Dictatorial Villa?

[bertlambshank]

I can't help but think this wouldn't have been a story at a club that doesn't have the media sharks sensing blood.

The club are doing a very good job of making themselves a target at the moment.

[cheltenhamlion]

It should be a storm in a teacup. No doubt it has become more of a story as it fits nicely into the crisis Villa that the media are going to peddle if we start badly. But...

It was all avoidable. And, frankly, anything that sees the club at loggerheads with the likes of John Holder and Steve Gough should be avoided at all costs.

Perrins role in all of this I am not sure of but he seems to have caught some flak from those marginalised by this. He divides opinion between some of us as well.

Frank from here is a bloke who I have huge respect for and he got on very well with him in Italy the other year. I have always felt him to be a "gissajob", self important, arse.

I am sure this can be resolved amicably but, with all of the other bollocks going on at the club, it is yet another example of us not nailing the little things to avoid unwanted press.

And we used to be very good at it.

[cheltenhamlion]

Oh, and for Nodge, the Supporters Trust aren't subject to this because they are not affiliates of the club.

They are there to represent the views of the fanbase on an impartial basis. Anything from the Trust by way of press release is on behalf of the membership.

I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't allowed a personal view on something just because I am involved with the Trust.

It is a question of striking a balance I suppose. For example, I might think Paul Faulkner was not the man for the job. The Trust as a body however might find him to be very obliging and supportive of his work.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[dave.woodhall]

The phrase "the little things" sums it up. They used to be got right even before they existed; now they're allowed to run and the club I'd permanently on the defensive.

[cheltenhamlion]

If I were the owner, the minute the club got wind of such a thing, I would say "Sort that shit, will you".

You are right, we used to nail this stuff long before it became an issue. Now we react to it, and slowly.

You can't tell me this couldn't have been resolved, I will use John and Steve as the examples again, with lunch, a couple of pints and an open dialogue for an hour or two.

Its like when we met PF shortly after the library thing. "Well done. But you guys used to nail this for fun, what changed?"

I have a biased view here based on the years I have known John and my respect for the effort he puts in but the fact we keep crapping on our own carpet is driving me to despair.

And I am supposed to be a happy clapper/bought off buy the club/sellout*

*delete as appropriate

[ciggiesnbeer]

I saw Alan Perrins get some nasty stick on Facebook yesterday. Whatever your thoughts on him, he has raised the profile of the Supporters Clubs in recent years. He doesn't deserve that kind of abuse.

Indeed. And given these six lions clubs are not signing because they insist it is their right to abuse people online, that makes it extra sad.

[paul_e]

The important bit of the statement made by the club is:

The three additional points were prompted by comments from various Lions Clubs and have been implemented after being approved by a steering group comprising of six Lions Club chairmen selected at random and representative of the group overall.

Without knowing what those comments mentioned were any reaction to this is guesswork.


The easy response seems to be to moan about the club, but if concerns have been raised to the club about comments made by lions club chairmen then it's absolutely correct that they address it.  The wording may seem a touch harsh to some but I just don't believe there would ever be any will to use this to take action against acceptable criticism of the team. To put it simply clamping down on a fan saying, for example, lamberts tactics are shit would create a lot more negative press than the comment left alone would create.


There is absolutely no logic in the club effectively creating a gagging order, it may be that the club should've arranged a meeting with the disgruntled chairmen but we don't really know the full events, they might have tried to explain this and got nowhere.  I don't know any of the people who've refused to sign it so I won't presume to know their reasons but given the amount who agreed to sign it I'd suggest their was a degree of stubbornness on both sides here.

[cheltenhamlion]

Don't get me wrong, this is stupid and there is very much a degree of culpability at both ends of the spectrum.

What grinds my gears is how simply it could have been nipped in the bud.
 

[nodge]

Oh, and for Nodge, the Supporters Trust aren't subject to this because they are not affiliates of the club.

They are there to represent the views of the fanbase on an impartial basis. Anything from the Trust by way of press release is on behalf of the membership.

I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't allowed a personal view on something just because I am involved with the Trust.

It is a question of striking a balance I suppose. For example, I might think Paul Faulkner was not the man for the job. The Trust as a body however might find him to be very obliging and supportive of his work.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I assumed from their statement that they were asked to sign it and refused because some of their affiliates refused?

[Dave Cooper please]

Oh, and for Nodge, the Supporters Trust aren't subject to this because they are not affiliates of the club.

They are there to represent the views of the fanbase on an impartial basis. Anything from the Trust by way of press release is on behalf of the membership.

I wouldn't be happy if I wasn't allowed a personal view on something just because I am involved with the Trust.

It is a question of striking a balance I suppose. For example, I might think Paul Faulkner was not the man for the job. The Trust as a body however might find him to be very obliging and supportive of his work.

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

I assumed from their statement that they were asked to sign it and refused because some of their affiliates refused?

Not an expert, but are any Lions Clubs affiliated to The Trust and were The Trust ever asked to sign?

As usual I come from this from an angle of utter ignorance, it's why I asked the question about whether any Lions Club chairmen have asked their members before declining to sign up to the agreement, it's just that if I was a Lions Club member (never have been) I might be a bit annoyed if I was to lose my benefits for being in such a club because the chairman didn't like the wording of an agreement I never got the chance to decide if I liked or not.

[andrew08]

There are no benefits to lose as a member. You get a handwritten plastic card. All the benefits are to the chairmen so,on a point of principle, they are giving up some decent perks, like playing at VP for example. So fair play to em.

[CT]

What a massive PR own goal.

I'll back Mr Holder 100% on this one. The fact that we are now an "independent Supporters Club" says it all. If you want to marginalise someone who has given his life supporting the club then so be it.

We need Sir GT to turn up now and just say "it's a shambles".

[old man villa fan]

The important bit of the statement made by the club is:

The three additional points were prompted by comments from various Lions Clubs and have been implemented after being approved by a steering group comprising of six Lions Club chairmen selected at random and representative of the group overall.

Without knowing what those comments mentioned were any reaction to this is guesswork.

I do not know the full ins and outs of it but it seems as though they agreed the guidelines with the steering group who I assume were representing the others.  If the six thought some of the other Lions clubs would have issues with the wording, shouldn't they have taken it back to them to discuss.  If this is the case, I do not understand why the club are getting flak and not the six Lions clubs who agreed to it.

[Dave Cooper please]

There are no benefits to lose as a member. You get a handwritten plastic card. All the benefits are to the chairmen so,on a point of principle, they are giving up some decent perks, like playing at VP for example. So fair play to em.

Really? there are no benefits at all, except for a plastic card, for being a member of a Lions Club?
Again, his isn't me being facetious or not believing you, just I don't really understand why you would become a member of a club for no discernible benefit.
Yet again excuse my ignorance, but do you have to pay to be a member?

[cheltenhamlion]

Short answer Dave, is no. No payment to join a club. It pretty much all falls on the time of their own they give, and also the judgement of the chairman on sharing any perks, as to how they are dispersed.

They generally are the least self serving you will ever come across.

Frankly, that it even got to them squabbling, is bloody silly on both sides. It isn't fair to ping those chairmen about canvassing membership before responding though.

It is them individually who felt wronged by what they perceived the club were asking.