As the most used BWFC fan site, we'd like to gauge opinion

I don't think there is anything wrong with the ST 'holding the board to account' that's what non-exec directors do in a 'normal' organisation and we don't have any. Just go about it in a professional way - IE neutral businesslike language and not the type of stuff we have seen in the past. This interview seems much more positive.

Agree with this.????

They're clearly not. I've invited Izza to an LOV interview with supporter submitted questions. Let's see how he responds.

My questions; who is he? In fact who are the ST? There is no information, their comms are shit.

 

Does he stand by the anti-BWFC sniping from the ST and his own Twitter account (@dsizza)?

 

Who appointed him chairman? Why did they drop the "acting" bit? When's the elections, so we, the members, can get rid of him?

My questions; who is he? In fact who are the ST? There is no information, their comms are shit.

 

Does he stand by the anti-BWFC sniping from the ST and his own Twitter account (@dsizza)?

 

Who appointed him chairman? Why did they drop the "acting" bit? When's the elections, so we, the members, can get rid of him?

 

As you're probably blocked, I've taken the liberty of asking on your behalf

My questions; who is he? In fact who are the ST? There is no information, their comms are shit.

 

Does he stand by the anti-BWFC sniping from the ST and his own Twitter account (@dsizza)?

 

Who appointed him chairman? Why did they drop the "acting" bit? When's the elections, so we, the members, can get rid of him?

It's clear who he is from the Trust website, but would be interesting to see if there is a response to Traf's email, also would be great if someone off WWs put themselves up for election to the board, a ST sceptic such as Carlos would be great and would definitely strengthen and give the board a more rounded look and a voice to the ST sceptics.

Edited August 19, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

No probably about it! You'd think I was an internet troll rather than someone who doesn't just accept spoonfed bullshit.

It's clear who he is from the Trust website

Not being funny but I want more than the out of date:

 

"Daniel Izza

Board Member

 

Experienced in the area of sports law. Solicitor. Recommended by Gudni Bergsson. Season ticket holder since 1997."

http://www.bwfcst.co.uk/people/daniel-izza/

Undies shares a mutual friend with the poisoned dwarf

 

I'll see what he can find out

http://www.bwfcst.co.uk/people/daniel-izza/

 

Think that's a decent review of who he is.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the ST 'holding the board to account' that's what non-exec directors do in a 'normal' organisation and we don't have any. Just go about it in a professional way - IE neutral businesslike language and not the type of stuff we have seen in the past. This interview seems much more positive.

 

How can they hold anyone to account though?

 

They have no powers over the club.

 

They have no access to the financial dealings of the club.

 

They aren't even involved with the club - unless the club lets them.

 

Blackpool has a ST.

 

If they can't land a glove on Oysten then what even is the point in saying our ST will hold our owners to account?

 

It even look as though one of our owners has had major difficulties in even bring his fellow owner to account - let alone a toothless ST.

 

It's just unnecessary, aggressive and ongoing rhetoric from the ST that doesn't help anybody in my opinion.

 

Empty barrels.

 

Empty words.

How can they hold anyone to account though?

 

They have no powers over the club.

 

They have no access to the financial dealings of the club.

 

They aren't even involved with the club - unless the club lets them.

 

Blackpool has a ST.

 

If they can't land a glove on Oysten then what even is the point in saying our ST will hold our owners to account?

 

It even look as though one of our owners has had major difficulties in even bring his fellow owner to account - let alone a toothless ST.

 

It's just unnecessary, aggressive and ongoing rhetoric from the ST that doesn't help anybody in my opinion.

 

Empty barrels.

 

Empty words.

Quite apt the last 2 points coming from you, you've nothing to give nothing to add and not even a gun with an empty barrel. Just a stick to bash folk who are trying to help the club and who are in dialogue with KA in an attempt to help the club and try to ensure some sort of accountability. You offer nothing other than an agenda that's negative and counter productive.

Edited August 19, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

What does Mr Izza make of Mr Bowers comments describing ordinary, every day Bolton supporters on here as "sewer rats"? Is this "inclusive"?

What does Mr Izza make of Mr Bowers comments describing ordinary, every day Bolton supporters on here as "sewer rats"? Is this "inclusive"?

