Blue Brazil v Dream Team

[berwick-the-unbeatable]

Thommo's got it up the Cowden Two times..... Three tiiimes

 

[A Believer]

It's not only Berwick Rangers who need to worry about relegation, but most teams in this league and some in the division above. Eventually, things will probably balance themselves out as more teams go up and down and it isn't the black hole it as at the moment. Berwick need to be in a position that they're one of the best run part time clubs so that the foundations are in place progress, or to recover if something goes wrong.

However, all that requires people working together, not individuals thinking they always know best or grudges being held because their ego has been dented some way along the line. It requires everyone standing back and looking at the bigger picture. This isn't what's best for the Supporters Club, the Trust, an individual director or two, but Berwick Rangers and the community it is supposed to serve. If better ideas come along, people should be able to stand back and reassess, not plough on. Then they can work towards a plan for improving everything across the board. Football in Berwick, not just Berwick Rangers is blighted by finger pointing and people all over trying to get one up on each other.

There's been some big steps forward in recent times off the park. The facilities for sponsors is better and more people are paying to sponsor games. The foundation is good. Kids camps in the holidays (not the Dean Gordon shambles). Full time manager improving links through the town. The academy. Improved links with NCC. A huge improvement digitally leading to things like increased merchandise sales. They're all smaller steps, but they're important to people looking in from the outside and they should be built on by everyone working together rather than demands for wholescale revolution at every bump in the road in my opinion.

Of course, the team on the park and improving performance there is the main thing and that comes down to building a club that players want to play for and having the right manager in charge. 'Revolution' won't change that in the short term, and even then, those demanding it should come up with some credible plans going forward to improve everything. Talking about big black coats, drinking clubs and passing the crystal glasses around the board room is just sound bites aimed at further entrenching an 'us and them' mentality, where in reality anyone can get involved in improving things if they want to as I'm sure Yellow Feet and BtU will testify. This isn't 'brainwashing', as a lot of the suggestions fans have brought to the table have become reality. They're screaming out for new people to become involved as opposed to dismissing everyone. It doesn't mean you can't hold people to account.

The 'stadium trust' is an interesting idea and one that should be considered and scrutinised, but unfortunately the starting point for the conversation outside the boardroom has been 'everyone's a c**t' and revolution needed, as opposed to building a positive case from the off. Instantly, heckles are up and it's an 'us v them' battle. That cannot be the way Berwick Rangers progress, if anything is to happen.

Great post; it's the clubs with a cogent strategy on and off the pitch that will survive, and great point that unity behind it is critical.

The partnership with Northumberland College is a fantastic initiative; I wonder if asking development players to help, if they can, with Academy Sessions might be an idea; role modelling through young coaches working with players near their age is so powerful. At least 3 have SFA coaching qualifications.

The progress of the Dev Squad looks positive and that's a key part of building sustainability.

I hope the unity required to bind all this together will happen.

[Yellow Feet]

I still have a tear in my eye, love you all

[BerwickMad]

Great post; it's the clubs with a cogent strategy on and off the pitch that will survive, and great point that unity behind it is critical.

The partnership with Northumberland College is a fantastic initiative; I wonder if asking development players to help, if they can, with Academy Sessions might be an idea; role modelling through young coaches working with players near their age is so powerful. At least 3 have SFA coaching qualifications.

The progress of the Dev Squad looks positive and that's a key part of building sustainability.

I hope the unity required to bind all this together will happen.

Good point on the development squad. Can't believe I forgot to mention them. Ha.

[azza]

Enjoyed the trip up Saturday it's been a while since I've seen a win! Well done to all that travelled over 100 in a 340 attendance and the lads with the flag made it on the scottishh football away days [emoji106][emoji106]

[Yellow Feet]

I fancy the flag

[Bogs_Dollox]

Enjoyed the trip up Saturday it's been a while since I've seen a win! Well done to all that travelled over 100 in a 340 attendance and the lads with the flag made it on the scottishh football away days [emoji106][emoji106]

Look at the reek coming off them

[Yellow Feet]

Look at the reek coming off them

They'd bravely ventured in to Cowdenbeath, are you surprised?

