Maurice Watkin's interview summary. - Season of mixed emotions - Five goals in the final game, why have we not been scoring more consistently? - When are we going to be able to relax watching BFC? - During 28 seasons with MUFC in the directors box he cannot recall kicking every ball like he now does at Oakwell - Thanks supporters for the fourth best travelling support in the division. - Draws attention to a serious behavioural issue caused by a small minority. Harming the reputation of the club, total police bill equates to a Josh Scowen or Conor Hourihane. BFC recently topped a list of league 1 clubs most arrested fans for anti-social behaviour on match days. Police bill is 200k, 4 times that of other clubs in the division. - Pleased with the Davies deal. - Clubs in good hands with the Cryne family, helpful with him being a foreigner from over the Pennines to have someone showing him the "Barnsley way". - Home kit available in a couple of weeks - Well over 6,000 ST's sold, deadline this Sunday for existing seats. - Singles out Wilson for special thanks, heavy hearts that the board took the decision to sack him shortly after his 1,000 game. Felt the change was necessary. - Finishes off with "Be Proud, Be Barnsley"
Huddersfield Examiner mentioned Terriers have sold over 6k STs for next season. That we have at a lower level is really good.
1 up front, most natural goalscorer on the wing, defensive formations and tactics, and the fact that the opposition didn't tend to roll over and die like Rochdale are a few suggestions I'd put forward to answering that question. Hopefully never. Without the tension it wouldn't be the game it is. Not sure what Maurice does, other than bring fat lads in from Germany. Not that I have a problem with such a successful and accomplished man being on our board, I think it's a good thing as it goes, but the title of chairmen is probably loftier than his actual role, which he has previously admitted does not include a day to day involvement in the running of the club. It maybe makes him a target for criticism too, which he probably doesn't deserve. Owner, Chief Exec, Chairman and Barry Bloody Taylor - it's difficult to know who exactly is running the show when they all have titles like that. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians - which probably isn't a politically correct thing to say any more.
I struggle with your second point regarding the job positions. Most companies have a Chairman, a Chief Exec, and then board members such as Barry Taylor. That's just a pretty standard structure? The only clash with most companies is the owner part. The CEO will be held accountable, but the owner is running the show as he has employed the CEO. It's also pretty standard to rarely hear from the Chairman, with the CEO being the one who answers to the board. The Chairman, I believe, in this day and age is just an advisor more than anything else, ensuring things are on track and helping to facilitate whatever the three year/five year plan might be. It's nice to hear from him, but it's not something that's essential. I'm sure the Barnsley FC role is one of many different advisory roles he has.
How many games does he make it to? So we're not the worst club in the country? How do they define that stat?
Exactly this. He appears to have an advisory role, which makes his title of chairman a misnomer imho. We always used adopt the titles of Chairman and General Manager/Secretary. John Dennis Chairman - at the club every day, overall responsibility for everything, negotiated sale and purchase of players and player contracts. Michael Spinks - General Manager/Secretary - reports to John Dennis, oversees the day to day running of the club. Now we've got: Owner: Not exactly sure what he does, what decisions he makes or how often he is at the club. Chairman: Ditto. Cheif Exec: In every day and appears to have taken on the role of both John Dennis and Michael Spinks, but maybe without the power to sign off decisions like Dennis? I don't believe he even has a seat on the board. Not sure whether he reports to the owner or the Chairman or both or neither. Titles don't really matter, but I have no idea who makes the decisions, I don't know who is in charge, and I don't know who I would need to see if I had a problem. It's all very confusing and to make matters even worse we don't even have a team manager any more. It's not a structure I can understand.
Bit like the Peterborough game where there was as many plod as away fans cos a couple of pissed up kids wanted a do with a mister? There is amd has been more instances of bother at bumhole lane this season than oakwell. The problem is Syp see our club as a soft touch.
Port Vale at home was the worst. More police on duty than Vale supporters at the game. The Vale fans could have had an officer each and there would still have been some left over. Barnsley FC had to pay for that bonkers decision. That's nothing to do with us having a minority of badly behaved supporters within our fan base, it's purely down to illogical decision making by SYP.
Thank you for clearing that up. I knew it had been suggested but wasn't aware it had already taken place.
I think you're getting too hung up on titles mate. Football clubs were run very differently to companies back when we had John Dennis, but with all the foreign investment and business takeovers they've moved to a similar structure of that of big PLC companies. The Chairman of my company is also a non executive board member at another big regional brewery. We rarely hear from him, but I know he attends board meetings to support the CEO who is essentially the person running the company and who's job is on the line should it not go to plan. I don't fall out with the setup we have at all.
That decision was based on the trouble at Port Vale away and the 'Police Intelligence' that was whispers of Stoke fans also turning up in Barnsley that day. As it happened it was a bit of a damp squid as they enforced extra police AND all ticket. Because of the lack of trouble, I think SYP are happy to just enforce all ticket in future for next season without the additional police costs. They also downgraded the Oldham (?) game a few days later, so we saved a fair chunk of the expense on Port Vale at that game.
haha I remember when they loads of trouble at Cardiff away (Ninian Park) 2003 ??? Apparently this was due to Leeds fans joining forces with Barnsley Hooligans I am sure they just make it as they go along
Youd get less ******** listening to kids in a playground than from syp. if I was footing the bill for thst game id be demanding what actual evidence exisits to back up this 'surveillance'. Given that both Stoke and port Vale have a very colourful and often violent dislike of each other the mere suggestion of them essentially teaming up for a do is laughable. Id guess that the majority of evidence if from spotty kids in aquascutom pjs giving it billy big ******** over ****ter and **** book Half of the problem is that Syp have a large proportion of their budget alloxated to football and they need to justify this..