I dont know Bowers and haven't seen his comments I would hope someone who's the chairman of a collective group of BWFC fans would not have those views and would distance himself from folk who do. I'm hoping Izza didn't like the comments.????

Edited August 19, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

Quite apt the last 2 points coming from you, you've nothing to give nothing to add and not even a gun with an empty barrel. Just a stick to bash folk who are trying to help the club and who are in dialogue with KA in an attempt to help the club and try to ensure some sort of accountability. You offer nothing other than an agenda that's negative and counter productive.

 

Instead of prejudicing in your own mind everything I post, simply because it is I that posts it, why don't you try and reason if what I've wrote actually deserves some merit?

 

The actual owners of the club have taken legal advise against each other in regards to 'holding each other to account', so why do you or anyone else think that a random group of people off the street, (which may I remind you, nobody as actually ever cast a vote to elect them on to the ST board), with no access to the club (without invite from its owner), no access to financial involvement at the club (apart from looking at historical documents filed at Companies House), and have no authority, say or influence whatsoever over the club - be in a position to hold its owner 'to account'?

 

The reference I made to empty barrels which you clearly missed - is that they make the most noise - a bit like you on most topics you get involved in on here it seems.

 

As I have said above, Blackpool has a ST and an owner that seems to be universally despised by their fans - have they been able to hold him to account despite their best endeavours?

 

So I ask again, how does the ST believe it can hold the club owners to account as that job is already being done in any event by the proper authority, the English Football League? 

 

As the ST predates Holdsworth and Anderson's ownership, what have they actually achieved over the last season and a half of actively holding our owners to account during this time?

 

I can't think of a single thing - can you?

No.

How can they hold anyone to account though?

 

They have no powers over the club.

 

They have no access to the financial dealings of the club.

 

They aren't even involved with the club - unless the club lets them.

 

Blackpool has a ST.

 

If they can't land a glove on Oysten then what even is the point in saying our ST will hold our owners to account?

 

It even look as though one of our owners has had major difficulties in even bring his fellow owner to account - let alone a toothless ST.

 

It's just unnecessary, aggressive and ongoing rhetoric from the ST that doesn't help anybody in my opinion.

 

Empty barrels.

 

Empty words.

They can work with the club, ask the right questions, publically if necessary. Blackpool can't lay a glove on Oyston because he doesn't give a sh1t, I don't believe that's the position with Ken.

They can work with the club, ask the right questions, publically if necessary. Blackpool can't lay a glove on Oyston because he doesn't give a sh1t, I don't believe that's the position with Ken.

 

From what Bridge said, Anderson only bothered to meet the ST 'briefly' just twice and Izza reported that Anderson could only spare the ST the time to find out what the ST was doing to lift the ACV and left the meeting once he found out it wasn't very much!

 

Maybe that position has changed in recent weeks but I doubt Anderson cares too much at all about the ST really. 

 

(Remember his comments about how the ST attempted to take advantage of his financial situation by offering just £140,000 (which they hadn't even got) for 10% of the ownership of the business!!!).

 

As for asking the right questions - what are the right questions in the first place when the ST has no knowledge or access to the clubs accounts or business dealings???

 

Why would ANY multi-million pound business, who employs professional, experienced and knowledgeable staff even contemplate letting a random group of 'do gooders' have open access to the accounts and allow them to tell them how best to run their own business???

 

It's bizarre that anyone would think they would - particularly when you take into account that these same people where recently rival bidders to Holdsworth/Anderson for the actual ownership of the club - and more recently tried to screw Anderson into selling 10% of the club for relative peanuts!!!

 

 So I ask again, in the last season and a half of the ST's existence, can anyone give a single example of when the ST actually held the owners of the club to account and how they did it?

 

Anyone?

I think the fatal blow is that the club/the Andersons know the ST doesn't speak for all our fans, they don't even speak for all their own members!

From what Bridge said, Anderson only bothered to meet the ST 'briefly' just twice and Izza reported that Anderson could only spare the ST the time to find out what the ST was doing to lift the ACV and left the meeting once he found out it wasn't very much!

 

 

Maybe that position has changed in recent weeks but I doubt Anderson cares too much at all about the ST really.

 

(Remember his comments about how the ST attempted to take advantage of his financial situation by offering just £140,000 (which they hadn't even got) for 10% of the ownership of the business!!!).

