Some random thoughts following today

Got in a few minutes ago (I live in the West Midlands) and as always, was thinking during the journey home....

1. Congratulations to Aidan Marsh on his first goal. Hope it's the first of many in the coming years (although it likely won't be as he'll be sold if he becomes a regular goalscorer).
2 Not surprised or particularly upset about the performance or the result. A defeat was likely given the kids he threw in. I was disappointed by the size of the gap between the two teams but it was a very big ask for the team he played. And the die was set weeks and possibly months ago.
3. The extent of the apathy in the ground and clearly with those who couldn't even be bothered to come, should be a huge concern for the CEO. Anger shows that people care but it seems to me to have gone beyond that for many. The acceptance and apathy makes me worry for the very future of the club. The apathy extended to the supposed demonstration following the game too.
4. For me the announcement of the names of the Reds lost over the last 12 months was a huge disappointment. If someone takes the trouble to advise the club of the name of a loved one they've lost then it's significant and important to them. The least that should've happened was that the list of names was displayed on the scoreboard as they were being read out - as has happened in the past. Instead, people would probably have struggled to catch the name of their loved one. I'm afraid that for me it's another example of the drop in standards with just about everything. Standards are set by leadership and because of the general decline my concerns about Khaled's leadership grows. In truth has anything improved this season?
5. Another example of poor standards, two weeks ago I wrote to Khaled expressing my concerns about the mismanagement of the club. There's been no reply, not even an acknowledgement. Is it unreasonable to expect a few lines acknowledging the letter and that my comments have been noted? It might still happen of course but for me taking more than two weeks to reply means standards are too low or they are obviously understaffed.
5. In 1987 when my Dad passed away, my family contacted the club and asked whether there was anything we could do in his memory to help the club. He always appreciated the development of young players and so when the club suggested we purchase a trophy which would become the Young Player of the Year trophy and volunteered to call it the Hadfield Trophy in his memory, we were delighted. Since then it's been awarded every year and many times my late Dad has been mentioned. Over the years many family members have actually awarded it on the pitch. This year - no contact whatsoever from the club, so I emailed earlier this week about it - without any reply at all. Tbh I know that over the years the Player of the Year has lost it's association with the Boylin Trophy so I understand that things change and move on. But is it too much to ask for a conversation about it and an explanation?

*Edit - Just seen the Reds Remembered item on the website and wanted to acknowledge it and comment that it's good. But it should have been done better in the ground.

 

Heartfelt post that. I agree with everything you say football wise and it's very dissapointing to hear the club haven't contacted you about the Young Player of the Season trophy. Some things cost nothing.

 

Great post fella.

 

Apathy indeed and it looks as though being sh it all over and having our faces rubbed in it is what our fans will accept these days.

Walked out of the ground after applauding the team looked darn the car park no protest no one standing up for long standing fans who are not renewing.

Thought I am doing the right thing, cant be doing with these owners this CEO and sad to say fans with no fight in em.

 

My Mum was on this years list.

To be fair I thought the lads that played today played with pride.

They were largely our U23s & maybe some of them will be starters next season.

All my issues remain with PMG. I've followed the team since 1974/5 and this is the worst.

It looks like dark times ahead. All the promises on the take over were bull poo.

 

None of us are perfect. Not even close. We make mistakes, we forget to acknowledge other people, we become wrapped up in ourselves and don't think about others. This extends to out work lives as well as our personal lives.

I'm sorry that neither you nor anyone from your family were contacted by the club in the run up to awards day. It's poor form that. But for you to have contacted the club on the matter and not received a response is contemptable.

I've heard our CEO doesn't read his emails and requires people to contact him by letter. If that is true he is not worthy of being the CEO of Barnsley FC. You don't simply ignore personally addressed communication.

There is a foul stench coming from Oakwell these days.

 

Agreed the apathy is a lot more dangerous than angry protests.

 

The big worry is , the apathy starts right at the top, and seems to be at a higher level than the fans have!

