VB met board after UOF meeting

[Super Cooper 0]

James Baillie has the twitter page think? And Willhelm I think used to be involved somehow? Maybe not. Was also told today Shanksy was there when the group were formed.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited May 21, 2014 by Super Cooper

[buster. 5,257]

I don't know who runs VB and I've given up trying to explain their modus operandi. I think they hinder more than help and enjoy the mischief-making more than anything else.

 

As for numbers, I don't use their forum so I've no idea. I wouldn't have thought they've have a 'regular' core of more than 100-200 though going by other posts.

 

As for you comments in post 55, your point about the majority of fans not renewing is spot on and arguably the main reason for why the club should not be meeting with UoF or Vb but having an open meeting in which a more rounded selection of fans are invited. Sure, it could be argued that such meetings may effectively be pointless but if we're to have genuine fan democracy then such meetings should happen regularly.

 

Thank's for the reply Frankie !

 

Regards 'division' between 'groups'.

I think the numbers involved on one side makes this 'division' relatively unimportant and a disproportionate amount of time and energy seems to be spent on it.

 

Regards the board meeting with VB.

On the face of it, fair enough but I'd also say it fair comment that the timing, the general VB politic of supporting the custodian and the longterm tactic of various incarnations of the board to divide opposition have to be taken into account.

 

My guess is that detail (part or whole) of said meeting will be released. That it will sound eminently sensible but will be largely empty in the same way a newspaper Q&A can be. Off the top of my head I think there is precedent with Stockbridge prior to the AGM (TBC). That said, many such meetings with other groups have resulted in a similar way.

The issue at present though is obviously tangible, ie. the assets and here we have a stand-off.

 

Whilst the 'large apolitical middle rump' are in good number voting by not renewing it does position them somewhere on the UoF side of the debate.

Hence the meetings and communications that presently have more import are between the club and the 'middle rump/ UoF'.

 

Regarding meetings in general

They would seem to be of limited value because the various incarnations of the board in recent years have proved to be untrustworthy and disengenuous.

The crux of the matter is the lack of trust and the ongoing unwillingness to give meaningful transparency to try and create some.

Here you come back to the ST numbers and an effective vote of No-Confidence in the executive board.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I don't know who runs VB and I've given up trying to explain their modus operandi. I think they hinder more than help and enjoy the mischief-making more than anything else.

 

As for numbers, I don't use their forum so I've no idea. I wouldn't have thought they've have a 'regular' core of more than 100-200 though going by other posts.

 

As for you comments in post 55, your point about the majority of fans not renewing is spot on and arguably the main reason for why the club should not be meeting with UoF or Vb but having an open meeting in which a more rounded selection of fans are invited. Sure, it could be argued that such meetings may effectively be pointless but if we're to have genuine fan democracy then such meetings should happen regularly.

 

The problem being of course that so many of our more representative & rounded fans organisations have aligned themselves behind the UOF - thus making this type of exercise particularly difficult, hence my concern in the original post on this subject.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I didn't know that.

 

It was formalised several months ago BD

[D'Artagnan 173]

Rather than the merits or otherwise of whatever fan group you care to mention, or for that matter any bad feeling between individuals/groups ........ isn't it more important to get as close to the bottom as you can get of the motivations, MO and merits or otherwise of the actual executive board because ST numbers tell us a great deal of the support aren't happy with them ?

 

I think the most significant issue regards the fans at the moment is not recognized groups as such.

It is the large middle rump who up until 2014 have been pretty much apolitical and just followed the team. It is within this group where there has been a change and whilst some will be fed-up with the football, the majority of them no longer have trust in the current board, the way they run the club and their longterm motivations.

In other words it's a vote of no-confidence in the board from the customers of the PLC.

 

So if this group is the most important in terms of volume, shouldn't their opinion weigh heavy when considering how to go forward.

Their general concerns are close to those of the UoF and when you talk of "meaningful, constructive or informative dialogue with the board" that's all very well but what happens if communications aren't so because the board are disengenuous, misleading and fail to honour such simple things as a phonecall ?