[Red Mist]

On ‎08‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 11:29, BerwickMad said:

It's not only Berwick Rangers who need to worry about relegation, but most teams in this league and some in the division above. Eventually, things will probably balance themselves out as more teams go up and down and it isn't the black hole it as at the moment. Berwick need to be in a position that they're one of the best run part time clubs so that the foundations are in place progress, or to recover if something goes wrong.

However, all that requires people working together, not individuals thinking they always know best or grudges being held because their ego has been dented some way along the line. It requires everyone standing back and looking at the bigger picture. This isn't what's best for the Supporters Club, the Trust, an individual director or two, but Berwick Rangers and the community it is supposed to serve. If better ideas come along, people should be able to stand back and reassess, not plough on. Then they can work towards a plan for improving everything across the board. Football in Berwick, not just Berwick Rangers is blighted by finger pointing and people all over trying to get one up on each other.

There's been some big steps forward in recent times off the park. The facilities for sponsors is better and more people are paying to sponsor games. The foundation is good. Kids camps in the holidays (not the Dean Gordon shambles). Full time manager improving links through the town. The academy. Improved links with NCC. A huge improvement digitally leading to things like increased merchandise sales. They're all smaller steps, but they're important to people looking in from the outside and they should be built on by everyone working together rather than demands for wholescale revolution at every bump in the road in my opinion.

Of course, the team on the park and improving performance there is the main thing and that comes down to building a club that players want to play for and having the right manager in charge. 'Revolution' won't change that in the short term, and even then, those demanding it should come up with some credible plans going forward to improve everything. Talking about big black coats, drinking clubs and passing the crystal glasses around the board room is just sound bites aimed at further entrenching an 'us and them' mentality, where in reality anyone can get involved in improving things if they want to as I'm sure Yellow Feet and BtU will testify. This isn't 'brainwashing', as a lot of the suggestions fans have brought to the table have become reality. They're screaming out for new people to become involved as opposed to dismissing everyone. It doesn't mean you can't hold people to account.

The 'stadium trust' is an interesting idea and one that should be considered and scrutinised, but unfortunately the starting point for the conversation outside the boardroom has been 'everyone's a c**t' and revolution needed, as opposed to building a positive case from the off. Instantly, heckles are up and it's an 'us v them' battle. That cannot be the way Berwick Rangers progress, if anything is to happen.

Hello Brian

I'd vowed to stay off P&B but wanted to set the record straight on some of the points you make in your post.

First off, I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly in regard to some of the very positive off-pitch developments over the last 18 months or so. However.

What happens on the pitch is the reason the vast majority of us go along in the first place. In the 10 years since the current board (give or take one or two changes to personnel) assumed control of the club, the highest the team has finished is 4th. This season we're flirting with the very real possibility of not having league status next season, notwithstanding Saturday's much more encouraging performance. The current board membership, or at least a significant element of it, has made great play in the past about the importance of business acumen in the boardroom. The question I'd put to them, and you, is this: if your business had underperformed for 10 consecutive years, would you not be looking to make changes to the people entrusted with running the organisation? I think it's time to give other people a chance. You say you welcome fresh input, new ideas. Surely that time is now?

Colin Pike has been proposed as a new director. Put the trolls to one side here, and consider what Colin Pike might bring to the boardroom - he is a founder member of the Trust, which has contributed tens of thousands of pounds to the club since 2003; and he's overseen remarkable progress with Duns FC, including successful funding bids which have transformed New Hawthorn Park. I'd contend that these football-related achievements are superior to those of many current incumbents in the boardroom, yet there has been a campaign to smear Colin and diminish his credentials, some of which has come from within the boardroom. I'd be happy to provide evidence to you to confirm this. The point I'm making here is that new ideas and skills only seem to be welcomed by those in control of the club when they're not outspoken and won't rock the boat. These are not criminal traits. They should be welcomed in any healthy boardroom. That's one of the reasons I want change. Let's not beat about the bush here - your father is one of the people I'm talking about being reluctant to relinquish control by bringing in new faces that aren't part of his orbit. He has been extremely vocal in opposing Colin Pike's nomination. Yet he's also part of the status quo that promises what exactly - more of the same mediocrity we've had for the last 10 years? I haven't heard any meaningful plans from Lenny Ayre or any other members of that faction in the boardroom about what the future of Berwick Rangers might look like.

