|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2022 15:44:43 GMT
We should thank all the candidates who stood in the recent Supporters Council election for putting themselves forward, whether or not they were successful. I know from my own experience, and, much more importantly, from that of FSA colleagues and affiliates up and down the country, that fans representative roles can be time-consuming and often under-appreciated. In recent years I (and others) have raised the question of why the Club doesn't publish the Council election voting figures. I couldn't think of another organisation whose members elect representatives which doesn't publish the results to the electorate, or a good reason why that shouldn't be done. It comes up every year not only because there is an election every year, but also because the Club has changed its practice both last year and this year, and it is appropriate to assess that. Until last year the Club didn't publish any figures. The reason given by the Chair of the Supporters Council was that publication of a very low number of votes for some candidates could deter them and others from standing. Whilst I appreciated the personal sensitivity of this argument, I don't think it trumps the requirement for good electoral practice and transparency. Last year the Club changed its practice and published the % of the total votes cast obtained by each of the successful candidates, but no actual figures. This year they published those %ages for all the candidates including the unsuccessful ones, so the above argument about candidates who didn't score well has been abandoned. This is a welcome advance but we are still not told the much more important information of how many votes were actually cast in total, and what the turnout was, i.e what proportion of supporters eligible to vote actually did so. It is essential to know this in order to assess the effectiveness of the Club's current approach to supporter engagement, and how important fans think the Council is. I fear, but would be very happy to be proved wrong, that the turnout % was very low. I was surprised that, as far as I could see, there was no promotion of the election over the tannoy, big screen or match programme at the recent home games against M'Boro and Sunderland. I can see no good reason why the Club shouldn't publicise the total number of votes cast and the turnout. One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. On the supporter side, in the FSA we now have a vibrant women's game supporter network at national level, and women's game supporter groups are being established at many clubs. Hopefully this will happen at Stoke. From reading the minutes, Women's game supporters issues have not so far featured heavily, if at all, in the work of the Supporters Council. That of course could change with the new levels of interest in the women's game. But when it does, it raises a self-evident issue of conflict of interest if the General Manager of the Club's women's team, who one would expect to respond to any such issues on behalf of the Club, is already sitting on the supporters' side of the table. Also, the Government has promised a review of the women's game, as recommended to them by Tracey Crouch in her fan-led review of football. The Club will no doubt submit evidence to that, and the Women's Game GM will presumably play a central role in formulating that. But suppose the supporters and the Supporters Council disagreed with the Club on how the women's game should develop (there are some quite controversial issues involved), but the GM is also one of the fans' reps ? I am not aware of any other Club where a club official is part of the supporters' side on a supporter engagement body, for obvious reasons. I don't think it's just a question of women's game issues being discussed. If you are a Club official but (very unusually) also representing fans on the engagement body, with the Club Chairman and Chief Operating Officer (your bosses) sitting on the other side of the table, it's only human nature that this might affect the way you fulfill your role, or at least be perceived by others to do so. I think this also applies to journalistic and media roles, which involve maintaining a working relationship with the Club and its officials, on both the playing and non-playing sides, and access to games via a media pass. I think fans reps. on supporter engagement bodies really should not have any formal relationship with the Club other than being an ordinary fan and having the same matchday experience as all the other fans. A perfectly legitimate response to these points might be that Angela declared her new Club role in her statement, that she came top of the poll and therefore the voters must be quite happy with the situation. I accept that, although I would guess that because she is already well-known, many voters either didn't feel they needed to read the statement, or if they did, perhaps didn't appreciate the possible conflict of interest implications. And, as stated above, we have not been told how many fans actually voted. It goes without saying that none of this is personal to Angela as an individual or any other Council member. They are really matters which the Club needs to address, as it is the process by which it meets its supporter engagement obligations under EFL rules. And I think it is quite likely that the new post-Crouch regulatory regime (assuming the new CMS Secretary of State doesn't abandon