Meeting toneet at Oakwell. With our US CEO.

Unless Virgin really wanted you, and they pay the remaining 2 years of Sky off so you can sign a new contract with them and wave bye bye to Sky?

 

Going to have difficulty nodding off tonight now.....

 

The mood was quite amicable. Sure that will disappoint one or two. But angry. Not sure what to say about that one. There was anger certainly aimed at the club re the DS statement. But as to the rest of the discussions on the agenda.
The plan so to speak was reiterated. Suppose individuals had their own views on that one.
Other items In general were about what the Group was set up to do a few years ago. Eg match day pricing. Offers. .Merchandise.Fans zone. Family club.
Don't think anyone lost it. As I say this is not a meeting to grill anyone to the tenth degree on the workings of the club. It's what it says on the tin . A fan engagement forum. Generally with just the CEO and Beth. And on occasion the owners. Patrick liked to attend and answered questions on the running of the club. But in the main Mansford. Gauthier and now the new CEO. Conway was present at the previous meeting as acting CEO. We sometimes get to see the managers and are able to put questions to them. Certainly don't think anyone was apathetic.
As an aside we didn't all agree on the performances of the team as you'd expect. But that discussion took place in the break in proceedings.
As I've said before. A supporters trust meeting would probably bring out the answers some seek. Some questions put forward on here were of a personal nature. Some valid eg Dane answered re his qualifications for the job. Which he answered to everyone's satisfaction I believe. ( To be honest my mind was on a different subject on that one) Some others not so valid and certainly not questions I'd ask of anyone. If people want to ask those type of questions then go to the supporters trust meeting. Where I believe anything goes and fill yer boots.
If Gally does, as I believe, try to give a more in depth report. All I ask is don't just read it. Read into it. On face value I/we make errors in some cases of misunderstanding statements and can appear to be polar opposite of intended.

 

I should have added earlier in the thread my thanks to those attending last night and making the effort to provide updates.

 

If I've understood this correctly, 95% of the fees have been reinvested in the fees, wages and agent fees for the new players. That's not a like for like comparison because the wages of the players leaving are gone but it's the fee that's replacing them, not their wages, so more than likely they've pocketed the wages from Pinnock, Lindsay, Davies and Moore for themselves And as others have said, £6m extra to run a club one division higher, I'd love to see them justify that because as far as I can see they've done f'ck all to the stadium since they arrived.

 

I'm sure Jay and~or Springvale can confirm~clarify the answer.....

Transfer money used on the team~squad. Promotion kitty on the running costs of the club. I'm guessing as another poster commented that'll include insurance, maintainance, academy, travel, hotels, stewarding, policing, new pitch, upkeep, etc...... I haven't a clue what a general figure would be to run a club off field?!? Otherwise I'd have questioned it.

 

Thanks for that. And I'm merely interested as to the vibe. People will always allow natural sentiment to pervade such a thing. Its only human. If you're miffed, it will show somewhere however much you might try and mask it.

I'll certainly wait for the longer version of threads as it should give more context and flow. But its certainly a natural response from others, and not aimed at you or others in attendance, that some things just don't stack up, and that errors admitted (well, that they recognise an outcome was a negative one) to have been made may have been apologised for to a very small minority, but in no way have they been made to the full fan base, which they absolutely should be.

 

Thanks sheriff. Makes a change to being called Paul Conway in disguise or 20 mates there for a pow wow.( WATTER off a ducks back to be honest )we don't agree on every item. But respect each other's views. (Unless anyone votes Tory that is. )

 

Regardless of what people think the 'motive' of the meeting was/is, the fact is that we're debating the content of things that a club representative has said, rather than complaining about the fact that there's been no communication.

Its a two-way street. Yes, the club should communicate better at present, and perhaps in a more general way than this, but these type of meetings pre-date the current situation/owners and they also rely on ordinary fans giving up their time to attend them.

 

Obviously there are costs to run the club, its administration and the variable costs that crop up.

But if they are to justify that there are £6m of costs absorbed... it has to be new costs. Ones in addition to a year in league 1. Thinking of it, just how much of that £6m is in addition to last year? And recall they justified the sale of Potts as to preserving the long term future of the club. And I recall most people were a bit alarmed considering the tens of millions of player sales we'd cashed in on.

So how we suddenly get £6m of maintenance and "bills".... well... its not stacking up at all. It may be the CEO cant articulate in words very well. Or he just doesn't actually know. His background isn't in the executive realm, or not as its pitched anyway.

Deeply concerning.

 

Re your first statement I fully understand and don't take offence. My years of being a shop steward has taught me to learn to listen to both sides without prejudice ( but give who I represent my full support and try to get a good outcome.). and am aware of people's gut feelings.
Re your last sentence. 100% agree. I made the request to put it out. Be interesting if they do. Given the non disclosure fully of why he was sacked. I think that's a watch this space. If anyone else that was there, has a different take on my assumption/view on that one. I'd be happy to have clarification given.

 

Or they aren’t involved because neither Murray or Stendel rate them? These are two players who nobody on the bbs picks when threads ask for their starting lineups in the next match. Two players who have been criticised and written off a fair bit.

But no. You’re jumping to the conclusion that their absence is down to Murray being told not to pick them. Great leap that one.

 

Wrong again.

McGeehan didn’t start against Bristol in the previous match. Which other games when available has he not started? He’s an absolute regular starter. He will probably be back in on Saturday.

 

I expressed a view Jake. You may not agree, it doesn't mean you're right (or that I am). This board is a place to express opinions and people do, all the time.

 

Well I'm not 'Wrong again" Jake - as we don't know I'm wrong on the reason Thiam and Pinillos aren't figuring. You are correct though that he has been starting. Although to be pedantic I didn't raise it in the first place but yes, I did make agree with the other poster in thinking that he had been left out on more occasions.

 

That wasn’t up for debate. Your opinion was. Cheers.

 

I'll just nip in here as I've read through alot of utter rubbish on this thread.

Stendel did not apply for the hudds job and he certainly didn't start saying goodbyes to any of the staff. Where on earth that has come from I have no idea but it's utter ********.

Also, don't believe 95% (see what I did there?) Of what was said. They cannot be trusted.

 

That’s ok. We all make mistakes.

 

The Hudds thing was first brought up by one of the few extremist owner apologists who thought he was being clever. A few others seem to have jumped on it since, but it makes absolutely no sense in many ways.

I think its pretty obvious they are waiting for us to win a game (just one looking at the CEO pushing his dreadful statement out just on twitter after we drew a game but nothing since) in the hope that will dissipate any anger at their ineptness.

 

I can’t for the life of me work out how you could possibly know about such a thing one way or the other.

I mean, how could you possibly know this?