You seem to have forgotten that a couple of years ago, you met with John Bell, Colin Pike and I to hear our thoughts on the future of BRFC. These were considered, evidence based and were framed with the aim of building a thriving community-based club founded on developing long-term roots within the town. We still have those plans, albeit further developed since that meeting. Yet we are being excluded by what I consider to be vested interests primarily concerned with protecting the status quo on the board. Maybe that's where you, and the supporters club, should be addressing your questions.

The club has recently lost the services of a valued and well-respected finance officer as a result of interference by a board member. A major sponsor recently complained to me about the embarrassing amateurism of the board in regard to its commercial activities. These are the consequences of incompetence and arrogance and this is the kind of thing that I want to see improve. That's why I strongly believe it's time to give other people the opportunity to take the club in a new direction. I see that Malcolm Reed is being lined up by Lenny & Co to fill one of the director vacancies at the forthcoming AGM. It doesn't look like there's much of a willingness on their part to embrace new ideas. Instead, it looks as though they're pulling up the drawbridge. I want something better for Berwick Rangers. I want to go to games confident in the knowledge that the people running the club are doing so in the best interests and that every now and again, the team will put together a competitive season or two. Despite what you might think, I don't want confrontation for the sake of it, but I'm prepared to fight to make things better, and I think we can do a lot better.

In the long-term, I think it would make sense for there to be a single supporters organisation independent of any directorial representation. But in the meantime, you and your colleagues in the supporters club in particular have the power to bring about positive change. You mentioned holding people to account - maybe it's about time the SC did that and acknowledge that it's the supporters they represent, and not the board, who own the football club. There is a big difference between appeasement, which hands power to those already in power, or actually taking back control, to use a hackneyed soundbite. Ask yourself this - where doing you see the current board taking the club, except perhaps out of the league? That's got to be challenged. We should not be settling for the same old every season. 10 years ago, a few of us did the hard yards to get rid of Robert Wilson and pave the way for what we hoped would be a brighter future for Berwick Rangers. It hasn't quite worked out like that but the opportunity to change things - based on well-thought out plans - remains. You have a stake in making that happen.

 

 

[Yellow Feet]

What happens on the pitch is the reason the vast majority of us go along in the first place.

Colin Pike has been proposed as a new director. Put the trolls to one side here, and consider what Colin Pike might bring to the boardroom

As you're well aware i'm far too young to know about the in's and out's of the board over the last decade and beyond, it's only the last year or maybe two i've started to pay attention to off the pitch.

Your point raised about what happens on the pitch being why we all come along. All I know about Colin Pike is he became Chairman of Duns, and whilst i'll admit i'm highly impressed with how the facilities have improved, on the pitch they're now Border Am Division C.

So in my eyes, this is a man who could maybe play a role off the pitch but as has been stated we're improving in those areas anyway. I personally don't see how he can improve us on the pitch if he couldn't attract players to play at Duns. Which after all is the priority.

[berwick-the-unbeatable]

3 hours ago, Red Mist said:

Hello Brian

I'd vowed to stay off P&B but wanted to set the record straight on some of the points you make in your post.

First off, I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly in regard to some of the very positive off-pitch developments over the last 18 months or so. However.

What happens on the pitch is the reason the vast majority of us go along in the first place. In the 10 years since the current board (give or take one or two changes to personnel) assumed control of the club, the highest the team has finished is 4th. This season we're flirting with the very real possibility of not having league status next season, notwithstanding Saturday's much more encouraging performance. The current board membership, or at least a significant element of it, has made great play in the past about the importance of business acumen in the boardroom. The question I'd put to them, and you, is this: if your business had underperformed for 10 consecutive years, would you not be looking to make changes to the people entrusted with running the organisation? I think it's time to give other people a chance. You say you welcome fresh input, new ideas. Surely that time is now?