 

Why not forget the divisions, think of the majority of ST holders and concentrate efforts on the executive board ?

 

 

ps. I've modified a previous post and Just in case you missed it or were in a rush first time round..............

 

Its a very pertinent point Time4change and probably a reflection of the recent fans engagement study - but the question is how do you either reach out to or connect, even represent a large swathe of people who by their own decision have elected to remain outside the various fans representative bodies ?

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

Its funny you know.....the repetitive nature of Zap's warning is partly due to your distasteful track record of turning any thread in which VB is mentioned into something of a "VB bashing thread".

 

In fact I recall you requesting admin delete your account on here because you felt could not adhere to the admin rules for the site due to your hatred of VB ?

 

Now that's what I call "extremist"

Your own record of sitting on fences is nothing to boast about Sir.

 

Yes I do tire of the VB, they are not representative of me, obviously. Their very aggressive and fundamentalist stance is off putting to say the least.

Would you want to cross them?

And yes, I did ask for my account to be deleted after what I read as a gagging order - do not bad mouth VB.

 

Thankfully my account was not deleted, and I am still able to call out the "nasties".

 

How about you D'Art? Do you still defend their venomous (VB members) actions/tweets?

[D'Artagnan 173]

Your own record of sitting on fences is nothing to boast about Sir.

 

Yes I do tire of the VB, they are not representative of me, obviously. Their very aggressive and fundamentalist stance is off putting to say the least.

Would you want to cross them?

And yes, I did ask for my account to be deleted after what I read as a gagging order - do not bad mouth VB.

 

Thankfully my account was not deleted, and I am still able to call out the "nasties".

 

How about you D'Art? Do you still defend their venomous (VB members) actions/tweets?

 

Oh dear.

 

Seems your own little brand of nastiness can no longer be contained - please feel free to continue with the personal slurs and accusations - over the years Ive got used to the anonymous cowards - you know the type - those who hide behind the anonymity of the internet to have a pop at others. Or even worse - utilise a variety of different usernames across various forums.

 

Did you really use the word "venomous" about others ?

Edited May 22, 2014 by D'Artagnan

[MoodyBlue 0]

VB's say they are "hated but rated".

 

Rated by who exactly ?? Apart from Toxic Jack and the Brothers Grimm who actually rates them, apart from their egotistical selves ????

[buster. 5,257]

Its a very pertinent point Time4change and probably a reflection of the recent fans engagement study

 

In what way is it a reflection of the 'engagement study' ?

Perhaps the discontent and lack of trust is more to do with how the board actually engage and communicate in real life.

 

Originally Posted by D'Artagnan

but the question is how do you either reach out to or connect' date=' even represent a large swathe of people who by their own decision have elected to remain outside the various fans representative bodies ?[/quote']

 

Who is to say the 'middle rump' want to be represented, perhaps they just want to go and watch their football.

It's more pertinent to look at why this 'middle rump' have seemingly decided not to renew and you'll probably find the main problem is in the lack of trust in the executive board.

 

We are where we are, within another stage of an ongoing process to steadily milk the cash cow and sooner or later that will include the assets.

I think some cling on to the idea that they want to see a sustainable business model and a modern football operation, fine that would be great but....... Austerity will certainly reign but the main beneficiaries of it will be shareholders of RIFC, not supporters of TRFC.

 

During this process this 'middle rump' will drop in numbers as the club fades into relative footballing obscurity.

Edited May 22, 2014 by buster.

[buster. 5,257]

VB's say they are "hated but rated".

 

Rated by who exactly ?? Apart from Toxic Jack and the Brothers Grimm who actually rates them, apart from their egotistical selves ????

 

The attention the VB's get is totally out of proportion to their size.

 

People talk of 'division'.

I don't see significant division at present, I see the vast majority deeply unhappy with the way the club is being run.

What is new, is that the majority I talk of now includes much of the 'apolitical middle rump' who in good number seem to not have renewed.

 

Perhaps we should give the VB's attention that is proportional to their size.