Calling All SCG bashers

[TIL 1010 4,722]

I got no response to this on another thread so maybe starting it as an Archant type sensational headline may prove more fruitful.The merits of the SCG has been well and truly called into question these last few days.Diverse opinions are littered around on numerous threads.Some are constructive and well thought out.Others are ill informed.Some just plain rude/abusive to members.

The solution would be in my eyes for a SCG critic out there to call a public meeting and invite members of the SCG along.Could well be an eye opener for everyone concerned and i am sure that there is a venue somewhere in the city that would be glad of the extra bar revenue.

Over to you.

[lucky green trainers 0]

yeah - you called their bluff and they bottled...seriously though, if a public meeting can be called at that nice meeting room in the jarrold, then yeah - you could get a healthy attendence...

[AndyJR 0]

The fact they seem to be a mix of people who work for the club and members of the Norwich Womans Institute may be making people slightly sceptical.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

I got no response to this on another thread so maybe starting it as an Archant type sensational headline may prove more fruitful.The merits of the SCG has been well and truly called into question these last few days.Diverse opinions are littered around on numerous threads.Some are constructive and well thought out.Others are ill informed.Some just plain rude/abusive to members.

The solution would be in my eyes for a SCG critic out there to call a public meeting and invite members of the SCG along.Could well be an eye opener for everyone concerned and i am sure that there is a venue somewhere in the city that would be glad of the extra bar revenue.

Over to you.

[/quote]Could we just cherry pick certain members to put under scrutiny?

[ncfcstar 287]

I''ll re-post what you chose to ignore before:

@ TIL 1010

Ridiculous, your supposed to represent the fans yet do not let us all know what is happening. I understand that it may affect YOUR relationship with the club, but it''s not your job, you don''t get paid to represent us. Therefore we have just as much right as you to know the goings on, if this is the attitude of members of the SCG what sort of hope do we have, it looks to me that if the club say no you have no choice but to agree.

Not really representing the fans when everyone on this messageboard is looking for answers, and it looks like our representatives are holding onto more information that the average fan knows. What gives you the right?

----------------------------------------------------------

Or is it that you actually know nothing Mr. Tilson...

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

I got no response to this on another thread so maybe starting it as an Archant type sensational headline may prove more fruitful.The merits of the SCG has been well and truly called into question these last few days.Diverse opinions are littered around on numerous threads.Some are constructive and well thought out.Others are ill informed.Some just plain rude/abusive to members.

The solution would be in my eyes for a SCG critic out there to call a public meeting and invite members of the SCG along.Could well be an eye opener for everyone concerned and i am sure that there is a venue somewhere in the city that would be glad of the extra bar revenue.

Over to you.

[/quote]

John, I honestly don''t think I''ve seen a significant number of posters in the past doing any "bashing" of SCG members. It appears to have come to a boil over the meeting held following the Peter Cullum initiative. I provided my thoughs on this on the "Calling John Tilson" thread. I would be interested in a response from you  ( and any other SCG member ) as to whether you agree or disagree with my comments. 

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="ncfcstar"]I''ll re-post what you chose to ignore before:

@ TIL 1010

Ridiculous, your supposed to represent the fans yet do not let us all know what is happening. I understand that it may affect YOUR relationship with the club, but it''s not your job, you don''t get paid to represent us. Therefore we have just as much right as you to know the goings on, if this is the attitude of members of the SCG what sort of hope do we have, it looks to me that if the club say no you have no choice but to agree.

Not really representing the fans when everyone on this messageboard is looking for answers, and it looks like our representatives are holding onto more information that the average fan knows. What gives you the right?

----------------------------------------------------------

Or is it that you actually know nothing Mr. Tilson...[/quote]I think it''s hilarious, you have to laugh really.Fans complain that they are not given enough information etc etcTilson crying fans are ill informedyou couldn''t make it up.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

The object of this thread was to try and stop this stupid banter that some people are engaging in over the SCG and have an open meeting to debate and discuss concerns but as i suspected certain posters cover would be blown.

THIRST WIZARD,NCFCSTAR,MELLO to name but three of you how about a face to face open meeting?