Colin Pike has been proposed as a new director. Put the trolls to one side here, and consider what Colin Pike might bring to the boardroom - he is a founder member of the Trust, which has contributed tens of thousands of pounds to the club since 2003; and he's overseen remarkable progress with Duns FC, including successful funding bids which have transformed New Hawthorn Park. I'd contend that these football-related achievements are superior to those of many current incumbents in the boardroom, yet there has been a campaign to smear Colin and diminish his credentials, some of which has come from within the boardroom. I'd be happy to provide evidence to you to confirm this. The point I'm making here is that new ideas and skills only seem to be welcomed by those in control of the club when they're not outspoken and won't rock the boat. These are not criminal traits. They should be welcomed in any healthy boardroom. That's one of the reasons I want change. Let's not beat about the bush here - your father is one of the people I'm talking about being reluctant to relinquish control by bringing in new faces that aren't part of his orbit. He has been extremely vocal in opposing Colin Pike's nomination. Yet he's also part of the status quo that promises what exactly - more of the same mediocrity we've had for the last 10 years? I haven't heard any meaningful plans from Lenny Ayre or any other members of that faction in the boardroom about what the future of Berwick Rangers might look like.

You seem to have forgotten that a couple of years ago, you met with John Bell, Colin Pike and I to hear our thoughts on the future of BRFC. These were considered, evidence based and were framed with the aim of building a thriving community-based club founded on developing long-term roots within the town. We still have those plans, albeit further developed since that meeting. Yet we are being excluded by what I consider to be vested interests primarily concerned with protecting the status quo on the board. Maybe that's where you, and the supporters club, should be addressing your questions.

The club has recently lost the services of a valued and well-respected finance officer as a result of interference by a board member. A major sponsor recently complained to me about the embarrassing amateurism of the board in regard to its commercial activities. These are the consequences of incompetence and arrogance and this is the kind of thing that I want to see improve. That's why I strongly believe it's time to give other people the opportunity to take the club in a new direction. I see that Malcolm Reed is being lined up by Lenny & Co to fill one of the director vacancies at the forthcoming AGM. It doesn't look like there's much of a willingness on their part to embrace new ideas. Instead, it looks as though they're pulling up the drawbridge. I want something better for Berwick Rangers. I want to go to games confident in the knowledge that the people running the club are doing so in the best interests and that every now and again, the team will put together a competitive season or two. Despite what you might think, I don't want confrontation for the sake of it, but I'm prepared to fight to make things better, and I think we can do a lot better.

In the long-term, I think it would make sense for there to be a single supporters organisation independent of any directorial representation. But in the meantime, you and your colleagues in the supporters club in particular have the power to bring about positive change. You mentioned holding people to account - maybe it's about time the SC did that and acknowledge that it's the supporters they represent, and not the board, who own the football club. There is a big difference between appeasement, which hands power to those already in power, or actually taking back control, to use a hackneyed soundbite. Ask yourself this - where doing you see the current board taking the club, except perhaps out of the league? That's got to be challenged. We should not be settling for the same old every season. 10 years ago, a few of us did the hard yards to get rid of Robert Wilson and pave the way for what we hoped would be a brighter future for Berwick Rangers. It hasn't quite worked out like that but the opportunity to change things - based on well-thought out plans - remains. You have a stake in making that happen.

This is by no means a bad post. I actually probably agree with more than I disagree, but I still think there are some fundamental differences of view that I feel deserve to be discussed. 

You're right - the main issue is what happens on the park. For me though, the importance of what happens off it has increased dramatically over the past decade - for all SPFL clubs. I think there's an argument there that the past couple of years in particular have seen us make our biggest strides in improving off the park. I'd hate to see us get relegated and though Saturday was excellent, I believe it entirely possible. But it is of absolutely vital importance that no matter what happens on the park, the work being done is both continued and diversified to give Berwick a chance of a successful future - and perhaps even a future at all.

