[Albion] Are the club thin skinned and unable to take criticism?

[Marshy]

I wouldn't be so sure.
Beaky has proven before that he will overpay to keep the band together.
Both Eze and Olise have shown they are open to signing new contracts and staying put (as long as they keep a buyout option).

If he can't deliver on the stadium build (again) - I can see him try to deflect attention, by "backing the new manager" and going for a tilt at Europe.

Sure Palace will pay wages, But when Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool etc come those players will want to go.
Thats what happened to our players and will be the same for them, Palace just have to make sure they get good fees.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Working up till now. Leeds went downhill after Bielsa left.

Bielsa was a one-off at Leeds and once he was gone, he was gone.

Roberto was part of the process here. The plan had got us to this point, gave him a good platform to move us on, which Roberto to his great credit absolutely did.

We are progressing at a sustainable pace and we will not risk that progress by skipping a step and potentially over-reaching. The floor is rising at the Albion and I believe the ceiling has also continued to rise.

I think both parties have handled this very well. It's much better that we have parted on decent terms rather than allow tensions to rise which do neither Roberto or us any good.

 

[Justice]

I wouldn't worry. They'll become victims of the cherry pickers like we were/are. Any team that mounts any sort of challenge towards the top 7 has a bigger task trying to maintain it. Constant speculation for players and the manager can change things very quickly as we have found out this season.

And if they fend off massive bids & have a great season it will be interesting reactions as we are happy to sell the Crown Jewels asap and get worse in the process.

 

[chickens]

Do you know the facts?

We’ve got a FAB that is neutered, the club pushing back against the regulator and a local media who don’t / won’t criticise or challenge the Club in any form.

I don’t think anything or anyone is perfect but, as long as no one offers slanderous / libellous / offensive comments around why shouldn’t supporters be allowed to make comments that poke the bear if it then brings dialogue?

WAB was sanctioned by the club because he called out sportswashing. No racism involved but the club decided it was. If you have a group of people within an organisation making decisions based on their moral outrage and personal sensitivities then everyone is potentially vulnerable. And if the answer to this is ‘TB invested the money so he can do what he wants’ then that’s contrary to the freedom of expression that we’re granted in the UK.

Yes, the club can ban who they want but controlling the narrative around the club is thin skinned, suggests fragile egos and, to me, is autocratic.

To which I give the same response my boss made when he asked a colleague to do something, and the colleague started to argue about doing it:

“It’s not a f***ing democracy.”

We may disagree with club decisions, but these calls are made by the people who have skin in the game. If you disagree strongly and wish things were different, all you have to do is start your own football club, get it into the Premier League, and then make those calls as you see fit.

It’s brutal, but it’s reality.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Sure Palace will pay wages, But when Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool etc come those players will want to go.
Thats what happened to our players and will be the same for them, Palace just have to make sure they get good fees.

I'm not sure either of them see it that way..
They will both be expected to work far harder in a Liverpool or City side and neither would be first picks in those teams.
United aren't really offering anything other than prestige at the moment.

If the wages are right, I can see them staying put. Olise rejected an offer from Chelsea last season iirc.
I definitely think they will try and leverage more out of Palace as part of the negotiations.

Palace have a very different model to ours.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Bielsa was a one-off at Leeds and once he was gone, he was gone.

Roberto was part of the process here. The plan had got us to this point, gave him a good platform to move us on, which Roberto to his great credit absolutely did.

We are progressing at a sustainable pace and we will not risk that progress by skipping a step and potentially over-reaching. The floor is rising at the Albion and I believe the ceiling has also continued to rise.

I think both parties have handled this very well. It's much better that we have parted on decent terms rather than allow tensions to rise which do neither Roberto or us any good.

Agree with most of this. It's the next appointment that worries me. Marsch was just an awful choice for Leeds in hindsight, yet he was a bright young coach with a pressing style that should have suited players who'd been got fit by Bielsa.

The process should deliver an equivalent or upgrade. But a weaker coach with a weaker squad and a stronger PL next season will see a relegation battle for sure.

 

[Talby]

To which I give the same response my boss made when he asked a colleague to do something, and the colleague started to argue about doing it:

“It’s not a f***ing democracy.”

We may disagree with club decisions, but these calls are made by the people who have skin in the game. If you disagree strongly and wish things were different, all you have to do is start your own football club, get it into the Premier League, and then make those calls as you see fit.