 

Tbf Jay my email wasn't directly to Mr El-Ahmad as I don't have his email address. I sent it the general enquiries account. Although I don't think that really changes it.

 

An update - because it changes my point number 5. I have received quite a long letter from Mr El-Ahmad in he post today. It is dated 28th April and so had very likely been produced before my post on Saturday evening. I felt it important to put the record straight on this.

In terms of content, I think it contains more detail and a better explanation of the situation re the West Stand than I've previously seen or heard. It suggests that the issue was that whilst the council issued a safety certificate it was subject to a number of further reports and that he considered the risks such that it had to be closed until they had been completed. It also indicates that once obtained the amount of remedial work required was less than was perhaps anticipated, hence why the stand could be opened sooner than expected and perhaps why there's little explanation of what works were required i.e. I think it's suggesting very little was actually required once the reports were received. For info, the reports required apparently included a full barrier report (not sure what that is), a report on the perimeter wall following the earlier collapse, an asbestos report, a roof inspection and report, a review of whether the stand met accessibility requirements of the equality act arising from a supporter complaint and a fire report made necessary because an inspection had revealed the void under the floor (I assume upstairs) ran the length of the stand. In particular Mr El-Ahmad appears to have been concerned about fire safety. The assessor for the fire risk assessment was not able to attend until November and presumably there was then a further delay before the report was received.

I do understand his concerns about this. The fire at Bradford City illustrated all too well the potential risks.

As for the stewarding issue, at the time we were apparently below the minimum number of required stewards and this was the reason there was concern that the stadium safety certificate may be revoked. He does not confirm whether he had been directly threatened with closure but certainly implies it was considered a high risk. Because of the challenges with the number of stewards available he indicates that we made a request to the governing bodies to reduce the number of tickets available to away supporters. Had this request been granted then we would have needed fewer stewards in the North Stand, meaning that some could be reallocated to home areas, thereby meeting the required minimum. Apparently this request was refused and so we had to offer clubs a minimum of 2,000 away tickets. Whilst he doesn't explicitly state this, my interpretation is that the West Stand closure was therefore based on safety concerns and that the reallocation of stewards to the North Stand was an outcome made possible as a result of it as opposed to it being the reason for actually closing it.

Based on his comments I think he / the club were expecting extensive remedial work would be required and were surprised that when the reports came back indicating that wasn't the case. He actually states: "Had I been sure all the outstanding reports would be so favourable I perhaps would have announced a temporary closure for a few games. At the time I envisaged a different outcome and also anticipated far more lengthy and costly remedial works than it actually transpired were needed". He then goes on to reiterate that in the same circumstances he would make the same decision again but communicate the reasons more clearly.

Whilst there remain a couple of outstanding questions (e.g. Did the reallocation of stewards from the West Stand satisfy minimum requirements for the away end? And if not, how were we able to accommodate numbers of away supporters far in excess of the 2,000 limit? Did we break the minimum stewarding requirements for the biggest away contingents?) I now accept the explanation as accurate and believable. I'm still amazed though that the opportunity to resolve the ongoing misunderstanding about this hasn't been taken. Why not seek to resolve it once and for all by properly communicating about it? Unless it's just me and I've missed the full explanation somewhere else?

That's not to say though that I'm fully satisfied and my opinion of Mr El-Ahmad has changed completely. My letter raised multiple issues with our owners and their strategy which have been discussed at length on threads on here, all of which are of course dealt with in one sentence: "I am unable to answer as I was not CEO at the time of the events". Hmmmm, if you have 99.9% autonomy I don't think that works. I also raised multiple issues which I explicitly stated I felt were his responsibility and the West Stand closure is the only one he's addressed albeit, as I said above, pretty well imo. The letter he produced is two full pages so perhaps he didn't fee he could spend any more time with his reply.