"If your business had underperformed for 10 consecutive years, would you not be looking to make changes to the people entrusted with running the organisation?" Is an entirely justified question. From my own experiences with board members, I'd admit to feeling there are a few of who's value I do not see. It's a big part of the reason why I campaigned quite vigorously this time last year at Supporters Club meetings for a 'title' to be disclosed, so that fans can gain a clearer insight into the roles and responsibilities of each director.

But a big issue for me is that there is no queue of well-qualified, driven nor loaded people willing to put themselves forward. There are probably a few who'd do it, but could they really add any more? I'm not sure. I'd want appointments to be worthwhile. I don't think we should rock the boat and dismiss guys who, no matter our view of them, have been loyal to the club for years, when there is neither a replacement readied nor plan for who of the current board would take on their responsibilities. 

Disagreements are healthy as long as they're discussed sensibly as here. I think Doug Watkin is a good example of an appointment which can help the club going forward, especially given what I've mentioned above with regards to the club's off-field development. You openly took issue with the appointment and having spoken to you, I respect your reasons why - though I must admit I still remain in disagreement that he won't be a good addition moving forward. 

You meanwhile think Colin Pike would be a good appointment, and if I'm bluntly open, I find it hard to see how given my own knowledge and experiences related to him. Yes, I acknowledge the job he's done in revamping the facilities at Duns, but it's also conveniently forgetting the mess the pitch was and the fact that even despite the superior facilities his club are able to boast to other local sides of a similar stature, he felt his side couldn't attract players and pulled them out of their league. My only real memory of serving on the Trust board with him is that he missed 1-2 meetings to purchase incense sticks. To me, it seemed he was bored post-Wilson and he lost interest. I'd put two and two together and say that's where the Duns project came in. Say you get your way and we overhaul, what's to say he doesn't get bored again? Is the reason he wants on board because he's bored of Duns now, too?

I think the phrase smear campaign is a bit extreme, but I think that like any appointment to the board that people are justified in airing their concerns prior to making any such decision. In addition to the above paragraph, there are other reasons that are probably a bit too personal to air on P&B that I have that have me believing he's unsuitable for a role. Judging by his Twitter alone, Colin is outspoken, but there has to be a line. In complete honesty, I find it a little surprising that you reference the 'drinking club' upstairs, and yet it's the a clique from 10 years ago that you'd now like to see move the club forward. It has to be a mix of people. Realistically, we'll never progress otherwise in any more than one area otherwise.

And whilst we're on 'not beating around the bush' - I'd contest that the behaviour of John Bell over the past week has been completely unprofessional, and to a point quite arrogant. A portion of his comments in the paper upon launching his Stadium Trust seemed very much made with a side-target of negatively affecting our hopes of potentially latching onto the new Sports Centre plans. Why does it have to be his way, or no way? Why can't we pursue multiple avenues? I personally don't doubt for a minute that John has considered the impact of his words in relation to affecting the bid - the Vice Chairman of Berwick Rangers in the local press effectively dismissing it will do that. But I wonder if John has considered the impact in community perception? Thanks to his comments, anyone who has seen the club's push the week prior to be considered in the plans will now be under the impression that there is in-fighting at the club. 

 

I completely agree that there should be a single supporters organisation. The immediate concern on that is how you go about ensuring the maintenance of the financial support the two organisations offer year by year. I'll continue to push for the discussion and action, but I must admit I don't see it happening imminently. Again, it comes back to ensuring there is a viable plan in place. I think a single supporter's organisation is the avenue to pursue to increase accountability and further help the club move forward off the field. But I also don't think there should be an atmosphere where volunteers or guys who put their own money into the club are made to feel like they're at work and under overly intense pressure to deliver results. Your call for us to acknowledge the supporters we represent is valid, but I've yet to receive a single message or have a single discussion with an SC member about the suitability of a, or multiple board members that they'd like brought up at a meeting, and for all the reasons above, I won't be putting it forward as a personal view, either. 

