Fans Rep Surgery - Sat 15th July at Hibs Club (NOT THIS WEEKEND)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn

Brondby?

---

When did i see him in Bronby?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

When did i see him in Bronby?

---

He was in Main square, mind you, you probably couldn't see me lol.....

Why do you dislike him so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn

He was in Main square, mind you, you probably couldn't see me lol.....

Why do you dislike him so much?

---

So I couldn't see you, i wasn't looking for you :confused:, but I should have looked for someone else?

I don't dislike him at all, I don't even know him. I love it how you are doing all the question and answering for him, yet HE promised that HE could do better at communication, and we had his word on that.

What he never said was he'd get someone else to do it for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

So I couldn't see you, i wasn't looking for you :confused:, but I should have looked for someone else?

I don't dislike him at all, I don't even know him. I love it how you are doing all the question and answering for him, yet HE promised that HE could do better at communication, and we had his word on that.

What he never said was he'd get someone else to do it for him.

---

You spoke to me in Brondby. Frank wasn't far from me.

Frank's not bothered by your criticism of him, I am curious for myself, not for Frank.....

He and Tracey work in tandem, as Tracey has said, however, you choose to not accept or choose to ignore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn

You spoke to me in Brondby. Frank wasn't far from me.

Frank's not bothered by your criticism of him, I am curious for myself, not for Frank.....

He and Tracey work in tandem, as Tracey has said, however, you choose to not accept or choose to ignore

---

I don't remember speaking to you, and I wasn't that pissed? I certainly don't remember seeing frank, and I don't care one way or another whether any criticism bothers him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

I don't remember speaking to you, and I wasn't that pissed? I certainly don't remember seeing frank, and I don't care one way or another whether any criticism bothers him?

---

Beg to differ, however why don't you accept Tracey's explanatin of how they work together?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

So, did anyone speak to the reps today at the game?

---

I spoke to Tracey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn

Beg to differ, however why don't you accept Tracey's explanatin of how they work together?

---

When you show up at the hustings promising that he knew communications was his big failure of previous years, and then promise he'd be better at it, and we had his word on that.

So to then pass that on to someone else is a cop out, but one i expected from previous years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

When you show up at the hustings promising that he knew communications was his big failure of previous years, and then promise he'd be better at it, and we had his word on that.

So to then pass that on to someone else is a cop out, but one i expected from previous years.

---

Fair enough.....:aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

I spoke to Tracey

---

Anything new offered beyond what she put here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nakedmanoncrack

Anything new offered beyond what she put here?

---

All I will say, and another poster on here was with me, so they will verify this, is I can't see Tracey agreeing with something that she's not satisfied with, assessing all the options!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

All I will say, and another poster on here was with me, so they will verify this, is I can't see Tracey agreeing with something that she's not satisfied with, assessing all the options!

---

That's not really the point though is it? She is a fans rep and the last time i looked, that's someone who is there to represent the fans views and opinions, not decide for themselves if its right or wrong.

They should both resign but its not going to happen as they're both clearly not able to admit what they did was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

That's not really the point though is it? She is a fans rep and the last time i looked, that's someone who is there to represent the fans views and opinions, not decide for themselves if its right or wrong.

They should both resign but its not going to happen as they're both clearly not able to admit what they did was wrong.

---

The club only released a statement because the Reps took the fans concerns to the board. That was them doing their job as reps.
When it came the the vote they have to do their duty as board members meaning they make a decision in the best interests of the club based on the evidence they have. They fulfilled that duty as well.
I think it was the wrong decision but if everybody who are demanding justice actually got themselves organised to do something concrete, (Crowd funding, engage their own lawyers etc) instead of simply attacking our own club then something might be achieved. It's the SFA we should be attacking, not our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

He club only released a statement because the Reps took the fans concerns to the board. That was them doing their job as reps.
When it came the the vote they have to do their duty as board memebers meaning they make a decision in the best interests of the club based on the evidence they have. They fulfilled that duty as well.
I think it was you he wrong decision bit if everybody who are demanding justice actually got themselves organised to do something concrete, (Crowd finding, engage their own lawyers etc) instead of simply attacking our own club then something might be achieved. It's the SFA we should be attacking, not our own.

---

:top marks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The club only released a statement because the Reps took the fans concerns to the board. That was them doing their job as reps.
When it came the the vote they have to do their duty as board members meaning they make a decision in the best interests of the club based on the evidence they have. They fulfilled that duty as well.
I think it was the wrong decision but if everybody who are demanding justice actually got themselves organised to do something concrete, (Crowd funding, engage their own lawyers etc) instead of simply attacking our own club then something might be achieved. It's the SFA we should be attacking, not our own.

---

That's your opinion and i don't agree as do quite a lot of other Hibees. If they had been doing their job properly, they would have polled the support, because let's face it, it's the support that put them there in the first place. Remember, this wasn't just decided at one board meeting, Tracey herself said it was discussed over a few, they had ample opportunity to allow all fans that wanted a say, a say and they chose not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

All I will say, and another poster on here was with me, so they will verify this, is I can't see Tracey agreeing with something that she's not satisfied with, assessing all the options!

