly suggesting there was no point because they'd be a lone voice, which was predicated on the assumption that they'd be opposed to whatever was going on.

 

I'm not suggesting we take their answers at face value, but also think we shouldn't automatically assume them to be lies and spin. We need to engage to be able to find out - and then we'd know the point at which we ought to have answers - and at that point we will know whether they can or can't be trusted.

 

At the moment we are all outside the tent, p****ing in, but we don't really know what's going on. Rumours start because various people have agendas - on both sides, and we have no way of finding out the real position. It's more than frustrating.

 

We need to take some things on trust in order to engage, I think that's a given, but intelligent folk can tell the difference when they are inside the tent, and I think we need to be there to do that effectively.

If we find out we are being lied to, and taken for mugs, then we know not to trust them again.

 

Does that answer your question? Engaged scepticism is how I'd describe it.....

 

Thank you MF, I don't disagree with most of what you have said but we have no trust of the board and the board know they are not trusted. It is in their (and ours) best interests to bend over backwards to dismiss any allegation thrown at them then and only then can any sort of trust start to be mended. They have lied and lied and lied (this is undisputed) and people still show blind faith. I will trust them when they are open and honest about the current situation regarding BSI, share purchases and other dubious actions.

 

I truly believe the SC is the right way to conduct fans fears and of course representation. I also think that the SC reps should be selected by the fans and have no interference from the board. We do not want a nodder rep who is a puppet for the board we need a rep that will demand answers.

 

As Bede has stated their are many intelligent supporters who have (for 12 months+) and are still working in the background to access the reality of the situation and unfortunately there isn't much to be positive about. These people have met on countless occasions ML, PD, GO, etc etc and know many people in prominent positions around the country who have informed us of their concerns.

 

I am an optimistic and positive person and I certainly wouldn't be negative for any detrimental agenda. I still believe 100% that this club is in the wrong hands and we will see far worse before it get's better. Again as I have stated many many times I want to be proved wrong and I want the club to progress, why wouldn't I?

 

Unless the board can calm all the recent allegations against them and prove that the situation isn't as dire as many on here and many people in the know state I think the culture of mistrust will still be prominent around Vale Park.

[Valiant Haze]

But PD would report a 30% increase in attendance ;)

 

The fact that the lowest league home attendance this season is 4615 would make that claim incorrect ;)