 

As for asking the right questions - what are the right questions in the first place when the ST has no knowledge or access to the clubs accounts or business dealings???

 

Why would ANY multi-million pound business, who employs professional, experienced and knowledgeable staff even contemplate letting a random group of 'do gooders' have open access to the accounts and allow them to tell them how best to run their own business???

 

It's bizarre that anyone would think they would - particularly when you take into account that these same people where recently rival bidders to Holdsworth/Anderson for the actual ownership of the club - and more recently tried to screw Anderson into selling 10% of the club for relative peanuts!!!

 

So I ask again, in the last season and a half of the ST's existence, can anyone give a single example of when the ST actually held the owners of the club to account and how they did it?

 

Anyone?

Anderson has continuing dialogue and meetings with the Trust the latest the Trust agreed to help by sponsoring first year pros and Morais and discussed other ideas such as bringing back the fans zone and free wifi around the stadium.

 

The comments regarding the 140 k for a stake in the club were an off the cuff remark to an off the cuff request by Ken and ascKA has engineered further meetings after those comments were made I don't think he's held a grudge.

 

Of course it is difficult to hold owners to account however the Trust has a better chance of doing that than having no Trust. What's your alternative? I'd guess none.

 

Your comments regarding a random bunch of do gooders actually tells me how bitter and twisted you are these random folk are fans of BWFC and are the largest groups of supporters other than season ticket holders and supporters of the club who put hard earned cash through the turnstiles week in week out unlike you who puts nothing in yet feels empowered to shoot your mouth off without ever going to the match. For a stronger Club we need a stronger Trust, fans with a wide range of differing views and skills and fans willing to put the time and effort in.

 

The Trust must reflect as many of the fans opinions and views as possible even you can join and get your point across that's if you could get over your bitterness, in all this time you have not offered an alternative to the trust just continued negativity which has resulted in achieving absolutely nothing while the Trust has sponsored players, held meetings with KA, raised thousands of pounds for charity through organising the legends game and dinner, there is more in the pipeline. I await one positive action from you or your Nuts site but I won't hold my breath.

I think the fatal blow is that the club/the Andersons know the ST doesn't speak for all our fans, they don't even speak for all their own members!

No trust can speak for all fans all the time. I don't agree with some things they've done however the results of surveys gives the Trust more of an over view of fans opinions than listening to the odd crackpot , fans should take the time to answer surveys and get their point across all points of view have some validity even sluffy makes some valid points once in a while and I'd wish he'd engage with the Trust to get his points across, no doubt some fans share some of his views and those views need airing. The Trust is for the all fans even those with polar opposite views should feel free to air their views, that would make for a stronger Trust and should be encouraged.

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by Mounts Kipper

I don't think there is anything wrong with the ST 'holding the board to account' that's what non-exec directors do in a 'normal' organisation and we don't have any. Just go about it in a professional way - IE neutral businesslike language and not the type of stuff we have seen in the past. This interview seems much more positive.

But the ST are not non-exec directors.

 

Most companies appoint non-exec directors to act as advisers or 'critical friends'. They are appinted based on relevant experience that supplements that of the main board. That might be what the ST like to think they are but they are none of the above.

But the ST are not non-exec directors.

 

Most companies appoint non-exec directors to act as advisers or 'critical friends'. They are appinted based on relevant experience that supplements that of the main board. That might be what the ST like to think they are but they are none of the above.

I totally get that they have no 'hard' power, but they can play a role. The media has no voting rights in Parliament but still play a role in holding the government of the day to account. I also believe that trust members should be holding the trust's leaders to account.

 

And Sluffy, when I say Oyston doesn't give a sh1t, I don't mean about the trust, that goes without saying, I mean about success for the club. Some degree of suçcess on the field, probably just staying up this year, is kkey to Ken's exit strategy. Oyston on the other hand can get out any time he likes and still be well up on the deal.

Yes, free wi-fi is a pressing concern to a struggling club.

Yes, free wi-fi is a pressing concern to a struggling club.

The Trust are looking into paying for it not the club.

Yes, free wi-fi is a pressing concern to a struggling club.

See my point about members holding the trust's leaders to account. Serious people calling the shots held to account by a sensible membership could avoid some of this silliness. FWIW I didn't go any further than expressions of interest because I'm not convinced about current set up, though they do seem to be making small steps in the right direction.