Just carry on hiding behind your laptop.I have made my recommendation so i will say no more.Answering through this messageboard is achieving absolutely diddly squat.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

The object of this thread was to try and stop this stupid banter that some people are engaging in over the SCG and have an open meeting to debate and discuss concerns but as i suspected certain posters cover would be blown.

THIRST WIZARD,NCFCSTAR,MELLO to name but three of you how about a face to face open meeting?

Just carry on hiding behind your laptop.I have made my recommendation so i will say no more.Answering through this messageboard is achieving absolutely diddly squat.

[/quote]

I thought my question was a reasonable one John. If you don''t respond to it on here is there any reason why you would not respond to it on the "Calling John Tilson" thread?

[Felixfan 53]

Yankee Canary

I have responded on the other thread.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

The object of this thread was to try and stop this stupid banter that some people are engaging in over the SCG and have an open meeting to debate and discuss concerns but as i suspected certain posters cover would be blown.

THIRST WIZARD,NCFCSTAR,MELLO to name but three of you how about a face to face open meeting?

Just carry on hiding behind your laptop.I have made my recommendation so i will say no more.Answering through this messageboard is achieving absolutely diddly squat.

[/quote]I would, but would I be representing myself or on behalf of other fans?

[Mtv 0]

I would happily attend a meeting any time any where. The one provision would be that the attending members be open and frank regarding their meeting with club officials over the Cullum affair. Only because as of yet the members of the SCG have said absolutly nothing about it.

[londoncanary 0]

Im shocked to realise that norwich do infact have an "elite" section of jumped up fans! I am still in awe as to how this group operates, and is supposed to be the link between the club and fans instead it seems to be a secret society that are infact useless! I would be very interested to be informed of any benefits the SCG actually have. I fail to see the point of having a supporters group that are unable to communicate with the fans and are infact the SS of Nazi Germany!

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Felixfan"]

Yankee Canary

I have responded on the other thread.

[/quote]

Thanks Felixfan. I would still be interested in what John Tilson and other SCG members have to say because, if there is agreement with my comments, then I believe it would dispel any criticism of fans toward SCG members on this matter.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Yankee i understand that you would not be able to attend and if it helps MY OPINION is that yes last weeks meeting has backfired on the Club and before it began i did question the motives behind it with fellow members who arrived early.The thing is though it was an opportunity not to be missed as to what DONCASTER,TURNER and MUNBY  had to say.

If you were a member of the SCG would you not have been there if possible?Of course you would but does that make you "elite" or an "arse licker"? No.

Will the SCG be the same from now on?I think not.

Do the club regret the way it went about the PR of this issue? Do not ask Roger MUNBY as the waters will be cloudier after 10 minutes that is for sure.

Should the SCG be elected as opposed to selected?John TILSON says yes and has done for years.The club knows that!

[Mello Yello 2,280]

[quote user="Thirst Wizard"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

The object of this thread was to try and stop this stupid banter that some people are engaging in over the SCG and have an open meeting to debate and discuss concerns but as i suspected certain posters cover would be blown.

THIRST WIZARD,NCFCSTAR,MELLO to name but three of you how about a face to face open meeting?

Just carry on hiding behind your laptop.I have made my recommendation so i will say no more.Answering through this messageboard is achieving absolutely diddly squat.

[/quote]

I would, but would I be representing myself or on behalf of other fans?
[/quote]

Because, I would rather hide behind a lapdancer......than a laptop. YEAH BABY!

 

[Felixfan 53]

Mindthevan Mindethevan

This is what I posted on another thread :-

I really wish we had been told something. The main purpose of the meeting as I saw it was to gauge the fans opinions to the article in the EDP. albeit advising us of the earlier offer which is now in the public domain. We gave our views and I think reflected the wide range of views on this website. Everyone was concerned at the effect on GRs transfer dealing and urged an early meeting with PC to resolve the issue one way or the other.

The press have been very mischievous in this saga by implying that certain fans were in the know and has brought into question the whole legitimacy of the SCG.

Nobody will of course believe this because the secret disclosure theory is much more interesting in the absence of any real information.

