Wonder it will be joy or pain for him? Watched there retain list video ffs we would have Zak Mills in the team next season if they had there way:joy:
1 Like
Think we’ll put this trial of having no actual board member in the bin. What a pointless meeting and a waste of good peoples time who have put seriously good questions that most fans would like to know, and have a right to know, only to be met by ‘the chairman will have to answer that’ or other such nonsense. Ridiculous.
4 Likes
Wankers they are fans still treated as an annoyance just like when Bonser was here
1 Like
“GW was relieved to hear DB suggest these meetings take place less frequently”. 
3 Likes
A simple solution would be for the Supporters groups to submit their key questions in advance, giving the representative of the club the opportunity to come equipped with the explicit facts and viewpoints, and then an opportunity at the end for AOB for other less pertinent and off the cuff questions and comments.
1 Like
Nah, that just plays directly into their hands.
2 Likes
I tried to post him a tin hat but it went wrong 
1 Like
On top of this they committed to another one recently so the fact there was 2 near the beginning of the season is irrelevant.
1 Like
Dont know why fans still get angered by these meetings they’ve always been the same.
" The way to solve the problem of the club dictating the terms of these meetings is to give them even more power and let them vet the questions as well."
The problem is he is on the board.
So not only do we have a board with no expert on football, we also have a board member who has no idea about what’s happening off the pitch either.
2 Likes
Well in this instance in may well have ensured that questions were properly answered and the club member had the facts such as ST sales and the relative value of the sponsorship deals to hand.
1 Like
Or they could, ya know, just be honest and actually answer the f***ing questions.
7 Likes
In other instances it “may well” ensure that awkward questions don’t get asked at all. That’s far more consistent with their explicit attitude to fan liaison .
1 Like
Whats with the aggression, calm yourself boy.
1 Like
If the questions were given in advance then what’s the point of a meeting? You may as well email.
Any answers are likely to prompt follow up questions. That’s the reason for meeting and being able to talk both ways.
It’s pretty obvious that during a season ticket sale period you’re going to get questions about it. It’s also obvious with the changes in sponsorship those questions will come up. So it should be pretty obvious to have people like the CEO and secretary there to answer them…. oh I forgot, WFC don’t do the obvious.
And cynically previous shenanigans from the club make you think it’s probably deliberate to avoid the questions.
Well generally when you have a minuted meeting you would get an agenda that goes with it. I wouldn’t agree with the club pre-vetting which questions they answer but having some foresight on questions where explicit details or specific opinions are queried of people not at the meeting it would give the club opportunity to answer properly. I would also still advocate the opportunity for a debate and the supporters groups members to challenge the answers and an opportunity at the end of the meeting to bring up other points above and beyond the original questions if there is time.
1 Like
Frustration. At silly posts and lying directors. “Boy”
As said above, it would be strange if any of the questions being deferred weren’t on any shortlist of most likely questions. So your plan would just make the vetting more explicit, from the current " get back to you"default of vetting by jobsworth.
1 Like