I read him to mean he wanted to wait until we know the outcome of the meeting and then plan accordingly. Not discontinue them altogether.
Thats why I dont bother adding my thoughts too often. Its no good taking part of a sentence out of a paragraph and dissagreing with me Worsul.
I spend my time solving conflicts at work and have done in the past and I know what tactics work, I don’t know what you do but I accept your opinion. You can ignore me or challenge me but all you have done is put another question forward.
If you are correct and there are lots on the terraces who don’t think we should protest then what happened to democracy. Surely on your reasoning if only 200 protest and 3800 don’t then people have voted not to protest so what does that say. I am not saying take ’ No Protest’ off the table during negotiations it’s the same as taking ‘No Deal’ off the table. (sorry I won’t talk politics). It’s a negotiating tool and as soon as you use it has not got the same value as the threat of not knowing what it will be like.
Can’t say I agree with your ‘you’re with us or you’re rolling over’ view. Like most things on the Internet, it’s a binary view.
From what I’ve seen around Bescot/my friends, it’s a spectrum. Some think the Board do a good job on limited resources and there’s little we can do about Bonser, some just want to watch their local team play football without the politics of it, some love the club but get enough hassle/high blood pressure in the week from the job/kids, and some (like myself) have been part of protests in the past but disagree with the particular tone and organisation of this current one. It’s a spectrum of reasons people don’t want to get involved, I’m not sure anyone’s of the ‘ooh mustn’t protest or we’ll end up like stockport’ mindset.
Sure most supporters are unhappy about bonser . But have come to just accept it I suppose as protests will not get him out .unless like has been said there are at least 2000 willing to get involved and make a statement of intent.
We’ve been here before, didn’t the Trust have a meeting with Gamble/Jeff etc and come out like Chamberlain waving a piece of paper and quoting “peace in Jeff’s time”? Then it all went dead for a while, which is the club’s preferred tactic.
Go only if they allow minutes and a witness (or two), and do not be fooled by silver tongues. This is our time to take this to the next level, and the opportunity should not be missed, especially not by the club pulling our pants down and telling us they’ll definitely leave their wife for us this time, once again.
It’s not the fact that Bonser appears to have no immediate desire to leave that worries me. Better the devil we know and all that. It’s what happens if/when he does go. That’s what I’d like any focus for protest to be.
Speaking of which. During the focus meeting, and I’m hoping I’ve got this correct, it was suggested that Bradford on 23/2 is to be a fiver for all. Maybe if talks between now and then are fruitless then this could be the perfect opportunity to launch the protest movement.
The only statement that Bonser gives a flying ■■■■ for comes from his bank in Northern Cyprus. Hit the ■■■■■■ in the only place he cares about come Early Bird time.
I think, barring a miraculous run to the play-offs, Mr Bonser is in for one hell of a shock come Early Bird time. It still won’t be enough of course.
Trolls posting brain numbing ■■■■ on such important topics really pisses me off as well. Lets have a debate on democracy while talking about the ownership issues. ■■■■ off!
I didn’t realise you were on the forum funk. I would have posted Bonser Out just to keep you happy if I had.
There are other opinions as well you know!
Yes, the point is that we have to play the club at their own game to start with.
So we’ll go through the motions with them and they can give their platitiudes.
Words won’t be enough this time though.
Gonna leave this to run until tomorrow and gauge opinions, then I’ll respond tomorrow at some stage.
Looks favourable to attend with someone with me so far.
I agree with he majority view that you should go but have someone with you. As long as you treat the whole thing with a healthy dose of scepticism then you are unlikely to have the wool pulled over your eyes. To turn the offer down gives the club an easy point that they they tried to discuss fan’s concerns but they were rebuffed.
Of course. I’m one of the biggest sceptics going
I basically agree with the main AFKALS post and the follow up from OPTIMISTIC rather than just repeating all those points again here.
Treat it as the past is the past and this time there is a fans consensus for change at a professional level with both short term and long term action points.
Take Simon if he is willing and one other at least who you trust not to mouth off and spoil the professional approach.
You need to know who will be there from WFC in advance. Neutral territory is a good idea but probably can waive this time.
Need to establish an Agenda in advance ideally. Don’t initially frighten the horses by stating Regime Change. That can come later.
Need to be able to say you are seeking to speak on behalf of many so an online poll or similar is worthy of a quick try so you can make that point.
WFHYS indicates a large “membership” of people that are interested. We didn’t have that in the past.
On the short term goals seek to fully influence and change the ticketing and pricing and Early Bird and Kids for free rubbish that they have screwed up and mis-marketed for some years. Time is tight to do that so ASAP.
Well done Rob and Simon and others.
The main long term aim has to be to re-unite the club with the freehold to the ground. If JB does this and stays on for a while it will still allow an easier passage when he does pass the baton on either by selling up or, as we all must, passes away.
Depends what your aim is.
Is it to ensure that there are clean toilets, or is it to force JB in to action regarding ownership of the club and freehold, and thus achieve bigger change.
If it’s the latter, a meeting with Gamble is a pointless distraction.
My exact thoughts.
Yes, its a hard call. Some of the only people on this site that have experience of previous campaigns are saying no to a meet. People that are only just jumping on board are saying yes!
Do you go with the majority that have no experience of dealing with these deflection experts, or go with those that have seen the majority hoodwinked time and again?
The mistakes from the past were assuming those promises were legitimate, not having the meeting in the first place. I don’t see what harm it can do IF the board are held to account for those promises and the protest continue until we see those promises come to fruition. On the contrary, getting a clear list of “this is what we are going to do about x y and z” gives us further ammunition if (when) those things do not happen in the future.