the whole thing ! ) will outlaw Club officials being able to represent fans on official fan-engagement bodies. Personally I don't have a problem with Angela having a seat on the council. First and foremost she is a avid stoke supporter who is passionate about the club, her stature also enables her to have more weight behind issues around the club which can only be good for us as supporters. If other people think it's a problem then I would suggest the club to have Angela as a representative of the club in the meetings and elect another person, for example the person with the next highest votes. I would imagine that when women's game issues arise, for example when the Government's promised review of the women's game starts taking evidence, or if and when a women's game supporters' group starts at the Club, then the Club are likely to field the General Manager of the Women's team on the club side of the table, as we would expect. Therein lies the potential conflict of interest if, for example, the fans views were not the same as those of the Club. It's about clarity of role.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2022 16:00:49 GMT
It's been a farce for years. I'd love to know how many issues that have been addressed have actually been sorted. It's the same old answers at every meeting: "The club will monitor this" "The club will take this into consideration" "The club have welcomed the feedback and will look to improve" i have approached the supporters council for help with a ticketing issue a while back when the new corner was built, my good lady wife was working in care and had ordered season tickets in the new disabled section at the top and it was not ready but no communication or help was given, I emailed the council for some help requesting a bit of clarity and Ange promptly replied and put me in touch with the relevant person at the club who sorted it. its not all about what is discussed in the minutes often its little bits of help and the council members acting as a go between for fans and the club and it works, im sure others have used the council in this way. its similar to Malcolm and his work within the FSA, he or the FSA have no real power in a club or the game (apologies Malcolm) but they are listened too and respected and act in the best way possible to help fellow fans enjoy games and deal with unfortunate events that can occur! long may these volunteers and well meaning folk exist! That's good to hear, flea, and I agree with you about the Council's role. I would say the FSA is sometimes listened to and respected, flea. But respect certainly isn't universal. Even on this supporters' forum where I raised 2 perfectly legitimate issues, bertjones, kustokie and crouchpotato ( and maybe others) have accused me of making a personal attack on a fellow fan; personal bitterness; and gender discrimination, none of which IMHO is fair.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2022 16:45:35 GMT
That said, I would ask Malcom Clarke if he so concerned about this,matter, why he didn’t he raise it before the election or more importantly why he didn’t stand for election in the first place? I spent 15 years in academia where they said the politics were viscous because the stakes were so low. This issue seems to fall into the same category. Whilst the Oatcake is a good forum for discussion it is no place for personal attacks by those who can hide behind a veil of anonymity. If you have a problem, write to the club, start a petition or go to the council meetings, but don’t attack people who have done nothing wrong. To answer the questions you have addressed to me. I have raised the voting figures issues on several occasions previously (and in fact have been criticised for raising it every year). On the club role/conflict of interest issue, I didn't raise it before the election because no-one knew it had arisen until the election was already underway. I never expected it to arise. As I said above, I cannot recall this situation arising at another club. Why didn't I stand for election ? I did stand and was on the Council for the first 2 years of its life. It's a bit boring but since you've asked, the reason I didn't stand again in 2014 was as follows. The Council started pre-meetings of the fans before the meetings with the Club which are before a home game. That was Angela's idea, and a very good idea it was too. But the problem for me was that they were on the Sunday before the meeting with the Club, in Newcastle-u-Lyme. That was usually the day after I had been travelling to an away game to watch the team. I live in Manchester. To then have to drive down to Newcastle on the Sunday morning for the pre-meeting was just domestically too much. Also, I was, and still am, national Chair of the FSA (as it now is), which involves a lot of work, which is increasing not decreasing, with the Fan-led review, imminent White Paper and other matters. We are shortly to expand quite considerably. If I had stood and was lucky enough to be successful for the Supporters Council, the reality is that it is likely that I wouldn't have been able to do the Council role to the standards which I set myself and which fellow Stokies are entitled to expect. There are only so many hours in the day. I hope that's answered your questions. I agree with you that there should be no place for attacks behind the veil of anonymity. I think I have been unfairly anonymously attacked in this thread by at least 3 posters, including your comment that when someone says it isn't personal, as I did, it usually is. You know who I am because I only ever use my real name on social media, but I don't know who, for example, you, bertjones and crouchpotato are.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 16:53:40 GMT