Apologies for the long-winded shite, but I think it's well worth the discussion. Undoubtedly we'll continue to disagree in certain areas but avenues such as the idea of a single supporters organisation for me are perfect reason why these conversations should be had. If it progresses them and improves things, then it's been worthwhile.

 

 

 

 

[BerwickMad]

2 hours ago, Red Mist said:

Hello Brian

I'd vowed to stay off P&B but wanted to set the record straight on some of the points you make in your post.

First off, I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly in regard to some of the very positive off-pitch developments over the last 18 months or so. However.

What happens on the pitch is the reason the vast majority of us go along in the first place. In the 10 years since the current board (give or take one or two changes to personnel) assumed control of the club, the highest the team has finished is 4th. This season we're flirting with the very real possibility of not having league status next season, notwithstanding Saturday's much more encouraging performance. The current board membership, or at least a significant element of it, has made great play in the past about the importance of business acumen in the boardroom. The question I'd put to them, and you, is this: if your business had underperformed for 10 consecutive years, would you not be looking to make changes to the people entrusted with running the organisation? I think it's time to give other people a chance. You say you welcome fresh input, new ideas. Surely that time is now?

Colin Pike has been proposed as a new director. Put the trolls to one side here, and consider what Colin Pike might bring to the boardroom - he is a founder member of the Trust, which has contributed tens of thousands of pounds to the club since 2003; and he's overseen remarkable progress with Duns FC, including successful funding bids which have transformed New Hawthorn Park. I'd contend that these football-related achievements are superior to those of many current incumbents in the boardroom, yet there has been a campaign to smear Colin and diminish his credentials, some of which has come from within the boardroom. I'd be happy to provide evidence to you to confirm this. The point I'm making here is that new ideas and skills only seem to be welcomed by those in control of the club when they're not outspoken and won't rock the boat. These are not criminal traits. They should be welcomed in any healthy boardroom. That's one of the reasons I want change. Let's not beat about the bush here - your father is one of the people I'm talking about being reluctant to relinquish control by bringing in new faces that aren't part of his orbit. He has been extremely vocal in opposing Colin Pike's nomination. Yet he's also part of the status quo that promises what exactly - more of the same mediocrity we've had for the last 10 years? I haven't heard any meaningful plans from Lenny Ayre or any other members of that faction in the boardroom about what the future of Berwick Rangers might look like.

You seem to have forgotten that a couple of years ago, you met with John Bell, Colin Pike and I to hear our thoughts on the future of BRFC. These were considered, evidence based and were framed with the aim of building a thriving community-based club founded on developing long-term roots within the town. We still have those plans, albeit further developed since that meeting. Yet we are being excluded by what I consider to be vested interests primarily concerned with protecting the status quo on the board. Maybe that's where you, and the supporters club, should be addressing your questions.

The club has recently lost the services of a valued and well-respected finance officer as a result of interference by a board member. A major sponsor recently complained to me about the embarrassing amateurism of the board in regard to its commercial activities. These are the consequences of incompetence and arrogance and this is the kind of thing that I want to see improve. That's why I strongly believe it's time to give other people the opportunity to take the club in a new direction. I see that Malcolm Reed is being lined up by Lenny & Co to fill one of the director vacancies at the forthcoming AGM. It doesn't look like there's much of a willingness on their part to embrace new ideas. Instead, it looks as though they're pulling up the drawbridge. I want something better for Berwick Rangers. I want to go to games confident in the knowledge that the people running the club are doing so in the best interests and that every now and again, the team will put together a competitive season or two. Despite what you might think, I don't want confrontation for the sake of it, but I'm prepared to fight to make things better, and I think we can do a lot better.

In the long-term, I think it would make sense for there to be a single supporters organisation independent of any directorial representation. But in the meantime, you and your colleagues in the supporters club in particular have the power to bring about positive change. You mentioned holding people to account - maybe it's about time the SC did that and acknowledge that it's the supporters they represent, and not the board, who own the football club. There is a big difference between appeasement, which hands power to those already in power, or actually taking back control, to use a hackneyed soundbite. Ask yourself this - where doing you see the current board taking the club, except perhaps out of the league? That's got to be challenged. We should not be settling for the same old every season. 10 years ago, a few of us did the hard yards to get rid of Robert Wilson and pave the way for what we hoped would be a brighter future for Berwick Rangers. It hasn't quite worked out like that but the opportunity to change things - based on well-thought out plans - remains. You have a stake in making that happen.

