Maybe its time to end SEO.

[Family Stand Terrier]

Agreed, SEO isn't fully responsible, but it has got to be partly responsible. This was the aim of SEO wasn't it?

 

I take your point about disenfranchised customers, speaking as one of them. However, football is a different business than any other and the customers have a different connection with the business than any other. For that reason I feel all supporters have a duty to do whatever they can now.

 

I'm sounding like a broken record, we average 4.5k this season, more than we did in a lot of other seasons when there was no SEO. Fans weren't blamed then. I refuse in any way to accept SEO is to blame, or partly to blame. Not having it.

[Memphis]

Yeah man, but only if you change your avatar.

 

What avatar?

 

[JOHNNYAITCH]

.

 

I think we should all unite as one and get behind The Vale, generally we are except for SEO.

 

=========

 

Can't understand that..SEO have made a huge sacrifice in pursuit of the change at PVFC that most of us want and that means they are not behind Vale?

 

Attack the SEO method by all means but not the motive

[cheeky]

Agreed, SEO isn't fully responsible, but it has got to be partly responsible. This was the aim of SEO wasn't it?

 

I take your point about disenfranchised customers, speaking as one of them. However, football is a different business than any other and the customers have a different connection with the business than any other. For that reason I feel all supporters have a duty to do whatever they can now.

 

SEO effectively was a customer survey, change or we'll withdraw our custom. The board could have facilitated change, or alternatively, budgeted correctly on the estimated losses from SEO. They did neither, they are solely to blame. Furthermore, had the "nil paid" shares been paid for, would we be in this situation now? £500k would more than cover the HMRC, Harlequinn and printer debts along with the Council repayments.

 

Ultimately a customer is a customer, yes they may have an emotional attachment to the product, but if they do not like the product or feel that it does not offer value for money, they are no way obligated to purchase.

 

I maintain that SEO is in no way at fault for the situation we find ourselves in. And I would take umbridge with anyone that blamed me, personally.

[Trampilot]

In summary: I'll go when MOLD do. And not before.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

How can anyone argue with that?

 

Also, people who have supported SEO are now saying they accept no responsibility for the current stuation - you can't have it all ways!!!!

 

Yes, of course it's mainly the board's fault we're here, but you can't say that SEO isn't at all responsible - that's ******. If the club were to go into liquidation then I would certainly hold those who are still refusing to go to the games partly responsible. I respect your right not to attend up to this point, however, now the club is looking down the barrell you have absolutely no justification in not attending tomorrow.

 

So everyone who follows PVFC but does not actually pay to go to matches is reponsible for the state that the club is in? Poppycock!!!!

 

SEO supporters took the very hard decision to miss out on something that they love to hopefully force the issue re board change and it's looking like they will succeed very soon.

 

SEO are not reponsible for the club being where it is financially as it's clear that the problems started years ago but they have played a part in forcing the board to face up to the reality of the situation that they (the board) have created.

 

Bottom line, they did not trust the board to spend their money wisely and so withdrew it.

[Nottingham Valiant]

Cheeky and Johnny - you've got the wrong end of my pecker. I didn't really support or take part in SEO, however, i appreciate the motive and why people did it. The point i am trying to make it about timing - in my view, SEO is justifiable up to this point, it is not justifiable after this point. Continuing it beyond today I am sure is counter productive, up to today you can argue that is has been productive.

 

Regarding blame, yes, the massively overwhelming blame for us about to go into admin lies with the board and previous boards, nobody else. However, you can't say SEO is not at all responsible for it, otherwise what was the point? And by that I am not saying the people that took part in SEO were wrong to do it, it's just the facts. It's a case of cause and effect I suppose.

[paulnv]

The point i am trying to make it about timing - in my view, SEO is justifiable up to this point, it is not justifiable after this point. Continuing it beyond today I am sure is counter productive, up to today you can argue that is has been productive.

 

One point I would make regarding timing is the effect of a good gate tomorrow night on the bank overdraft. Currently there will be no money going out for the simple reasons that they don't have any and if they did the directors might be accused of preferring one creditor over another. Therefore the vast majority of the takings tomorrow night will merely reduce the club's overdraft. Assuming that the directors guarantees secure the overdraft, then the size of the gate will only help reduce their liability under the guarantees.

[Birdy]

SEO out was a threat to the board, the board ignored that and knew how much they would lose due to their lack of action. They chose the route they did so they carry the burden of responsibility, 100%.

 

Until every speck of the old board have gone, they will have no money from me. How does anyone know if you pay tomorrow whether the money will go to the players and staff and not Deakins Carriage Clock fund?

[i vale]

However, you can't say SEO is not at all responsible for it, otherwise what was the point? And by that I am not saying the people that took part in SEO were wrong to do it, it's just the facts. It's a case of cause and effect I suppose.

 

Lloyd and Deakin actually said SEO was having no effect or are you saying they were lying ?

[i vale]

Is there anything stopping OLD resigning TODAY so that fans know they are defiantly gone ? If they had any backbone they would go now in the best interests of PVFC instead of waiting for SOT council.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Cheeky and Johnny - you've got the wrong end of my pecker. I didn't really support or take part in SEO, however, i appreciate the motive and why people did it. The point i am trying to make it about timing - in my view, SEO is justifiable up to this point, it is not justifiable after this point. Continuing it beyond today I am sure is counter productive, up to today you can argue that is has been productive.

 

Fair enough

 

I don't agree cos if it stopped now it gives the board some excuses that those fans are not still against them and also potentially puts their money in the hands of the board. When we are in admin and the board is gone then I can see that SEo should stop immediately

 

Regarding blame, yes, the massively overwhelming blame for us about to go into admin lies with the board and previous boards, nobody else. However, you can't say SEO is not at all responsible for it, otherwise what was the point? And by that I am not saying the people that took part in SEO were wrong to do it, it's just the facts. It's a case of cause and effect I suppose.

 

I am not saying SEO has not played a part..part of their reasoning was to remove funds from the board to force the issue..but the board let it go on to such a point that we are where we are now..and that is their fault; they could have stopped all this earlier and chose not to

[Jacko51]

I still stand by my view that SEO is not responsible. If the club were to go into liquidation, I would hold only the board past and present, responsible. In no way can a disenfranchised customer be held responsible for poor mis-management by a companies board of directors and a failure to listen their customer base.

 

Agreed. As has been said many times, first rule of business - the customer is always right.

[Howjy04]

Agreed. As has been said many times, first rule of business - the customer is always right.

 

2nd rule if revenue is down 350k make sure people pay for their shares.

[BycarsLane]

Is there anything stopping OLD resigning TODAY so that fans know they are defiantly gone ? If they had any backbone they would go now in the best interests of PVFC instead of waiting for SOT council.

 

Hear Hear! This is one of the reasons why Glenn Oliver should be banned from Vale Park for ever. He clearly is not interested in the best interests of Port Vale any-more. If he was he would resign from the Board (along with Deakin and Lloyd) so we could attract back SEOers tomorrow.

 

You've acted disgracefully Glenn. What ever happened to you?