---

Was it a confidential conversation? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The club only released a statement because the Reps took the fans concerns to the board. That was them doing their job as reps.
When it came the the vote they have to do their duty as board members meaning they make a decision in the best interests of the club based on the evidence they have. They fulfilled that duty as well.
I think it was the wrong decision but if everybody who are demanding justice actually got themselves organised to do something concrete, (Crowd funding, engage their own lawyers etc) instead of simply attacking our own club then something might be achieved. It's the SFA we should be attacking, not our own.

---

We are trying to get to the SFA but the club are defending them. That's the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danderhall Hibs

Was it a confidential conversation? :greengrin

---

No it wasn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

That's your opinion and i don't agree as do quite a lot of other Hibees. If they had been doing their job properly, they would have polled the support, because let's face it, it's the support that put them there in the first place. Remember, this wasn't just decided at one board meeting, Tracey herself said it was discussed over a few, they had ample opportunity to allow all fans that wanted a say, a say and they chose not to.

---

What if they had polled ST holders and only a few hundred bothered to vote? Would they have gone to the board and said the majority just don't care, or certainly don't care enough to vote.

I really don't think there is anywhere near as big a majority consensus on this as some believe. A few of the guys that sit around me at ER are older and don't do social media or forums. Of the 5 I spoke to yesterday 3 didn't have a clue what I was talking about and 2 didn't care. A (non Hibs) Facebook page put up a picture of the banner from yesterdays game and the comments were split about 50/50 between 'you don't speak for me' and 'good on you'.

It's the fundemental issue with fans reps. The very idea that 2 people can accurately reflect the wishes of all, or even a majority of Hibs fans, is faintly ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

We are trying to get to the SFA but the club are defending them. That's the point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Why can't you go straight for the SFA? If the fans want to change things they have to do something more than just moan about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Why can't you go straight for the SFA? If the fans want to change things they have to do something more than just moan about it.

---

They would rather moan at our club, than be pro-active and do it for themselves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColinNish

That's your opinion and i don't agree as do quite a lot of other Hibees. If they had been doing their job properly, they would have polled the support, because let's face it, it's the support that put them there in the first place. Remember, this wasn't just decided at one board meeting, Tracey herself said it was discussed over a few, they had ample opportunity to allow all fans that wanted a say, a say and they chose not to.

---

You obviously feel strongly that justice should be done as regards Sevco and holding the SFA to account so what practical steps towards acheiving that have you taken? Remember the SFA will be delighted that so many fans are distracted by attacking their own clubs whilst they get off the hook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

The club only released a statement because the Reps took the fans concerns to the board. That was them doing their job as reps.
When it came the the vote they have to do their duty as board members meaning they make a decision in the best interests of the club based on the evidence they have. They fulfilled that duty as well.
I think it was the wrong decision but if everybody who are demanding justice actually got themselves organised to do something concrete, (Crowd funding, engage their own lawyers etc) instead of simply attacking our own club then something might be achieved. It's the SFA we should be attacking, not our own.

---

If it came to a vote (which it didn't on this occasion) I would expect our reps to represent what they considered to be the majority view. If they were outvoted then they of course take collective responsibility of the board and defend the majority decision. That's democracy.

Tracey (Frank) made it clear in the July posts that our reps will be bringing this up on 31st July's board meeting as a result of all the concern that fans had expressed. The July hibs.net poll was an additional clear indicator as well as the overwhelming majority comments here and on the Bounce.

I spoke to the seven ST holders near me yesterday and they were all unhappy with the boards 'unanimous view'. More so the fact we were not asked our opinion at all. Only our two elected reps had some engagement with the supporters and that seems to have been subverted at the July meeting. There's no doubt from Tracey's post on this subject that the reps were going to bring this up from the position of wanting something done about the cheating.

I can accept reps may have to occasionally vote other than what's considered the majority view if they are privy to some top secret sensitive information at the meeting. However, this should then be explained .
I can't imagine what secret info that could be so sensitive to Hibs as we're talking about another outfit who had been caught cheating.

Tracey and Frank both accept it was a big mistake to keep silent after the 31st July 'unanimous view' . In which case surely if it was a mistake not to explain things then it's important to do so now.

We just want to know what happened and why. No need to disclose secret info just an explanation would do!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

No it wasn't

---

Ok cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny Clash

If it came to a vote (which it didn't on this occasion) I would expect our reps to represent what they considered to be the majority view. If they were outvoted then they of course take collective responsibility of the board and defend the majority decision. That's democracy.

Tracey (Frank) made it clear in the July posts that our reps will be bringing this up on 31st July's board meeting as a result of all the concern that fans had expressed. The July hibs.net poll was an additional clear indicator as well as the overwhelming majority comments here and on the Bounce.