Any news on the cake?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2022 17:20:22 GMT
Good. I'm glad someone has pulled us back to the really important issue. Nello will be delighted if we can sort this one
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 17:24:23 GMT
Good. I'm glad someone has pulled us back to the really important issue. Nello will be delighted if we can sort this one Good man Malc. Some things just take priority. 👍 🍰
|
|
|
Post by scfcrmagic on Sept 2, 2022 20:50:32 GMT
As Malcolm said, Angela declared her role in her election statement and those who voted will have seen that. I know that others before her on there have also worked in some format for the club, too. It's a real shame for someone who was open, has really held the club to account over the years, and always put the club first. I totally agree with your comments Bunny. I would also like to point out that everyone who voted for Angela ( I am one who did ) probably feels quite insulted by your comments. Angela disclosed everything in her election statement, She has always been a fan, first and foremost, she has always been vocal with the club and never shied away from asking questions of the club…that they didn’t always like. She has gone above and beyond , working diligently behind the scenes on behalf of “us’ the fans, trying to improve all aspects of how we are treated by the club. I know for a fact she has given an awful lot of her time to help Lou Macari and his charity, which Is dear to a lot of Stokies. Along with many other projects that she has given support to for no other reason than she cares about all things Stoke City. Angela was voted for and won the election, others appear to have had roles within the club and media whilst standing and this has caused no problem, the club were fully aware and they were okay about Angela and others standing . So I really don’t get why there is any problem here, other than sour grapes perhaps ? And if Malcolm feels he’s getting some abuse…he needs to .look at what he’s written, seems okay for you to dish it out
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 2, 2022 21:02:28 GMT
As Malcolm said, Angela declared her role in her election statement and those who voted will have seen that. I know that others before her on there have also worked in some format for the club, too. It's a real shame for someone who was open, has really held the club to account over the years, and always put the club first. I totally agree with your comments Bunny. I would also like to point out that everyone who voted for Angela ( I am one who did ) probably feels quite insulted by your comments. Angela disclosed everything in her election statement, She has always been a fan, first and foremost, she has always been vocal with the club and never shied away from asking questions of the club…that they didn’t always like. She has gone above and beyond , working diligently behind the scenes on behalf of “us’ the fans, trying to improve all aspects of how we are treated by the club. I know for a fact she has given an awful lot of her time to help Lou Macari and his charity, which Is dear to a lot of Stokies. Along with many other projects that she has given support to for no other reason than she cares about all things Stoke City. Angela was voted for and won the election, others appear to have had roles within the club and media whilst standing and this has caused no problem, the club were fully aware and they were okay about Angela and others standing . So I really don’t get why there is any problem here, other than sour grapes perhaps ? And if Malcolm feels he’s getting some abuse…he needs to .look at what he’s written, seems okay for you to dish it out Because others did and it wasn’t known (why would it be) means nothing. I can’t believe anyone is ok with what is a clear conflict of interest.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 2, 2022 21:03:16 GMT
As Malcolm said, Angela declared her role in her election statement and those who voted will have seen that. I know that others before her on there have also worked in some format for the club, too. It's a real shame for someone who was open, has really held the club to account over the years, and always put the club first. I totally agree with your comments Bunny. I would also like to point out that everyone who voted for Angela ( I am one who did ) probably feels quite insulted by your comments. Angela disclosed everything in her election statement, She has always been a fan, first and foremost, she has always been vocal with the club and never shied away from asking questions of the club…that they didn’t always like. She has gone above and beyond , working diligently behind the scenes on behalf of “us’ the fans, trying to improve all aspects of how we are treated by the club. I know for a fact she has given an awful lot of her time to help Lou Macari and his charity, which Is dear to a lot of Stokies. Along with many other projects that she has given support to for no other reason than she cares about all things Stoke City. Angela was voted for and won the election, others appear to have had roles within the club and media whilst standing and this has caused no problem, the club were fully aware and they were okay about Angela and others standing . So I really don’t get why there is any problem here, other than sour grapes perhaps ? And if Malcolm feels he’s getting some abuse…he needs to .look at what he’s written, seems okay for you to dish it out Could you quote back the worst example of abuse you feel Malcolm has written in this thread please?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 2, 2022 21:06:13 GMT
