Fans Worried Over Villa Future

[dave.woodhall]

The Trust membership voted that all motions be supported, except for the ones regarding the re-election of Doug & Peter Ellis.

Unfortunately, the CEO of the Trust was unable at short notive to attend the AGM, and so some questions which he had wanted putting forward weren't asked. As far as I'm aware, no Trust member had asked for questions to be asked on their behalf, although members did ask questions as individuals.

So, while we're on the subject....

What's the current membership of the Shareholders Association? How many AGMs have they held in the past six years? How many elections of officers? When were their accounts last distributed to members? How much dialogue has there been between committee and members since the current chairman was elected? Bearing in mind the fuss that resulted from the Trust's forum in 2004, when will the SA chairman publish an account of the meeting which took place between him and Bruce Langham at the beginning of this year?

[Risso]

Bearing in mind the fuss that resulted from the Trust's forum in 2004, when will the SA chairman publish an account of the meeting which took place between him and Bruce Langham at the beginning of this year?

Was that advertised as a meeting between the SA chair and BL, or was it an off the record meeting between two individuals?

[Oscar Goldman]

Bearing in mind the fuss that resulted from the Trust's forum in 2004, when will the SA chairman publish an account of the meeting which took place between him and Bruce Langham at the beginning of this year?

Was that advertised as a meeting between the SA chair and BL, or was it an off the record meeting between two individuals?

Or perhaps a top secret meeting that the Supreme Fans’ Chief regarded as being of no interest to the "riffraff"?

[pete bland]

Bearing in mind the fuss that resulted from the Trust's forum in 2004, when will the SA chairman publish an account of the meeting which took place between him and Bruce Langham at the beginning of this year?

..was it an off the record meeting between two individuals?

Got it in one Risso. BL invited JF to a private meeting.

Thanks for the info Dave.

[dave.woodhall]

Got it in one Risso. BL invited JF to a private meeting.

That unless I'm mistaken, Fear said would be made public. Anyway, remind me who it was who made the biggest fuss about the Trust not releasing details of the Langham forum immediately.

Anyone care to hazard a guess at answering the questions I asked?

[Oscar Goldman]

Am I correct in assuming that if members of the Trust become dissatisfied with the way the organisation is run they can vote to change matters/people?  

Are there similar arrangements for the greater body of Villa fans when it comes to the Supreme Commander of Allied Villa Fans Europe?

[Simon Page]

As I'm not, nor ever have been, a member of the Trust, I can't (rather than won't) answer the questions about that body. But, can I assume Pete from your comments on the last couple of pages that you agree answers should be given to questions - particularly ones which don't attack individuals nor use the phrase "fans' chief" or similar?

Assuming you do, earlier you stated you are "not the VFC spokesperson". Who are the officials of VFC and what are their titles? I'll happily stand in line behind the SA questions.

[pete bland]

Got it in one Risso. BL invited JF to a private meeting.

That unless I'm mistaken, Fear said would be made public.

Not to my knowledge, he didn't.

he asked for an informal off the record chat and that was what I agreed to

As for the questions about the Trust forum and the fuss - I have no idea who it was. I do remember being bemused by it all. Is it important who made the "fuss"?

Regarding the SA I don't know the answers to the question(s)

Regarding Simon's question on VFC - There aren't any officials or titles. There aren't any members.
There has been a group of people, normal fans, who have, for want of a better word "led" things. The people involved in this "core", has, as you know, changed from Day 1 to today.

Of the original people from the first meeting you were at, Simon (I think),   It's perhaps only JF and Naz still involved, though I might be wrong as I wasn't "in" at the start. Other people who still talk and discuss what to do include(d), at various times, Nigel Ashford, myself, David Carson, Paul Barnes... Ideas have come from a hell of a lot of people e-mailing or talking to some or all of us. As I have explained before, there's no "membership cards" or list of supporters as such, though a fair old number of people have got in touch and someone somewhere has a list, I'm sure. Some people don't want to be named, perhaps too - maybe they work at the club, or are just shy.

We've always said if the support for what we're doing goes, we'll stop. And whilst there is a combination of views on here, from very supportive, through to sceptical, to downright hostile - plus a lot of questions and suggestions, the overall response in the wider world has been good, and still is.

Jon and to a lesser extent Naz have done the "spokesman" role, as you'll have spotted. Various PRs have been, though, jointly drafted and finalised etc. Sometimes they have been less than perfect and one was contentious, to some people because it said Terry Weir RIP on the bottom. Personally speaking, I accept that it caused some people offence and /or anger and I understand some of the anger, though not all of the comments that were made. I know that the comment was not meant in any way to insult the memory of Terry Weir, or to upset his family. I am genuinely sorry if it did upset them. It's a hard call to know whether to "ask permission" (if such a thing is needed) to write (for example) "Pete Bland RIP" on a document, or (heaven forbid) in a Newspaper obit, or wherever, or just to simply go ahead. The person who added it, genuinely felt sorrow at his passing and wanted to express that, simply. Would asking permission have been an intrusion? It's not an easy protocol. I know that about 3 people, all largely against VFC (co-incidentally I'm sure), expressed anger at what was written - feeling that it was inappropriate to put Terry's name on the Red Card which was "political" Others probably felt the same, but held off from saying so. Others felt quite the opposite.

The way I look at it is that Villa supporters to a man and woman, were sorry at Terry's passing away, whatever their views on other matters surrounding their club. I don't see that adding a simple RIP message to the bottom of the cards was "an offence". At worst it was a heartfelt statement clumsily given. It certainly wasn't worthy of some of the abuse recieved. But that's a minor matter.