[ncfcstar 287]

Tilson you''re ridiculous, you hide as well, not revealing whatever you CLAIM to know.....I don''t mind meeting face to face, I''m off Uni all summer so I have all the time in the world. Perhaps if you were more honest with us, then people wouldn''t bash the SCG so much, in fact I don''t have much of a problem with the group, just a problem with the fact that you claim to know more than you are letting on.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Yankee i understand that you would not be able to attend and if it helps MY OPINION is that yes last weeks meeting has backfired on the Club and before it began i did question the motives behind it with fellow members who arrived early.The thing is though it was an opportunity not to be missed as to what DONCASTER,TURNER and MUNBY  had to say.

If you were a member of the SCG would you not have been there if possible?Of course you would but does that make you "elite" or an "arse licker"? No.

Will the SCG be the same from now on?I think not.

Do the club regret the way it went about the PR of this issue? Do not ask Roger MUNBY as the waters will be cloudier after 10 minutes that is for sure.

Should the SCG be elected as opposed to selected?John TILSON says yes and has done for years.The club knows that!

[/quote]

Thanks John. With respect to your rhetorical question, "If I were a member of SCG would I have been there if possible?", if I had an opportunity to counsel the club members of SCG in advance of the meeting, my advice clearly would have been not to hold the meeting because it could be fanning the fires of the wider fan base when clearly such matters should be held confidential to a very narrow group responsible for such matters within the club until such time that there can be a general communication.

[Yellow Rages 0]

[quote user="ncfcstar"]Tilson you''re ridiculous, you hide as well, not revealing whatever you CLAIM to know.....I don''t mind meeting face to face, I''m off Uni all summer so I have all the time in the world. Perhaps if you were more honest with us, then people wouldn''t bash the SCG so much, in fact I don''t have much of a problem with the group, just a problem with the fact that you claim to know more than you are letting on.[/quote]

To be fair, if what the man is saying is true then I think that he and the other members have been put in a difficult position by the club. They are there to represent the fans and as such should not hold information the majority don''t. I would also say that if this is the case, then it is not the best of ideas to publically make it known that such information is held within the group.

I think to summarise, these guys are supposed to represent the whole, however they are being treated as an independent cell. Tilson, you do have a great cross section of NCFC fans on here to bounce your thoughts and information off of. I don''t think any face to face meeting will tell you anything you don''t already know.

[trev 0]

My view is different to John''s in that I think it was fine for the club to have last Tuesday''s meeting with the SCG. The reason comes back to the fundamental point about the purpose of the SCG.

-It isn''t a body which holds the club to account - but it would be good to have one in addition to the AGM.

-It isn''t an opportunity for the club to reward elite fans with additional snippets of info - that''s a suggestion I don''t really understand, if there were rewards on offer I''d prefer cash.

-It isn''t an elaborate mechanism to spin out a message (but making that work would be very clever!)

-It is intended to be representative of fans (and we''ve got a way to go on that, something which I blame the recruitment sub group for). This is not the same as representing fans. As I said before we are much more a focus group than a trade union.

-It is a construct of the football club which it uses to test the water of supporter opinion (and to get free work done).

The club wanted to gauge how people felt about the PC situation last week to help form it''s view on how best to deal with some aspects of the issue. We debated what the club should do, in the absence of understanding what the key stumbling blocks were. I summarised these areas in the "some fans know what''s going on" thread. I am reminded in typing that of another area we discussed actually, which is very ironic. SCG fan members expressed their considerable difficulty in giving a view as to how the club should handle the situation, while the club were unable to tell us the detail of the stumbling blocks. The club recognised and understood this but would not share this detail. We do not know what''s going on!

Does that help Yankee Canary?

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

Trev, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the points you are making, particularly when you say the group is intended to be "representative of fans" and "test the water of supporter opinion". Bottom line, however, I think it was unwise of the club to call a meeting with SCG close on the heels of the Cullum initiative. As you acknowledge, there was little positive that did or could come out of it and, obviously, it has only served to fan the flames of the wider fan base who want to know what is going on. Here is what I had to say on another thread:

"Felixfan, I have the greatest respect for you and other fans who volunteer their time to participate on SCG. I also think it''s a great initiative on the part of our club. Further, any criticism of you and other members of the SCG is unjustified, and it should be understood by all other fans that when the club provides you with their advance thinking on certain matters such as pricing policy their request for confidentiality must be respected.