I totally agree with your comments Bunny. I would also like to point out that everyone who voted for Angela ( I am one who did ) probably feels quite insulted by your comments. Angela disclosed everything in her election statement, She has always been a fan, first and foremost, she has always been vocal with the club and never shied away from asking questions of the club…that they didn’t always like. She has gone above and beyond , working diligently behind the scenes on behalf of “us’ the fans, trying to improve all aspects of how we are treated by the club. I know for a fact she has given an awful lot of her time to help Lou Macari and his charity, which Is dear to a lot of Stokies. Along with many other projects that she has given support to for no other reason than she cares about all things Stoke City. Angela was voted for and won the election, others appear to have had roles within the club and media whilst standing and this has caused no problem, the club were fully aware and they were okay about Angela and others standing . So I really don’t get why there is any problem here, other than sour grapes perhaps ? And if Malcolm feels he’s getting some abuse…he needs to .look at what he’s written, seems okay for you to dish it out Could you quote back the worst example of abuse you feel Malcolm has written in this thread please? The only abuse is towards Malcolm. It’s crazy.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Sept 2, 2022 21:14:51 GMT
Setting aside the petty politics and accusations of misogyny, this appears to be about potential conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are a part of life, some are inconsequential, some are wrong and some are illegal. Arguably the most egregious legal conflict of interest lies with the members of the US Congress who are not subject to insider trading rules, which means elected officials can trade stocks that will be affected by legislation that is not yet in the public domain. Whilst the present Supporters Council issue is a storm in a tea cup by comparison, the analogy is valid. One might not like it but if it’s not against the rules there’s nothing wrong with it. If you don’t like the system work to change it, but don’t mount personal attacks (and yes these attacks are personal) on those who have done nothing wrong. The rules do not exclude club employees from standing for election. Moreover, Angela Smith declared any potential conflict as General Manager of the Women's Team in her Election Statement. This did not deter those who voted for her and she won in a landslide. Some might see it as an advantage. President Johnson famously said he would rather have his opponents inside the tent pissing out than the other way around. I leave it to the reader to decide which side of the tent the protagonists in this issue are standing. That said, I would ask Malcom Clarke if he so concerned about this,matter, why he didn’t he raise it before the election or more importantly why he didn’t stand for election in the first place? I spent 15 years in academia where they said the politics were viscous because the stakes were so low. This issue seems to fall into the same category. Whilst the Oatcake is a good forum for discussion it is no place for personal attacks by those who can hide behind a veil of anonymity. If you have a problem, write to the club, start a petition or go to the council meetings, but don’t attack people who have done nothing wrong. How exactly is "malcolm Clarke" hiding behind a veil of anonymity?? 🤔🤔🤔
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 2, 2022 21:15:09 GMT
Could you quote back the worst example of abuse you feel Malcolm has written in this thread please? The only abuse is towards Malcolm. It’s crazy. I don't think I can possibly be reading this right but kustokie even appears to be implying that Malcolm is engaging in "personal attacks by those who can hide behind a veil of anonymity" I couldn't think of an accusation more absurd, aside from not remotely "attacking" anyone - he actually goes to great lengths to praise Angela and her work - Malcolm is far and away the highest-profile poster on this board and literally the only one in this thread posting under his own full name It's patently ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by svengaliinplatforms on Sept 2, 2022 21:15:49 GMT
There hasn't been any abuse dished out. A valid question's been raised, and discussed.
In my honest opinion, I don't think that someone employed by the club, in any capacity, is in a position to ask all of the correct questions, all of the time. It's just not viable. They have a vested interest; to keep at least one foot in the court of their paymaster, at all times.
Maybe that's not important, in the greater scheme of things. But from what I've read, via the SC meeting minutes posted on here, the club don't seem to want to touch on any subjects that they don't fancy. That's something an employee will be acutely aware of.
