Barber In or Out?

[Horses Arse]

Barber has a clever tactic. He spends an awful lot of time sending quite detailed emails to individual fans, which makes him seem hands-on and in tune with fans' concerns. But all he ever does is set out the club's position: from everything I have heard there is never any inkling of a suggestion that he will change tack if we don't like something. It is the 'individual fans' which is the key here: keep individuals happy by showing them personal attention, without any intention of actually changing key areas of operation in line with supporter wishes, and in that way nipping dissent in the bud before fans start uniting in protest. This 'personal' approach has impressed me in the past, as I am sure it has many of you, but in my opinion it is a smokescreen which disguises a heavy handed and top down approach - the programme notes appear to back up that analysis.
It is precisely for that reason that I posed the question about the reformation of BISA or something similar. I think Barber should stay, because in the modern corporate set up we will always have someone like that in charge and in many ways he is better than most would be: a likeable and personable individual who certainly knows and cares a lot about football. But rather than allowing him to deal with us as atomised individuals he should be approached by an organised and determined fans' group with specific questions about areas which need changing.

It is the fact that Paul responds to e-mails very quickly that most on here refer to when supporting him; "what other CEO answers e-mails at 3-30am etc etc". I don't feel that such actions fit very well with what a CEO should be doing. In fact, if he spends so much time sending lengthy e-mails that don't actually say much to individual fans then who's fulfilling the role of CEO? Paul strikes me as a typical PR man rather than a CEO and even his PR input hasn't been particularly great of late. It also concerns me greatly when a CEO monitors and exerts control over what is said on sites such as this - it's a very worrying trait that better suits the mid 90's.

I agree that he's an improvement over Ken whathisface in terms of commercial performance, but that wasn't a particularly high benchmark and at what cost has the short term improvement been achieved?

It is definitely an 'out' from me.

 

[El Presidente]

Hmmmm. "No one person will ever control the club again". OK , so I'm paraphrasing but we ALL know what I'm referring to, right?

El Pres, I'm surprised you're defending that point. It's absolutely indefensible. [MENTION=3734]Giraffe[/MENTION] is spot on. I have a very good friend who is an ex stockbroker and now works as a CFO for a content transformation company. He gets less than Barber (but way more than me) and has to be constantly available in three timezones and do day long meetings all over the globe with massive jetlag. If Paul Barber is here to look after the spreadsheets he should be getting £48k a year, not £480k. We could spend some of the difference paying off the contracts of all the central midfielders who currently spend matchday in the gym.

Paul Barber isn't employed to look after the spreadsheets, that's the job of the FD, who is on about £150k.

PB'S salary is far less than £480k, he is on a performance related bonus so his basic pay is about half the quoted figure.

As for being indefensible, there are many chief executives of football clubs on far bigger packages, with the most lucrative being Daniel Levy at Spuds on £2 million.

 

[El Presidente]

It also concerns me greatly when a CEO monitors and exerts control over what is said on sites such as this - it's a very worrying trait that better suits the mid 90's.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Paul Barber exerts control over what is posted on NSC, as I'm unaware of this fact and I'm sure [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] is too.

 

[Spun Cuppa]

But all the roles have been discussed in detail at fans forums and The Albion Roar.

Nice one EP. As it appears to be a bit of a bugbear at the moment, would it be worth someone who was at one of these meetings, and/or heard one of the AR progs on the subject, to knock out a couple of paragraphs by way of a synopsis of these roles, and put it as a 'sticky', just so there is no more confusion or un-needed debate about who does what at the club?

 

[RyFish]

Of course you don't have to read them, in exactly the same way as he doesn't have to write them. Circular argument I'm afraid...

No, because some people read them and enjoy them. Your 'circular argument' only works if literally no-one enjoys them, I'm afraid. Skip the page and get on with your life.

 

[DavePage]

Don’t mind either way, I cut my own hair

 

[Guinness Boy]

So your beef is with Tony Bloom for paying PB more than he's worth (or more than you think he's worth)?

If my employer wanted to pay me 2, 3, 4, 5 or 10 times my market worth, I'd take the money. Wouldn't you?

No that's not my beef. The best way I can explain it is that whenever Paul Barber's name comes up in the context of the team performance people say "well he's not responsible for that". But he's in charge and day to day the buck stops with him. Indirectly he has an effect on everything from the coaching staff to the burgers to the ticketing system. If that's NOT the case then I do think he's overpaid, yes. If it is the case that the buck stops with him, well, we're currently in a bit of a mess.

 

[Horses Arse]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Paul Barber exerts control over what is posted on NSC, as I'm unaware of this fact and I'm sure [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] is too.