It’s brutal, but it’s reality.

Daft response really. We’ve skin in the game, it’s our team.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Agree with most of this. It's the next appointment that worries me. Marsch was just an awful choice for Leeds in hindsight, yet he was a bright young coach with a pressing style that should have suited players who'd been got fit by Bielsa.

The process should deliver an equivalent or upgrade. But a weaker coach with a weaker squad and a stronger PL next season will see a relegation battle for sure.

I suggest we all cross that bridge when we come to it. I believe the people running Brighton have better judgement than the owners of Leeds.

 

[Springal]

So your answer to clubs like Reading and Everton at the moment or Bury and Macclesfield in the past is 'carry on with the wild west, because regulators in completely different industries are hamstrung'?

What would happen though? The regulator won’t have power to take away clubs from owners at companies house surely? And in Everton case who would fund it to keep it going ?

 

[chickens]

Daft response really. We’ve skin in the game, it’s our team.

We support it, we don’t own it. There are individuals who hold legal responsibility for the club’s actions and inactions, who bankroll it and make the decisions it needs to make. We are not those people.

We contribute financially via season tickets and/or merchandise, but when push comes to shove, we don’t have liability.

 

[Guinness Boy]

What would happen though? The regulator won’t have power to take away clubs from owners at companies house surely? And in Everton case who would fund it to keep it going ?

The IFR proposal is that it would deal with exactly that. Its triple remit would be:

1) Club financial soundness
2) Systematic financial resilience
3) Heritage

Fact sheet - the Independent Football Regulator (IFR)

www.gov.uk

I ask again why our club would be against any of that?

The only things I can come up with are that 2) might involve parachute payments going, which would undermine our 'relegation is ok' strategy discussed on another thread, but is undoubtedly more fair overall. Secondly, that we'd see a competitive advantage over badly run clubs narrowed, even though, again, fewer badly run clubs is in the interest of the game as a whole.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Daft response really. We’ve skin in the game, it’s our team.

We don't elect the owner, CEO, the board of directors, we don't have any vote or direct say over club policy or the running of the club. Your skin in the game is emotional, not tangible.

 

[pigmanovich]

Half and half, the club have definitely made a few mistakes in the last few years, but on the whole good ones. At the end of the day they aren’t going to make a big song and dance about being wrong. I think internally they know they made mistakes on some aspects and would silently admit that.

To wit, Barber spoke to one of the supporter groups yesterday, and among other things admitted that the club would have done things - slightly - differently in January had they known how severe the injury situation would be in the second half of the season. He also basically conceded that our medical team was not up to snuff this season, hence the new appointments. Not groundbreaking observations as far as the fans are concerned, but good to hear him say it nonetheless.

 

[Springal]

The IFR proposal is that it would deal with exactly that. Its triple remit would be:

1) Club financial soundness
2) Systematic financial resilience
3) Heritage

Fact sheet - the Independent Football Regulator (IFR)

www.gov.uk

I ask again why our club would be against any of that?

The only things I can come up with are that 2) might involve parachute payments going, which would undermine our 'relegation is ok' strategy discussed on another thread, but is undoubtedly more fair overall. Secondly, that we'd see a competitive advantage over badly run clubs narrowed, even though, again, fewer badly run clubs is in the interest of the game as a whole.

I still don’t understand what happens in Everton’s case if an owner simply runs out of money (or their sugar daddy gets sanctioned as a Russian) or decides he doesn’t want to invest anymore.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I still don’t understand what happens in Everton’s case if an owner simply runs out of money (or their sugar daddy gets sanctioned as a Russian) or decides he doesn’t want to invest anymore.

You're still not prepared to answer why the club would be against it either.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Come on. We've stated that there is no need for a FAB or a regulator and banned people for social media posts. They have also rejected rulings by the ombudsman re bans.

Does it matter? Yes it does. Media control and banning were the tools of Bellotti. Ok, so he was a 'baddy' and Tony is a 'goodie' so there's no need for anyone to be existentially worried, nor is anyone at all associated with Brighton suggesting there's anything wrong with anything at board or ownership level. But that being the case, why would you not welcome fan involvement, open discussion and regulation? I'm genuinely baffled.

In the interests of accuracy, when did I ever say that?

I have been very clear about what attitude to TB and PBOBE I find objectionable.

It is the accusation of dishonesty. And in the context of this thread, 'thin skinned and unable to take criticism'.