If Ange is happy to go toe-to-toe with the club, her employer, when required, then fair play to her.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 2, 2022 21:18:39 GMT
Setting aside the petty politics and accusations of misogyny, this appears to be about potential conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are a part of life, some are inconsequential, some are wrong and some are illegal. Arguably the most egregious legal conflict of interest lies with the members of the US Congress who are not subject to insider trading rules, which means elected officials can trade stocks that will be affected by legislation that is not yet in the public domain. Whilst the present Supporters Council issue is a storm in a tea cup by comparison, the analogy is valid. One might not like it but if it’s not against the rules there’s nothing wrong with it. If you don’t like the system work to change it, but don’t mount personal attacks (and yes these attacks are personal) on those who have done nothing wrong. The rules do not exclude club employees from standing for election. Moreover, Angela Smith declared any potential conflict as General Manager of the Women's Team in her Election Statement. This did not deter those who voted for her and she won in a landslide. Some might see it as an advantage. President Johnson famously said he would rather have his opponents inside the tent pissing out than the other way around. I leave it to the reader to decide which side of the tent the protagonists in this issue are standing. That said, I would ask Malcom Clarke if he so concerned about this,matter, why he didn’t he raise it before the election or more importantly why he didn’t stand for election in the first place? I spent 15 years in academia where they said the politics were viscous because the stakes were so low. This issue seems to fall into the same category. Whilst the Oatcake is a good forum for discussion it is no place for personal attacks by those who can hide behind a veil of anonymity. If you have a problem, write to the club, start a petition or go to the council meetings, but don’t attack people who have done nothing wrong. How exactly is "malcolm Clarke" hiding behind a veil of anonymity?? 🤔🤔🤔 He's hiding behind that character in the TV film Marvellous. The real Malcolm Clarke needs exposing 🙄🙄🙄
|
|
|
Post by ceejays on Sept 2, 2022 21:18:45 GMT
The one issue I always have is the club shop . Somebody should go and look at Celtic or the Toon to see how it’s done properly. I raised this several years ago with Anthony Emerson but it’s fallen on deaf ears . And this new ceo is in charge so what’s that all about? Meaning he seemingly has taken over aspects of Emerson’s job ? Over to you Malcolm
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 2, 2022 21:24:32 GMT
The one issue I always have is the club shop . Somebody should go and look at Celtic or the Toon to see how it’s done properly. I raised this several years ago with Anthony Emerson but it’s fallen on deaf ears . And this new ceo is in charge so what’s that all about? Meaning he seemingly has taken over aspects of Emerson’s job ? Over to you Malcolm What’s your issue with it out of interest? I went in it for the first time in years when the 1972 replica shirts came out and I was pleasantly surprised tbh. It was way better than it used to be and for the smallish space it occupies I thought it was well laid out and stocked a much wider range of stuff than I expected.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 21:41:44 GMT
The one issue I always have is the club shop . Somebody should go and look at Celtic or the Toon to see how it’s done properly. I raised this several years ago with Anthony Emerson but it’s fallen on deaf ears . And this new ceo is in charge so what’s that all about? Meaning he seemingly has taken over aspects of Emerson’s job ? Over to you Malcolm What’s your issue with it out of interest? I went in it for the first time in years when the 1972 replica shirts came out and I was pleasantly surprised tbh. It was way better than it used to be and for the smallish space it occupies I thought it was well laid out and stocked a much wider range of stuff than I expected. I agree isn't bad at all.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 2, 2022 21:49:59 GMT
That said, I would ask Malcom Clarke if he so concerned about this,matter, why he didn’t he raise it before the election or more importantly why he didn’t stand for election in the first place? I spent 15 years in academia where they said the politics were viscous because the stakes were so low. This issue seems to fall into the same category. Whilst the Oatcake is a good forum for discussion it is no place for personal attacks by those who can hide behind a veil of anonymity. If you have a problem, write to the club, start a petition or go to the council meetings, but don’t attack people who have done nothing wrong. To answer the questions you have addressed to me. I have raised the voting figures issues on several occasions previously (and in fact have been criticised for raising it every year). On the club role/conflict of interest issue, I didn't raise it before the election because no-one knew it had arisen until the election was already underway. I never expected it to arise. As I said above, I