It depends what you consider 'exerting control' to be. I consider threats made to this board at the start of the season that legal action would be taken against posters to be exerting control as this would involve them monitoring the site to identify posts that they objected to.

I also see threats of legal action made to posters as a form of exerting control, especially when such legal action is stacked in the favour of those with lots of funds at their disposal. It becomes an issue of who has the greatest amount of money to fight with rather than right and wrong.

If this were something like linkedin or other business forum then I would have sympathy for someone threatening legal action over others posting opinions that would indicate them in a bad light. On a football forum this goes with the territory. Just look at the abuse that managers and players get without threats of legal action.

The behaviour of Paul Barber in this respect is very similar the the behaviour of less savory people in his position before him. It really doesn't show him or the football club in a very good light at all.

Oh, and if you do agree that this constitutes exerting control then yes, Bozza does know. He told me.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But all the roles have been discussed in detail at fans forums and The Albion Roar.

Yes and Paul Beirne said, after clarifying that it was his role to generate commercial income on all fronts that Paul Barber's role was "everything else". If that's just a turn of phrase it's hardly clarifying is it? The club structure has, in any case, changed since the last appearance of David Burke on the Roar and I doubt he'd go back on for a while. Al and Aidy, to their great credit, have been stringently honest about their opinions of the players we currently have in the squad and how they are being used.

 

[Goldstone1976]

It depends what you consider 'exerting control' to be. I consider threats made to this board at the start of the season that legal action would be taken against posters to be exerting control as this would involve them monitoring the site to identify posts that they objected to.

I also see threats of legal action made to posters as a form of exerting control, especially when such legal action is stacked in the favour of those with lots of funds at their disposal. It becomes an issue of who has the greatest amount of money to fight with rather than right and wrong.

If this were something like linkedin or other business forum then I would have sympathy for someone threatening legal action over others posting opinions that would indicate them in a bad light. On a football forum this goes with the territory. Just look at the abuse that managers and players get without threats of legal action.

The behaviour of Paul Barber in this respect is very similar the the behaviour of less savory people in his position before him. It really doesn't show him or the football club in a very good light at all.

Oh, and if you do agree that this constitutes exerting control then yes, Bozza does know. He told me.

I'd be surprised if [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] told you that PB had warned him that he wouldn't tolerate posters "posting opinions that would indicate them in a bad light". Perhaps you paraphrased "posting defamatory statements"?

There are countless posts on NSC atm saying that PB is a major cause of our current woes and none have been redacted by any mod. Those opinions may be hurtful to PB but NSC has received no message from PB about them. People expressing an opinion about the causes of our woes is not libellous. What would be libellous is a post saying, for example, "PB is a liar".

So, PB is certainly keen to ensure that no libellous statements are posted - actually he's more keen to ensure no such posts are made about club employees than about himself, though I doubt he'd take kindly to libel about him either; but that is a million miles away from him threatening legal action against posters or NSC for posting stuff that is derogatory but not libellous.

 

[Horses Arse]

I'd be surprised if [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] told you that PB had warned him that he wouldn't tolerate posters "posting opinions that would indicate them in a bad light". Perhaps you paraphrased "posting defamatory statements"?

There are countless posts on NSC atm saying that PB is a major cause of our current woes and none have been redacted by any mod. Those opinions may be hurtful to PB but NSC has received no message from PB about them. People expressing an opinion about the causes of our woes is not libellous. What would be libellous is a post saying, for example, "PB is a liar".

So, PB is certainly keen to ensure that no libellous statements are posted - actually he's more keen to ensure no such posts are made about club employees than about himself, though I doubt he'd take kindly to libel about him either; but that is a million miles away from him threatening legal action against posters or NSC for posting stuff that is derogatory but not libellous.

I didn't say that PB had warned that he wouldn't tolerate posters posting opinions that would indicate them in a bad light. The part of my post that you lifted was related to how I would understand the sort of threat/action on a business type forum such as linkedin. I feel that it is far less understandable in a football forum where opinions are given much more freely.

I also didn't say that he was threatening legal action against posters or NSC for posting stuff that is derogatory.

The point I was making is that Paul or his team do monitor this site and did issue warnings at the start of the season. As you suggest these warnings were related to libelous/defamatory threads but I see that as a worrying aspect of this clubs management. Clearly others won't, as is evident from your post, but that hasn't changed my opinion. Such pre-emptive threats are not commonplace on football forums and I take such actions as a signal of intent to control.