In conclusion, he's recovered me re the West Stand closure. The tone of his letter is good, which may have been difficult bearing in mind my letter was challenging and direct. This at least suggests he's genuine in wanting feedback. BUT it still doesn't satisfy my concerns about his leadership and management i.e. decision making, speed of decision making and what I believe to be a lack of urgency in addressing some of the fundamental issues we can all see exist. Nevertheless, I wanted to be fair and having criticised him in this thread and others, show some balance and acknowledge his response.

 

Don't disagree with any of that Fired. Just felt I should share given my previous post.

 

Still.seems odd he couldn't answer the questions at his Q & A sessions. I've a feeling things like asbestos will have cropped up before too, that these won't all be "new" concerns.

 

I have been in communication with The CEO by email and he has read and replied. This thread sums a lot up for me. The personal emotion and expectation from the club is what breaks peoples hearts. Making fans feel valued is important. Communication helps. But its clear we as a club run things at the lowest possible level we can get away with. Whether west stand, safety, moments of remembrance etc.

I spoke with a Wigan fan friend of mine today. A lot of talk at their champions event between his friends was ‘what the hell has happened at Barnsley’. We compared noted over the past couple of years. It saddened me more to see how we are both seen and how i see us vs others.

 

He's still bumbling along I see, why didn't he just say that in the beginning?? Why has it took personal letters to address this?....... Incompetent/ full of manure.

 

Time to get summat plausible together that may quieten fans darn a bit. Bullshitter playing it by ear. Khaled out.

 

Thanks for posting that wolvestyke.

We have a puppet of a CEO who has never been a CEO before and who gives more information in an individual posted letter to a fan regarding the west stand closure and stewarding than he has done in months and months of constantly being asked and quizzed about it. He doesn’t reply to emails but instead likes snail mail letters !! And just to put the cherry on the classic business deflection tactic, with his fingers in his ears shouting “la la la la” It wasn’t me I wasn’t CEO at the time I can’t answer all those ‘proper’ meaningful questions yet I supposedly have 99.9% control !!

Jesus wept this bloke is trying to play all of us like a fiddle. In the real business world he should sack himself because he is inept as a CEO and basically spouting bull sh*t to palm us all off.

He should have plonked all those west stand reports on the website and social media immediately with an accompanying written explanation and as for I can’t answer the questions I wasn’t ceo at the time drivel then he should have got off his backside and gone upstairs to the proper misters and got all of those answers from that he constantly refuses to answer. Of course the reason why he cannot or will not do this is because the people above him refuse to communicate and the washing machine merry go round circle of sh*te Groundhog Day etc just goes on and on.

This bloke isn’t a CEO or even acts like one.Yes he may be a lovely and caring man which is great but in reality he has given politicians answers all along and refuses to answer the cut to the chase questions. He is using classic deflection tactics to take the heat away from the people above him who pull the string on his back and tell him what to say and do.

The reality is now the owners can’t get their mits on the land this has scuppered their plans and we are nothing more than a pyramid trading platform to them to cook profits for the least spend possible. They are taking money from working class peoples pockets and using it to pay off their own bills. The owners are killing our club and it’s community and each and every club they own are all on their arses with the same issues and problems as us.

Under these owners the club is dead and in a few months time the money will run out. Their isn’t even coin in the pot to sustain the running of the club and to pay their debts so what happens then ??? Admin ?? They sell up and bugger off maybe ??

Keep your season ticket money in you pockets and do not spend another penny at BFC on anything at all. Away games only. That is the only way the owners will take notice.

As for the CEO he just plays hide and seek and cannot and will not answer us so instead as fans we need to bypass him and go after the organ grinders above him.

 

Fully agree. Whilst I'm now happy with the explanation it's a huge mistake not fully communicating to the wider fan base about it. I wonder if he thinks it's forgotten? And this doesn't excuse the many examples of poor communication, poor decision making etc. His first few months in the role have been as bad as results on the pitch.

 

It won’t be long until someone will log on to defend him