I won't discuss it further, but wanted to explain, at least the rationale behind it. Ian Robinson raised the matter, and apologise if I shouldn't have mentioned it. After thinking long and hard about replying to his revelation regarding his private correspondence with JF (several pages ago) decided I should perhaps write [edit] the bit above[/edit].

"Let he who hasn't made a mistake cast the first stone"

[Simon Page]

When I asked based on a VFC PR...

VFC (Villa Fans Combined)
VFC is an umbrella group that includes independent websites such as Holteenders.com (Mike Field), VillaTalk.com (Peter Bosworth and John Cresswell), astonished etc, Navid Nazir of Avisa, The Aston Villa Shareholders Association, Jonathan Fear and a long list of supporters from all sections of the Villa community.

Is it still the case?

...you said the list was largely correct. Is it still bearing in mind the names in your last post?

Pete, as I've said before, of those I've met I like the people involved in VFC, have no gripe over "fan's chief" nor a conflict of interests. I do though find it amazing that Villa fans have such a struggle to get info about VFC. It comes across as a group which only communicates via press release.

Oh, and do you have spies within the politburo ("maybe they work at the club").

[pete bland]

Re the list you quoted - the SA, the Websites, Naz, JF, and a long list of supporters - yeah, I'd say so.

It's not "organised" democratic, it's informally so. Point taken about getting info. Especially if you largely or only post or read on here.

For right or wrong, for us, it's never been about who "we" are, only about the message. Call us foolish, niaive, whatever, but we basically felt that the Club (Ellis) was putting across an unrealistic slant (being polite) on things, felt this wasn't correct, and wanted to try and focus on how things really are. And of course felt that Ellis was rather more in it for himself than for the club etc (see the VFC website for the whole gist of it) to the detriment of the club.

I understand that some folk desire every last detail of who are they?, are they suspiscious ne'er do wells, but we maybe again niaively, felt that, well we go down the matches, have for years, are shareholders, season tiocket holders, and we don't think the club is run as well as it could or should be, that Ellis is to blame (simplistically, as I have to go in a mo') and a change is needed. No-one else has put that case publically, we feel a LOT of fans also hold that viewpoint, let's see where we go.

I guess that was true at the start, too- as I said I wasn't "in" at the start.

Pretty much I personally suspect that whatever little we have or haven't achieved is done and dusted - we now have people interested in the club, Ellis (possibly) looking to sell, or even if not, he's not so well, the old chap. So largely VFC could be soon a tiny footnote.

I might be wrong, mind. And while people still by and large share the desire for a change of ethos and approach to the way the club is currently run, and while the incumbents still remain, we'll be around, I guess.

Despite many accusations to the contrary, it's not personal against Ellis. It's about the club we support and its future.

It's not all Ellis's fault, in my opinion, but a hell of a lot of where we are right now, is ultimately down to him, the bad and the good and the mostly mediocre.

Lastly a retort to the VFC - ego mad as bad as Ellis - accusations. Jonathan has I feel been very harshly on the end of much of it. He's the one, with Naz too, who has in the nicest sense, left his "ordinary world" to front up to reporters, TV and radio, at his own expense to give the message. It's have been a lot easier for him to have remained the anonymous, nice bloke, his friends and family know him as, and I'm sure he'd have prefered that in many ways. People who know him will know why, too. But he sacrificed time, money and effort to stand up for what he believed.

For a bunch of attention seekers and ego-ists we are so often accused of being, we're awfully, well, unknown - as proven by the "we don't know who they are" comments.

It's not, and never has been, about "us" but about the club. We are staggeringly normal people, who have in varying degrees just declined to silently accept what is placed before us.

All of the above is a personal view.

[dave.woodhall]

Jonathan has I feel been very harshly on the end of much of it. He's the one, with Naz too, who has in the nicest sense, left his "ordinary world" to front up to reporters, TV and radio, at his own expense to give the message. It's have been a lot easier for him to have remained the anonymous, nice bloke, his friends and family know him as, and I'm sure he'd have prefered that in many ways. People who know him will know why, too. But he sacrificed time, money and effort to stand up for what he believed.

Is this the same St Jonathan who called this very board "out of control on bile and bitterness"?

[Red Robbo]

Night everyone

[Oscar Goldman]

This thread’s slipped a bit down the page.

[Mac]

I'd still argue that it was totally inappropriate and inconsiderate to put "Terry Weir RIP" on the front of the "red card" protest.  And if Jon Fear STILL doesn't see that, and thinks my comments at the time were petty/vindictive/point scoring then it shows that he's the wrong man to front the VFC. Or stand up to be some sort of representative for Villa fans.

His comments at the time, once again, are best summed up by "my way or the highway".  There wasn't a doubt in his mind that he could have been wrong.  Indeed Pete's comments above re-affirm this.  The criticism of this is dismissed as being from people with "an axe to grind"

If it's a difficult call to make as to whether you need to ask the man's family then surely, the logical call is NOT to do it?  Not take an attitude that looks like Terry's memory is a stick to beat Doug Ellis with.  

That was low.

[Risso]

I'd still argue that it was totally inappropriate and inconsiderate to put "Terry Weir RIP" on the front of the "red card" protest.

Whether you thought that the use of his name was in bad taste or not, a thread with the title "VFC - Very Fucking Crass" is hardly the way to debate it in my opinion.  It just smacked as an excuse to have another go at VFC, which to me is in pretty bad taste itself.