I'm not going to re-post the post that got me threatened but I will say that one sentence that I understand resulted in the threat were taken out of context; it needed to be read against the post quoted - it was presenting a potential alternative scenario to that post without statement of fact. The sentence apparently objected to also failed to name anyone, so I'm not sure how/why it could be libelous or defamatory. The rest of the post was just opinion, in my opinion, and nothing worse than is seen on here now. i think it must have just caught Paul on a bad day.

I guess that is the problem with such threats and such monitoring, it is down to someones mood at the time and interpretation of what they read and with libel/defamation action it is the size of your wallet that can dictate how successful you are. I see it as a form of bullying and control and that is what I find so worrying. I also find it worrying that the CEO of this club would be so concerned about what people may be saying on a football forum, especially from someone posting under the name of Horses Arse. Wouldn't you be better off just letting it go and watching your supporters challenge and quash the alternative opinion?

 

[Goldstone1976]

I didn't say that PB had warned that he wouldn't tolerate posters posting opinions that would indicate them in a bad light. The part of my post that you lifted was related to how I would understand the sort of threat/action on a business type forum such as linkedin. I feel that it is far less understandable in a football forum where opinions are given much more freely.

I also didn't say that he was threatening legal action against posters or NSC for posting stuff that is derogatory.

The point I was making is that Paul or his team do monitor this site and did issue warnings at the start of the season. As you suggest these warnings were related to libelous/defamatory threads but I see that as a worrying aspect of this clubs management. Clearly others won't, as is evident from your post, but that hasn't changed my opinion. Such pre-emptive threats are not commonplace on football forums and I take such actions as a signal of intent to control.

I'm not going to re-post the post that got me threatened but I will say that one sentence that I understand resulted in the threat were taken out of context; it needed to be read against the post quoted - it was presenting a potential alternative scenario to that post without statement of fact. The sentence apparently objected to also failed to name anyone, so I'm not sure how/why it could be libelous or defamatory. The rest of the post was just opinion, in my opinion, and nothing worse than is seen on here now. i think it must have just caught Paul on a bad day.

I guess that is the problem with such threats and such monitoring, it is down to someones mood at the time and interpretation of what they read and with libel/defamation action it is the size of your wallet that can dictate how successful you are. I see it as a form of bullying and control and that is what I find so worrying. I also find it worrying that the CEO of this club would be so concerned about what people may be saying on a football forum, especially from someone posting under the name of Horses Arse. Wouldn't you be better off just letting it go and watching your supporters challenge and quash the alternative opinion?

Fair response.

I think that the club do monitor NSC, but don't know to what extent. I don't read other football forums so can't comment on how typical it is for a CEO of a club to warn the webmaster that s/he won't tolerate libel, but I can believe the answer is "not that many". However, I acknowledge PB's right to attempt to ensure that neither his staff nor he are libelled. I chose my example deliberately - he did get exercised about someone calling him a liar. Imo, that is libel, unless the poster could prove it, which is unlikely.

If he were attempting to quash criticism or derogatory comments, I would be extremely worried, as I'm sure, would Bozza. I'm also sure that Bozza and the mods would resist such interference.

I'm not worried by PB trying to control libel though.

 

[Seasidesage]

I would love to have seen him with that squad or at least an equivalent squad.
Do you honestly believe we would be bottom 3?

No but do you think he would've made the play off's with it either?

 

[spanish flair]

No but do you think he would've made the play off's with it either?

No I don't. But it highlighted to me our shit recruitment this summer.

 

[El Presidente]

It depends what you consider 'exerting control' to be. I consider threats made to this board at the start of the season that legal action would be taken against posters to be exerting control as this would involve them monitoring the site to identify posts that they objected to.

I also see threats of legal action made to posters as a form of exerting control, especially when such legal action is stacked in the favour of those with lots of funds at their disposal. It becomes an issue of who has the greatest amount of money to fight with rather than right and wrong.

If this were something like linkedin or other business forum then I would have sympathy for someone threatening legal action over others posting opinions that would indicate them in a bad light. On a football forum this goes with the territory. Just look at the abuse that managers and players get without threats of legal action.

The behaviour of Paul Barber in this respect is very similar the the behaviour of less savory people in his position before him. It really doesn't show him or the football club in a very good light at all.

Oh, and if you do agree that this constitutes exerting control then yes, Bozza does know. He told me.

[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] knows me and the other mods too, he has always maintained that NSC is independent of the club, and this has to my knowledge been upheld by both him and the mods. Even the OP, who has an almost pathological dislike of PB, will I am sure confirm that there is no control exerted by the club over what is posted, as all the mods have access to the deleted threads area of this message board.