However, on this matter, when a possible change in control is being considered then, in my view, the club is not exercising good judgement by holding a meeting with SCG regardless of what is discussed. It should be understood by all fans, including members of SCG, that there is a need for the club to maintain and, just as importantly, TO BE SEEN to maintain a non-discussion policy with all and sundry. The only people involved should be those that have a need to know as a result of being involved in any legal/financial/business aspect of what''s involved. This would normally be restricted to a few employees within the club and any outside expertise they may need to draw upon. Then, when it is appropriate for any external communication to take place all fans should be privy to it at the same time."

[trev 0]

Agreeing to disagree sends out a positive message about grown up debate, I think!

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Trev, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the points you are making, particularly when you say the group is intended to be "representative of fans" and "test the water of supporter opinion". Bottom line, however, I think it was unwise of the club to call a meeting with SCG close on the heels of the Cullum initiative. As you acknowledge, there was little positive that did or could come out of it and, obviously, it has only served to fan the flames of the wider fan base who want to know what is going on. Here is what I had to say on another thread:

"Felixfan, I have the greatest respect for you and other fans who volunteer their time to participate on SCG. I also think it''s a great initiative on the part of our club. Further, any criticism of you and other members of the SCG is unjustified, and it should be understood by all other fans that when the club provides you with their advance thinking on certain matters such as pricing policy their request for confidentiality must be respected.

However, on this matter, when a possible change in control is being considered then, in my view, the club is not exercising good judgement by holding a meeting with SCG regardless of what is discussed. It should be understood by all fans, including members of SCG, that there is a need for the club to maintain and, just as importantly, TO BE SEEN to maintain a non-discussion policy with all and sundry. The only people involved should be those that have a need to know as a result of being involved in any legal/financial/business aspect of what''s involved. This would normally be restricted to a few employees within the club and any outside expertise they may need to draw upon. Then, when it is appropriate for any external communication to take place all fans should be privy to it at the same time."

[/quote]

I have no problem at all with a select set of fans representing my views to the club, especially if those fans are the people who dedicate so much of their own free time to the task of improving our club - after all it would be impractical to canvas the views of 30,000 odd fans on any one subject. As John Tilson says, it would be preferable that those fans were elected, assuming that there were enough people willing to give up their free time to cover all the sub-groups that the SCG members belong to.

The SCG didn''t call for this meeting - it was the club''s idea - and until they heard the contents of the meeting, I doubt very much whether the SCG could have made a call on whether it was riht or wrong for the meeting to go ahead. Really it is the club who has put the SCG somewhere between a rock and a hard place.

What I would suggest to any SCG member or any other supoorter''s group who may be consulted over the takeover issue, is to make it clear to the club that you will reveal to the wider public any information that the club releases, if you think it is in the fans'' public interest to be aware of this information.

If you put such a condition on talks then the responsibility is back on to the club as to what information is released to the public. The club would probably not accept such conditions, imo, but then a wedge would not be driven between the SCG and the regular fans. The same rules of engagement should also apply if the SCG talks to Cullum. If you don''t take this stance then the SCG is in a no-win situation.

 

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

Some excellent well thought out points have been put by both members of the SCG and those who like me did not attend.

I think yellowhammer sums up my position completely in that the members of the SCG were put in an impossible position, and one I am glad I was not put in.

The debate has ranged on the Official Message Board as well with some input from Richard Gough, but to be fair to him the blame lies at the top of the Club.

We contribute to the salary of the Chief Executive and we rely on him to dictate the running of the Club (with due advice from his team, and guidance from the Board).  He had to be instrumental in calling this emergency meeting, and it serves only to suggest that he is out of his depth in dealing with the matter.

Whether we agree with the actions of Cullum, the majority shareholders, or even the media they have their interests to consider and they will due whatever best serves those interests.

In Mr Doncaster''s case it is not up to him to serve his interests, but to serve the interests of his employer, the Club.

On that he has failed as he has agitated an already volatile situation.

He is accountable for that action and he should meet the press to explain his actions.