There is a world of difference between issuing bans for what may be objectionable behaviour (I am unfamiliar with what are presumably notorious cases of egregious heavy-handedness) and being dishonest and unable to take criticism.

As for fan involvement, why not? But fan decision making? Fan budget setting? Fan scrutiny and the need for approval of club strategy? Fan demands for 'safe seating'? Well, that's a matter for the club. And if they decline my bed will remain dry.

Where I work we have 'stakeholder' engagement. In other words we ask students for feedback. There is an imperative from on high that we act on every suggestion. However we reserve the right to make our own judgement about whether to make assessments easier and infrequent, with oodles of tutorials (that students don't attend), and offer candy and cuddles.

For me it is binary. Either support the club (and engage with it over matters as best as one can) or f*** off. I may one day f*** off. But I can't see any signs to the f***-off departure lounge just yet

 

[Bold Seagull]

Far from being thin skinned, the club is just being run sensibly, objectively, and to be honest, some of the frustration on here is that there just isn't anything to meaningfully have a proper rant at.

Even PB's press conference just then, very professional, reasonable, honest, pragmatic. 2 parties realising they wanted different things and rather than ending up in a messy divorce, they've shaken hands, wished each other well and moved on.

 

[Springal]

You're still not prepared to answer why the club would be against it either.

Because based on my understanding and the example I gave - it’s another useless, toothless government appointed regulator.

And I especially wouldn’t want the government to take over paying wages of millionaire footballers or finishing off stadium builds for a club like Everton

There’s also been discussion around golden share etc and I can see why Tony Bloom , £500M might not want to lose total control of his investment

 

[Talby]

Let's flip this around.

Why on earth would anyone start a thread alleging our owner and CEO can't take any criticism?

I hesitate to offer a theory and so won't. Even the idea that this is something worthy of discussion makes me angry.

The club clearly made errors when implementing the new away ticket sanction process. They were found wanting by the IFO but did not accept the findings or (as they’re meant to) state the reasons they couldn’t.

In the meantime they changed their policy on named 1901 away day tickets and made sure the STH got an email confirming the purchase (rather than the lead purchaser).

They also didn’t follow their own appeal processes in a number of cases and, at times, ignore suggestions from the Police. Speaking to a couple of colleagues of PC Balkham it would appear the club’s non waivering position makes the relationship between Sussex police and fans strained. Trust issues. Sanctions are getting thrown around here there and everywhere.

So, yes there is some deserved criticism. Ignoring a body that had been set up to protect football fans in an independent manner is appalling, unprofessional and embarrassing.

Yeah we’re doing really well on the pitch and financially but the above still counts as important. We are fans/customers and whilst we should hold our hands up when we muck up, you’d hope the club would too.

When the time does come, If BHAFC vote to take some of our matches abroad then I expect that will get some criticism too.

 

[Guinness Boy]

In the interests of accuracy, when did I ever say that?

I have been very clear about what attitude to TB and PBOBE I find objectionable.

It is the accusation of dishonesty. And in the context of this thread, 'thin skinned and unable to take criticism'.

There is a world of difference between issuing bans for what may be objectionable behaviour (I am unfamiliar with what are presumably notorious cases of egregious heavy-handedness) and being dishonest and unable to take criticism.

As for fan involvement, why not? But fan decision making? Fan budget setting? Fan scrutiny and the need for approval of club strategy? Fan demands for 'safe seating'? Well, that's a matter for the club. And if they decline my bed will remain dry.

Where I work we have 'stakeholder' engagement. In other words we ask students for feedback. There is an imperative from on high that we act on every suggestion. However we reserve the right to make our own judgement about whether to make assessments easier and infrequent, with oodles of tutorials (that students don't attend), and offer candy and cuddles.

For me it is binary. Either support the club (and engage with it over matters as best as one can) or f*** off. I may one day f*** off. But I can't see any signs to the f***-off departure lounge just yet

With the greatest of respect, you are a rational, well paid man in late middle age who has seen the very worst of times this club has been through and goes to, what, one or two aways a season? If you were worried about how the club was being run I'd be very worried indeed. You are EXACTLY the sort of customer (sorry, fan) the club aims to please.

I'm here to tell you there are younger fans, less well off fans, fans who go everywhere away and ESPECIALLY young, less well off fans who do as many aways as possible who disagree. And their issues are nothing to do with dishonesty. They simply don't feel valued. Like it or not, that's a problem.