cannot recall this situation arising at another club. Why didn't I stand for election ? I did stand and was on the Council for the first 2 years of its life. It's a bit boring but since you've asked, the reason I didn't stand again in 2014 was as follows. The Council started pre-meetings of the fans before the meetings with the Club which are before a home game. That was Angela's idea, and a very good idea it was too. But the problem for me was that they were on the Sunday before the meeting with the Club, in Newcastle-u-Lyme. That was usually the day after I had been travelling to an away game to watch the team. I live in Manchester. To then have to drive down to Newcastle on the Sunday morning for the pre-meeting was just domestically too much. Also, I was, and still am, national Chair of the FSA (as it now is), which involves a lot of work, which is increasing not decreasing, with the Fan-led review, imminent White Paper and other matters. We are shortly to expand quite considerably. If I had stood and was lucky enough to be successful for the Supporters Council, the reality is that it is likely that I wouldn't have been able to do the Council role to the standards which I set myself and which fellow Stokies are entitled to expect. There are only so many hours in the day. I hope that's answered your questions. I agree with you that there should be no place for attacks behind the veil of anonymity. I think I have been unfairly anonymously attacked in this thread by at least 3 posters, including your comment that when someone says it isn't personal, as I did, it usually is. You know who I am because I only ever use my real name on social media, but I don't know who, for example, you, bertjones and crouchpotato are. I owe Chris, kustokie, an apology for saying that I didn't know who he is, because we had a cordial discussion last year, when I knew he is kustokie. The problem was, Chris, that when posting today I didn't make the connection with your Oatcake username, which is my mistake. Please accept my apology for that error, Chris.
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Sept 2, 2022 22:15:50 GMT
This all seems a bit of a mess with accusations (founded or not) being made. My two pennith;
1. To be an elected member of Council you’re onto a hiding for nothing. You can’t do right for being wrong!!
2. IMHO Scholes treated members (supporter representatives) at best as a necessary inconvenience or worse an irrelevance
3. Minute of meetings never set actions by who/by when. No accountability. The Council members should not accepted this
4. Minutes of the meeting should be publicised with 5 workings days of the meeting
5. The Council with points of contact should be shown on the big screens 15 minutes before each home game.
6. There should be absolute transparently over the Councils membership i.e. no hint of conflicts of interest
7. Election results publicised
8. Will the new COO be more progressive and transparent?
Will have missed other important po8nts, apologies
|
|
|
Post by pmjh on Sept 2, 2022 23:12:45 GMT
Someone called Malcolm Clarke, staying anonymous by calling themselves Malcolm Clarke. Genius. That's what you call 'hiding in plain sight'
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Sept 2, 2022 23:20:55 GMT
Someone called Malcolm Clarke, staying anonymous by calling themselves Malcolm Clarke. Genius. That's what you call 'hiding in plain sight' As I’m interested in the subject can you explain the meaning of your cryptic post? I admit to being thick, there’s may be others who are as confused as myself………In anticipation 👍
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 2, 2022 23:49:43 GMT
Someone called Malcolm Clarke, staying anonymous by calling themselves Malcolm Clarke. Genius. That's what you call 'hiding in plain sight' As I’m interested in the subject can you explain the meaning of your cryptic post? I admit to being thick, there’s may be others who are as confused as myself………In anticipation 👍 They’re being sarcastic. Contrary to what seemed to have been suggested higher up in the thread, Malcolm does not post anonymously.
|
|
|
Post by bertjones on Sept 3, 2022 0:16:59 GMT
I agree with you that there should be no place for attacks behind the veil of anonymity. I think I have been unfairly anonymously attacked in this thread by at least 3 posters, including your comment that when someone says it isn't personal, as I did, it usually is. You know who I am because I only ever use my real name on social media, but I don't know who, for example, you, bertjones and crouchpotato are. Interesting point that you make here Malcolm.
This whole message board is a place for attacks behind the veil of anonymity. You chose to put your name up front, and credit to you for that, however, being the intellectual man that you are, you knew you run the risk of getting (as you put it) personal attacks on this message board from behind anonymity.
I'm sure you will remember from other posters, the many attacks on Angela in the past, from behind this same veil of anonymity, which I hope you must have been disgusted by.
I stand by what I say, (as I am entitled to my opinion, of which I'm sure you would agree that I am entitled to my opinion), that your opening post was a personal attack on Angela, and there seem to be many that agree.