Posts are removed for a variety of reasons, but since the start of November six have been removed, of which five were for people using NSC for commercial gain, and one, posted by one of our resident buffoons [MENTION=29828]Skylar[/MENTION], was for racism.

When Paul Barber was unhappy with something I posted a couple of months ago we allowed him a right of reply, but we kept the original comments. That's fairly standard practice in many media vehicles. The reason he contacted us was because the post was brought to his attention was via a third party, not through him monitoring NSC himself.

The club, however, have a legal duty of care towards their staff, and are fully within their rights (and could be sued if they failed to do so) to raise issues that go beyond criticism (which falls within the remit of 'fair comment') and moves into the realms of defamation and libel.

As for monitoring NSC, the club would be crazy not to use this site as a barometer for fan opinion and concerns. So they are fully aware at the degree of almost universal dissatisfaction with the standard of football, the manager, and the results this season.

We're living in the era of big data, and NSC is a mine of information for the club, and it's available for free, so why not use it?

 

[Horses Arse]

[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] knows me and the other mods too, he has always maintained that NSC is independent of the club, and this has to my knowledge been upheld by both him and the mods. Even the OP, who has an almost pathological dislike of PB, will I am sure confirm that there is no control exerted by the club over what is posted, as all the mods have access to the deleted threads area of this message board.

Posts are removed for a variety of reasons, but since the start of November six have been removed, of which five were for people using NSC for commercial gain, and one, posted by one of our resident buffoons [MENTION=29828]Skylar[/MENTION], was for racism.

When Paul Barber was unhappy with something I posted a couple of months ago we allowed him a right of reply, but we kept the original comments. That's fairly standard practice in many media vehicles. The reason he contacted us was because the post was brought to his attention was via a third party, not through him monitoring NSC himself.

The club, however, have a legal duty of care towards their staff, and are fully within their rights (and could be sued if they failed to do so) to raise issues that go beyond criticism (which falls within the remit of 'fair comment') and moves into the realms of defamation and libel.

As for monitoring NSC, the club would be crazy not to use this site as a barometer for fan opinion and concerns. So they are fully aware at the degree of almost universal dissatisfaction with the standard of football, the manager, and the results this season.

We're living in the era of big data, and NSC is a mine of information for the club, and it's available for free, so why not use it?

Thanks for the feedback/considered response. I still maintain that the approach taken, i.e. pre-emptive threats at the start of the season and the particulars of my case are excessive for a football based board. I also think that if we take into account all employees at the club then there are some pretty damning statements made about players/managers that seem to be accepted without challenge, which doesn't sit with your correct account regarding duty of care etc.

Ultimately it comes down to what you expect from your football club I guess and I am struggling to accept how it currently is and the sorts of people we now employ. It's Tony's money and he can clearly employ who he wants; the price of (relative) success.

 

[El Presidente]

Thanks for the feedback/considered response. I still maintain that the approach taken, i.e. pre-emptive threats at the start of the season and the particulars of my case are excessive for a football based board. I also think that if we take into account all employees at the club then there are some pretty damning statements made about players/managers that seem to be accepted without challenge, which doesn't sit with your correct account regarding duty of care etc.

Ultimately it comes down to what you expect from your football club I guess and I am struggling to accept how it currently is and the sorts of people we now employ. It's Tony's money and he can clearly employ who he wants; the price of (relative) success.

I agree with what you say. Ideally I suspect we want a utopian scenario of people doing their jobs at the Albion because they are fans first and employees second, and thus their perception of what is best for the club is more likely to align with ours.

 

[Giraffe]

[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] Even the OP, who has an almost pathological dislike of PB,

Point of order. I don't have a pathological dislike of Paul Barber, in fact I don't even dislike him. I just happen to think he is doing the best job for our football club. My opinion only.

Similarly the same goes for Sami, I actually quite like him but don't think he is doing a very good job for the football club.

I don't really know David Burke but his recruitment to date is rubbish. As I don't know him I can't like or dislike him but I don't think on the recruitment side he is doing a very good job.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Paul Barber exerts control over what is posted on NSC, as I'm unaware of this fact and I'm sure [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] is too.

Equally do you have any evidence to back up many of the things you post? For example in the above post you state "PB's salary is far less than 480k?"

 

[El Presidente]

Equally do you have any evidence to back up many of the things you post? For example in the above post you state "PB's salary is far less than 480k?"

Fair comment. I saw the original job advertisement and it was for a far lower sum, and his predecessor was on a much lower amount too.

It is fair to assume a performance related element to his package given the above, given the nature of the industry and how his peers are paid.

I do know that he doesn't control NSC, and took objection to the inference that [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION], myself and the other mods are compliant in that control relationship.