 

 

Thanks for replying.

 

I don't think anyone is happy with the on pitch performance over the past ten years. If we're going to point fingers at the board for the on pitch performance, which is perfectly valid, we need to point out what decisions they've made that has lead to the poor on field performance. I've criticised managerial decisions in the past, and i've praised other appointments. Sometimes we get proven wrong. We can agree its the reason we go along in the first place, but I don't see any great alternative plan in terms of improving on field performance being put forward, never mind one that says we should blow everything up and start again.

 

And I say this, because the proposals being put forward, for example the Stadium Trust, which I did mention in my post so I hadn't forgotten the meeting, are off field things. They aren't plans to immediately improve on pitch performance, more long term plans for the club and the community. Just as the academy is, the improved links with local teams, the work in schools, the development squad, the full time manager, getting fans involved digitally, the improved facilities for sponsors and on and on. They're incremental changes and improvements that are happening now, with input from across the board and fanbase. Again, the Stadium Trust plan is interesting and certainly needs to be considered, but I certainly don't believe it's a strong enough idea for mass resignations. 

 

When I talk about new people being involved and new ideas, I mean fans having a say. I've attended these meetings and as i've said, the club have progressed many of the ideas fans come up with. I really don't care who the figurehead is if I can see improvements happen. For the board, I think they need at least one 'football person' on there who they don’t have now. Someone maybe with a background in community work, and certainly a board member with expertise in youth development. Although you of course need people who aren't afraid to stress their opinion and criticise, you also need them to be team players. I'd need to be convinced that Colin Pike would offer very much despite what you have said, but I don't really want to get involved in picking at what he has and hasn't done at Duns. Although Yellow Feet does have a very good point if on field performance is the main issue.

 

I'll be honest, I don't see this vested interests thing. I do see a lot of this down to personality though, how much so on either side I don't know. I certainly wouldn't see, for example, Monty, Dougie Watkins, Graham Bell and Lenny as natural bed fellows. If it's simply that they disagree with John's plans, then they're entitled to. It’s not such an obvious plan with guaranteed success, from what i’ve seen, that its some kind of no brainer that a director would be mad to reject. As you mention, I saw the presentation and consider myself as someone pretty forward thinking. The plans were impressive if a little vague on funding, but I’ve seen absolutely nothing concrete enough to convince me that the club needs such a drastic change in direction off the park in terms of the boardroom, certainly not the one being suggested where everyone stands down. All directors have probably done things I both agree and disagree with, but I certainly don't think John has some kind of record at the club (he has been involved pretty much this whole period) to suggest we should automatically all get behind him at the expense of others who have also done some good work. Which is why I think they should be all drawing on each others strengths as opposed to pulling against each other.

 

A few other points, you say that someone mentioned to you the amateurism of the club commercially. As far as I am aware they're performing better in that area than before. I could also point to someone who we're treated brilliantly by the club and you may have seen the kids on the pitch at the Montrose game. They're glowing about the club and they way they were treated. 

 

You talk about incompetence. The 'North East Tour' could probably be described as that and I'm sure you and others needed to cover the costs through ‘sponsorship’. It seemed nothing more than a tour set up to play a game against one of John's pals teams. Not to mention the workload on a team who were blowing out their arse by the end of July. We could all scream outrage at any bump in the road or when someone makes a wrong decision. To balance it out, the decision to let Hearts and Hibs season ticket holders into the new year game for nothing was terrible in my opinion, and I stated this at the last SC meeting. If everyone worked together as a team, as opposed to working against each other, they'd hopefully learn from mistakes and they’d happen less often, as opposed to people ploughing on on their own.

 

As for where I see the club going, I think I've mentioned that all clubs at this level need to look at themselves in terms of that. The off the field stuff is important as these are the foundations for the on field stuff. Off the field I think we're heading in the right direction, certainly more so than I can remember.