Perhaps it might be an idea that everyone's real name should be displayed on this message board, to enable an individual to post.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 3, 2022 7:27:44 GMT
I agree with you that there should be no place for attacks behind the veil of anonymity. I think I have been unfairly anonymously attacked in this thread by at least 3 posters, including your comment that when someone says it isn't personal, as I did, it usually is. You know who I am because I only ever use my real name on social media, but I don't know who, for example, you, bertjones and crouchpotato are. Interesting point that you make here Malcolm. This whole message board is a place for attacks behind the veil of anonymity. You chose to put your name up front, and credit to you for that, however, being the intellectual man that you are, you knew you run the risk of getting (as you put it) personal attacks on this message board from behind anonymity.
I'm sure you will remember from other posters, the many attacks on Angela in the past, from behind this same veil of anonymity, which I hope you must have been disgusted by. I stand by what I say, (as I am entitled to my opinion, of which I'm sure you would agree that I am entitled to my opinion), that your opening post was a personal attack on Angela, and there seem to be many that agree. Perhaps it might be an idea that everyone's real name should be displayed on this message board, to enable an individual to post.
I would like to think that your last suggestion could be implemented, but I'm not holding my breath ! I think we are way beyond the point where that could ever happen. I think it is clear from any objective reading of my first post that I was absolutely not making a personal attack on Angela. Exactly the same argument would apply to anyone who was holding both roles. It's about good governance, clarity of roles and avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, not about an individual. To take just one extract from what I wrote One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. Wishing someone every success in their new role hardly sounds to me like a personal attack. But just to reinforce that, if at any point in the future, Angela, or the Club, feel that the FSA could be of any assistance whatever in developing women's football and/or increasing the supporters of women's football at the Club, by providing publicity, support, advice or information, and they contact me, I will ensure that we will do our very best to provide it.
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Sept 3, 2022 12:07:22 GMT
Interesting point that you make here Malcolm. This whole message board is a place for attacks behind the veil of anonymity. You chose to put your name up front, and credit to you for that, however, being the intellectual man that you are, you knew you run the risk of getting (as you put it) personal attacks on this message board from behind anonymity.
I'm sure you will remember from other posters, the many attacks on Angela in the past, from behind this same veil of anonymity, which I hope you must have been disgusted by. I stand by what I say, (as I am entitled to my opinion, of which I'm sure you would agree that I am entitled to my opinion), that your opening post was a personal attack on Angela, and there seem to be many that agree. Perhaps it might be an idea that everyone's real name should be displayed on this message board, to enable an individual to post.
I would like to think that your last suggestion could be implemented, but I'm not holding my breath ! I think we are way beyond the point where that could ever happen. I think it is clear from any objective reading of my first post that I was absolutely not making a personal attack on Angela. Exactly the same argument would apply to anyone who was holding both roles. It's about good governance, clarity of roles and avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, not about an individual. To take just one extract from what I wrote One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. Wishing someone every success in their new role hardly sounds to me like a personal attack. But just to reinforce that, if at any point in the future, Angela, or the Club, feel that the FSA could be of any assistance whatever in developing women's football and/or increasing the supporters of women's football at the Club, by providing publicity, support, advice or information, and they contact me, I will ensure that we will do our very best to provide it. Thank you for acknowledgment that we are indeed acquainted. In fact we have worked together in the past through this medium. This whole thread highlights the risks of raising such matters in an open-access social medium, which in my opinion is not the best forum for resolving touchy issues. Things tend to escalate, individuals with an agenda get personal and, more importantly, nothing is resolved. It is also important one gets the facts straight otherwise one lays oneself open to criticism and loss of credibility. The fact that there are three employees on the council might have strengthened your case. Instead it came across as an attack on Angela Smith, when knowing there were two other employees on the council may have strengthened your case. Perhaps we should stick to football and keep the club politics out of it. You and I did collaborate successfully on the question of poor refereeing. You elevated the matter to the correct authorities with a very positive outcome. Unfortunately I was overtaken by events and never posted the final outcome. I’ll dig it out from my files and post it in due course.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 3, 2022 12:20:46 GMT