I spoke to the seven ST holders near me yesterday and they were all unhappy with the boards 'unanimous view'. More so the fact we were not asked our opinion at all. Only our two elected reps had some engagement with the supporters and that seems to have been subverted at the July meeting. There's no doubt from Tracey's post on this subject that the reps were going to bring this up from the position of wanting something done about the cheating.

I can accept reps may have to occasionally vote other than what's considered the majority view if they are privy to some top secret sensitive information at the meeting. However, this should then be explained .
I can't imagine what secret info that could be so sensitive to Hibs as we're talking about another outfit who had been caught cheating.

Tracey and Frank both accept it was a big mistake to keep silent after the 31st July 'unanimous view' . In which case surely if it was a mistake not to explain things then it's important to do so now.

We just want to know what happened and why. No need to disclose secret info just an explanation would do!!!

---

These 2 points are a bit contradictory aren't they?

also, isn't it just a little bit arrogant to say that since you can't imagine information so sensitive, it therefore can't exist?

You've said there wasn't a vote on this occasion, there was a board discussion, several presumably. Over the course of those discussions, they've come to a final position. What then did anyone expect the board's statement to say? "Some of us think this but more think that, so that's what we've decided to do"? Of course the statement will say they are unanimous, anything else would be folly.

Many people are upset with and disagree with the statement and the position it describes, to lash out at the reps isnt fair. They were elected to represent the fans, some don't seem to want to let them to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

What if they had polled ST holders and only a few hundred bothered to vote? Would they have gone to the board and said the majority just don't care, or certainly don't care enough to vote.

I really don't think there is anywhere near as big a majority consensus on this as some believe. A few of the guys that sit around me at ER are older and don't do social media or forums. Of the 5 I spoke to yesterday 3 didn't have a clue what I was talking about and 2 didn't care. A (non Hibs) Facebook page put up a picture of the banner from yesterdays game and the comments were split about 50/50 between 'you don't speak for me' and 'good on you'.

It's the fundemental issue with fans reps. The very idea that 2 people can accurately reflect the wishes of all, or even a majority of Hibs fans, is faintly ridiculous.

---

Then they'd have to go with the result of who voted. That's how voting works. Jeezo!!

It's funny how folk who want to "move on" only really know or speak to folk who feel the same and vice versa.

I agree with you on the issue of fans reps. What their role is is far too wooly. Club ambassadors would be a better name for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

These 2 points are a bit contradictory aren't they?

also, isn't it just a little bit arrogant to say that since you can't imagine information so sensitive, it therefore can't exist?

You've said there wasn't a vote on this occasion, there was a board discussion, several presumably. Over the course of those discussions, they've come to a final position. What then did anyone expect the board's statement to say? "Some of us think this but more think that, so that's what we've decided to do"? Of course the statement will say they are unanimous, anything else would be folly.

Many people are upset with and disagree with the statement and the position it describes, to lash out at the reps isnt fair. They were elected to represent the fans, some don't seem to want to let them to do that.

---

But they never represented the fans in any way, shape or form, did they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

You obviously feel strongly that justice should be done as regards Sevco and holding the SFA to account so what practical steps towards acheiving that have you taken? Remember the SFA will be delighted that so many fans are distracted by attacking their own clubs whilst they get off the hook.

---

Already spoken to my branch head honcho of HSA. Work in progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

These 2 points are a bit contradictory aren't they?

also, isn't it just a little bit arrogant to say that since you can't imagine information so sensitive, it therefore can't exist?

You've said there wasn't a vote on this occasion, there was a board discussion, several presumably. Over the course of those discussions, they've come to a final position. What then did anyone expect the board's statement to say? "Some of us think this but more think that, so that's what we've decided to do"? Of course the statement will say they are unanimous, anything else would be folly.

Many people are upset with and disagree with the statement and the position it describes, to lash out at the reps isnt fair. They were elected to represent the fans, some don't seem to want to let them to do that.

---

Nope . They are not contradictory at all mate. Perhaps you've got a better imagination than me? I never said there was no top secret squirrel info so I think it's a bit nuts to talk about arrogance.

Also, it was Tracey who said in a previous post there wasn't a vote. I''m therefore assuming Tracey's right - there was no vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

These 2 points are a bit contradictory aren't they?

also, isn't it just a little bit arrogant to say that since you can't imagine information so sensitive, it therefore can't exist?

You've said there wasn't a vote on this occasion, there was a board discussion, several presumably. Over the course of those discussions, they've come to a final position. What then did anyone expect the board's statement to say? "Some of us think this but more think that, so that's what we've decided to do"? Of course the statement will say they are unanimous, anything else would be folly.

Many people are upset with and disagree with the statement and the position it describes, to lash out at the reps isnt fair. They were elected to represent the fans, some don't seem to want to let them to do that.

---

If there had been a split of opinion they would have merely said they had arrived at a decision there would have been no more to add. They made the point of describing it an Unan.

As for what sensitive information could have swayed supposed reps to take a position - that they cannot credibly claim to be the clearly expressed view of the people who elected them - I only imagine this being the case if the 'sensitive information' would compromise the club or individuals at the club.