[john bell]

Just a couple of comments guys, and I'll resist the temptation to make far more.

Dale - you suggest I'm being arrogant and unprofessional.  Strong words. But I'd suggest if you'd worked on a project for a long time, would you stand by and keep quiet about it or would you want it to be considered as an option to explore? There's little point in waiting for an NCC consultation that only presents one idea only to make a noise afterwards. I'd prefer not to have gone so public but when six emails go unanswered there was little choice.

Brian - you suggest the North East tour was 'incompetent'. So presumably you know exactly what the tour cost to arrive at that judgement? Did you also consider that a music event prevented us from hosting home games (which often cost us money anyway) and that the manager welcomed the opportunity to have a team weekend away, a training session and two matches. It certainly wasn't foisted upon him and was done wit his full knowledge and support. As for opposition, I approached two teams that had requested friendlies a year before. 

[Yellow Feet]

John, surely you can see having two friendlies in two days against absolute cloggers in a field was bloody stupid given the changes to cup formats and bare thin squad.
The players felt the same as all us and said such publicly.

[BerwickMad]

1 hour ago, john bell said:

Just a couple of comments guys, and I'll resist the temptation to make far more.

Dale - you suggest I'm being arrogant and unprofessional.  Strong words. But I'd suggest if you'd worked on a project for a long time, would you stand by and keep quiet about it or would you want it to be considered as an option to explore? There's little point in waiting for an NCC consultation that only presents one idea only to make a noise afterwards. I'd prefer not to have gone so public but when six emails go unanswered there was little choice.

Brian - you suggest the North East tour was 'incompetent'. So presumably you know exactly what the tour cost to arrive at that judgement? Did you also consider that a music event prevented us from hosting home games (which often cost us money anyway) and that the manager welcomed the opportunity to have a team weekend away, a training session and two matches. It certainly wasn't foisted upon him and was done wit his full knowledge and support. As for opposition, I approached two teams that had requested friendlies a year before. 

John, I'm just using it as an example as I've heard much criticism of it and its costs. I don't know the exact figures, and I don't know the exact figures for Shielfield Rocks, another thing I wasn't a massive fan of. For what its worth, I totally understand that board members and those in positions of authority will take risks and make decisions which won't always be successful. I didn't point fingers at the time for that very reason. I've defended the stadium plan tonight on a bizarre attack from someone on the Tizer facebook. I'm not out to pick a side or rubbish ideas. The ONLY reason I responded to Doug's comment yesterday is because I've seen weeks of what I consider to be over the top criticism and labelling of people. I believe it happens with nearly every defeat or bad run of form and I find it boring. I'd much rather concentrate on the positives of which I believe there are many, and it's not me who is demanding resignations or calling people. I'd rather you all worked together.  Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion and can give it when they like, but when they do and propose you and Colin Pike as the alternative, don't expect yours and Colin's record not to be analysed.

In all honesty, I find the whole thing tedious. It feels like for my whole adult life there has been boardroom battles based on personality. I used to sit at the stanks and have Wilson in my lug for one half and Jamie in my lug for the other half. I'm bored of it. People should be working together and they should be able to take constructive criticism on board. Too many ego's involved. As I've mentioned, there have been lots and lots of positives over the past couple of years and I don't think theres anything dramatic enough going on to warrant another battle between two pitched camps. Just get on with it!

[john bell]

I'll put this simply:

a) the league cup format was known

b) the manager was fully involved 

c) lessons were learnt

 

[No F in Ducket]

Mind when Cowden got Tommo'd

[Yellow Feet]

c) lessons were learnt

Good.

[Yellow Feet]

Mind when Cowden got Tommo'd

THREE TIMES

[john bell]

Brian, you're passing comment  on something and using the words incompetent, then admitting you don't know the details. I've challenged you on that and now you're talking about other issues. You've made an awful lot of assumptions in recent posts based on questionable evidence, and I could have challenged you on a lot more but have refrained to avoid getting into the very situation you describe.