I would like to think that your last suggestion could be implemented, but I'm not holding my breath ! I think we are way beyond the point where that could ever happen. I think it is clear from any objective reading of my first post that I was absolutely not making a personal attack on Angela. Exactly the same argument would apply to anyone who was holding both roles. It's about good governance, clarity of roles and avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, not about an individual. To take just one extract from what I wrote One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. Wishing someone every success in their new role hardly sounds to me like a personal attack. But just to reinforce that, if at any point in the future, Angela, or the Club, feel that the FSA could be of any assistance whatever in developing women's football and/or increasing the supporters of women's football at the Club, by providing publicity, support, advice or information, and they contact me, I will ensure that we will do our very best to provide it. Thank you for acknowledgment that we are indeed acquainted. In fact we have worked together in the past through this medium. This whole thread highlights the risks of raising such matters in an open-access social medium, which in my opinion is not the best forum for resolving touchy issues. Things tend to escalate, individuals with an agenda get personal and, more importantly, nothing is resolved. It is also important one gets the facts straight otherwise one lays oneself open to criticism and loss of credibility. The fact that there are three employees on the council might have strengthened your case. Instead it came across as an attack on Angela Smith, when knowing there were two other employees on the council may have strengthened your case. Perhaps we should stick to football and keep the club politics out of it. You and I did collaborate successfully on the question of poor refereeing. You elevated the matter to the correct authorities with a very positive outcome. Unfortunately I was overtaken by events and never posted the final outcome. I’ll dig it out from my files and post it in due course. The fact there’s already 3 employees on there and it wasn’t public knowledge and by that I mean you wouldn’t know unless you know them is a disgrace really. How the hell has that been allowed to happen? Ever likely it’s such a toothless organisation.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 3, 2022 12:22:57 GMT
And who are the 3?
No one has even named them which I find absolutely nuts.
It’s such a massive conflict.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 3, 2022 12:38:58 GMT
And who are the 3? No one has even named them which I find absolutely nuts. It’s such a massive conflict. Get yourself on there then you fucking fanny .. you're all mouth. Start your rebellion? Nooo you won't do jack shit. Just mouth off on the Internet all day. Why would I want to be on something that doesn’t change anything? It should be disbanded.
|
|
|
Post by mamasgloves on Sept 3, 2022 13:33:01 GMT
Jesus, at least TRY to disguise your ongoing disdain for particular people. It's tiring
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 3, 2022 14:50:36 GMT
I would like to think that your last suggestion could be implemented, but I'm not holding my breath ! I think we are way beyond the point where that could ever happen. I think it is clear from any objective reading of my first post that I was absolutely not making a personal attack on Angela. Exactly the same argument would apply to anyone who was holding both roles. It's about good governance, clarity of roles and avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, not about an individual. To take just one extract from what I wrote One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. Wishing someone every success in their new role hardly sounds to me like a personal attack. But just to reinforce that, if at any point in the future, Angela, or the Club, feel that the FSA could be of any assistance whatever in developing women's football and/or increasing the supporters of women's football at the Club, by providing publicity, support, advice or information, and they contact me, I will ensure that we will do our very best to provide it. Thank you for acknowledgment that we are indeed acquainted. In fact we have worked together in the past through this medium. This whole thread highlights the risks of raising such matters in an open-access social medium, which in my opinion is not the best forum for resolving touchy issues. Things tend to escalate, individuals with an agenda get personal and, more importantly, nothing is resolved. It is also important one gets the facts straight otherwise one lays oneself open to criticism and loss of credibility. The fact that there are three employees on the council might have strengthened your case. Instead it came across as an attack on Angela Smith, when knowing there were two other employees on the council may have strengthened your case. Perhaps we should stick to football and keep the club politics out of it. You and I did collaborate successfully on the question of poor refereeing. You elevated the matter to the correct authorities with a very positive outcome. Unfortunately I was overtaken by events and never posted the final outcome. I’ll dig it out from my files and post it in due course. I confess that it simply hadn't occurred to me that any club officials would be a supporter representative on the Council or stand for election to it, until I read Angela's statement. The idea is a new one on me. Given that there isn't a register of interests, I'm not sure how I or anyone else could, or could have, identified that there are two others or who they are ( assuming that information is correct).
|
|