Fans Worried Over Villa Future

[Laughing Gravity]

Hey Peter you're wrong. Simple. And you missed the point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying a VFC campaign equates with a mis-justice campaign, I'm saying the priciple of not giving up is the same and banging on when no one appears to be listening.

[Chris Smith]

Who thinks that?

The Trust Supporters who slag off VFC every time they open their mouth.

Do they really?

The Trust as a legally constituted, democratic organisation has a mandate to speak for it's members.

The VFC has a mandate to speak for Jon Fear and his mates.

I'm not saying that they, the VFC, don't have any right to make their statements, but as with any right there are reponsibilities. It is therefore perfectly acceptable for those of us on the outside to question and criticise if we see fit.

[Chris Smith]

Hey Peter you're wrong. Simple. And you missed the point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying a VFC campaign equates with a mis-justice campaign, I'm saying the priciple of not giving up is the same and banging on when no one appears to be listening.

If no one appears to be listening it's probably because they are not. Which either means that you've got the wrong message or the wrong method of conveying that message. Which ever it is it's probabaly a good idea to have a bit of a think about what you are doing. Just ask the Tories.

[peter w]

Hey Peter you're wrong. Simple. And you missed the point of what I'm saying. I'm not saying a VFC campaign equates with a mis-justice campaign, I'm saying the priciple of not giving up is the same and banging on when no one appears to be listening.

Whhich is ironic really. If you read what I stated in the first place, I said a change of tactics are required when the approach being used isn't working. How is that saying give up? If anything its saying try harder. The same thing said over and over , the same way, becomes easy for Ellis to deflect and grates those who you should have as your support. This needs to rectified if VFC are to be successful. If you/they are a pressure group then obviously there must be a campaign co-ordinater. If not why not? If there is , shouldn't somebody be asking questions as to why they are losing the support they initially had from many Villa fans?

[Laughing Gravity]

The Trust as a legally constituted, democratic organisation has a mandate to speak for it's members.

The VFC has a mandate to speak for Jon Fear and his mates.

There's not a matey thing going on at the Trust then?

Anyway I pointed out they sometimes like to give a different impression about who they speak for. They don't in reality speak for many people anyway.

How many fully paid up members are there? What questions did they ask at the last AGM?

[Laughing Gravity]

why they are losing the support they initially had from many Villa fans?

The same could be said of another group.

The VFC keeping saying the same thing because it's what needs to be said, because people forget.

[peter w]

why they are losing the support they initially had from many Villa fans?

The same could be said of another group.

The VFC keeping saying the same thing because it's what needs to be said, because people forget.

So you're turning this into a ST v VFC thread? Ellis must be literally laughing himself silly. If VFC are an Ellis Out pressure group concentrate your mind on the point in question. If the current policy of VFC is the issuing of statements, that is now losing its punch and a new strategy needs to be thought out. Its irrelevant as to how many members ST has/had. I'm discussing  the plan of VFC. They will only succeed in the removal of Ellis if they have the goodwill and support of fans. Thats how pressure groups- and indeed justice campaigners- succeed. Now, as I said VFC did have support initially. They are losing it. If they wish to suceed they need to change tack. I'm not say disappear, I'm not saying this person or that person is an idiot, just that some new input is needed in the campaign direction.

[Simon Barron]

The Trust as a legally constituted, democratic organisation has a mandate to speak for it's members.

The VFC has a mandate to speak for Jon Fear and his mates.

There's not a matey thing going on at the Trust then?

Anyway I pointed out they sometimes like to give a different impression about who they speak for. They don't in reality speak for many people anyway.

How many fully paid up members are there? What questions did they ask at the last AGM?

Was determined not to get sucked into this.

However, I am a member of the Trust, whilst not being mates with any of the Exec and as far as I know any other members (other than my wife and kids).

I am happy that the Trust speak on my behalf and vote according to the democratic views of it's members at the AGM.

My suggestion to anyone that doesn't like what the Trust is doing is to jojn and make your voice heard through the legally constituted one member one vote system.

While we are on the topic, was Jon Fear speaking at the AGM wearing his VFC or Shareholder's Association hat?  What did the SA members think of their Chairman walking out before the end of the meeting and therefore being unable to represent their views fully?

[Mac]

Somebody said to me on Saturday that the last time he saw something as funny and painful as Jon Fear & the rest of the VFC storming out of the AGM was the Bee Gees on Clive Anderson - for exactly the same reason.

And SImon - you wont find many members of the SA - because the SA don't want ordiunary shareholders as normal members - unless they're still trying to set up an alternative Supporters Trust.

[Laughing Gravity]

What did the SA members think of their Chairman walking out before the end of the meeting and therefore being unable to represent their views fully?

Maybe walking out was the best representation of their views.

Ooo ST don't like criticism.

So how many fully paid up members are there in the ST? Are their numbers dwindling because they don't have the support they used to?

Did they ask any questions at the AGM?

Do they have a view on the Ellis health situation and takeover offers that the club ARE considering according to Ellis?

[peter w]

What did the SA members think of their Chairman walking out before the end of the meeting and therefore being unable to represent their views fully?

Maybe walking out was the best representation of their views.

Ooo ST don't like criticism.

So how many fully paid up members are there in the ST? Are their numbers dwindling because they don't have the support they used to?

Did they ask any questions at the AGM?

Do they have a view on the Ellis health situation and takeover offers that the club ARE considering according to Ellis?

So, back to my dads bigger than your dad, LG? I was trying to engage you in a sensible debate and this is all you come back with.

[Laughing Gravity]

So, back to my dads bigger than your dad, LG? I was trying to engage you in a sensible debate and this is all you come back with.

Actually no. If you read it there are a numer of meaty questions there waiting to be answered. I've asked them probably five times now.

I'm merely pointing out that the people, ST supporters, slagging off VFC have to look to themselves as to why VFC is necessary.

[Risso]

While we are on the topic, was Jon Fear speaking at the AGM wearing his VFC or Shareholder's Association hat?  What did the SA members think of their Chairman walking out before the end of the meeting and therefore being unable to represent their views fully?

As was posted above, Jon asked many questions, and was palmed off with non answers time and time again, so decided enough was enough.

As LG has repeatedly asked, what questions were asked by the Trust at the AGM?

[Mac]

I think I know who Laughing Gravity is.  We've met him before.  ](*,)

[Laughing Gravity]

Why don't you stick to the debate Mac like a good moderator and follow your own rules.