jorvik_latic Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 1 minute ago, mcfluff1985 said: Probably because they're WORKING on the no response. And as soon as next step is in place they'll update everyone. So nothing prepared for the obvious no response. Even Stevie Wonder saw that coming Exactly. They have a plan and need to do some work on it now that they know he hasn’t responded. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddog Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 1 minute ago, mcfluff1985 said: Probably because they're WORKING on the no response. And as soon as next step is in place they'll update everyone. So nothing prepared for the obvious no response. Even Stevie Wonder saw that coming And that’s why they sought advice on a ‘no response’ in advance of knowing there was no response. Now they know, now they can strategise with the options they have pre-sought. And bearing in mind the current on-pitch situation. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) The letter wasn’t great honestly, but the fact he hasn’t responded in any way at all is worse.... but 100% expected. So.... I’ll leave the obvious point that can be made as it seems people get defensive about it. However, it’s clear he sees his 97% as the key factor... he does not respect or recognise the trust. In his head, he owns the club and can do as he pleases (which frankly is true). That’s your starting point. Good luck. I don’t envy you. (A confrontational approach was/is never going to work with a character that has an ego though) Edited April 12, 2019 by kowenicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted April 12, 2019 Author Share Posted April 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, kowenicki said: (A confrontational approach was/is never going to work with a character that has an ego though) Don't think the point is to get an ongoing dialogue with him though, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 TBH.... The club haven't responded yet with regards to my personal experience/personal email with regards to logging the incident I had with Kevin Birkett. Maybe there is an email backlog.... But I handed the letters personally into the club secretary's hands with a dialogue and advising them recorded delivery letters would follow...hey ho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 21 minutes ago, oafcmetty said: Don't think the point is to get an ongoing dialogue with him though, is it? Oh. I though it was. What is the point then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy b Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 36 minutes ago, kowenicki said: The letter wasn’t great honestly, but the fact he hasn’t responded in any way at all is worse.... but 100% expected. So.... I’ll leave the obvious point that can be made as it seems people get defensive about it. However, it’s clear he sees his 97% as the key factor... he does not respect or recognise the trust. In his head, he owns the club and can do as he pleases (which frankly is true). That’s your starting point. Good luck. I don’t envy you. (A confrontational approach was/is never going to work with a character that has an ego though) How would you have approached the letter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcmetty Posted April 12, 2019 Author Share Posted April 12, 2019 24 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Oh. I though it was. What is the point then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 16 minutes ago, Andy b said: How would you have approached the letter? Ok. So this is where some will get defensive and others will just jump on me. I would hope people don’t ask questions only to get answers they like. People are allowed opinions. I wouldn’t have sent a letter. But if I had I wouldn’t have included such ‘trivial’ detail and ‘petty’ demands. Some of it was cringeworthy honestly, not worth mentioning and would get most people’s backs up. The letter was labelled by the Trust as a way to “reach out”, but it read more like a letter to chastise to me and was a series of demands. I would have just urged him to meet... put across the mutual benefits of a meeting, explained how the Trust intentions are honest and constructive and left it at that. If he doesn’t want to meet on even that basis then a confrontational letter of demands is going to get binned anyway. In the end you would probably be in the same place anyway, as it seems he isn’t interested. I just think taking him on was not going to get anywhere due to his ego. It’s now probably too late for any other approach though. Now, if the real intention of the letter was more a case of putting down a marker and beginning an audit trail for legal purposes then fine, it’s achieved that, but in no conceivable way could it be considered as ‘reaching out’. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, kowenicki said: I would have just urged him to meet... put across the mutual benefits of a meeting, explained how the Trust intentions are honest and constructive and left it at that. If he doesn’t want to meet on even that basis then a confrontational letter of demands is going to get binned anyway. In the end you would probably be in the same place anyway, as it seems he isn’t interested. Humour me..... and take it that I’m being respectful..... the Trust have already spent over 12 months doing what you suggest..... which is politely encouraging him to meet and requesting dialogue with him.... which he has - through pleasantries & a polished smile - consistently failed to take them up on. The letter is in a change in tack because their previous/your recommended approach had failed.... and because more fans are requesting the Trust step up to the sh1t show - constant negative press stories culminating in Scholes walking after 31 days - he’s running. What would you have done differently in these circumstances? Edited April 12, 2019 by lookersstandandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Ok. So this is where some will get defensive and others will just jump on me. I would hope people don’t ask questions only to get answers they like. People are allowed opinions. I wouldn’t have sent a letter. But if I had I wouldn’t have included such ‘trivial’ detail and ‘petty’ demands. Some of it was cringeworthy honestly, not worth mentioning and would get most people’s backs up. The letter was labelled by the Trust as a way to “reach out”, but it read more like a letter to chastise to me and was a series of demands. I would have just urged him to meet... put across the mutual benefits of a meeting, explained how the Trust intentions are honest and constructive and left it at that. If he doesn’t want to meet on even that basis then a confrontational letter of demands is going to get binned anyway. In the end you would probably be in the same place anyway, as it seems he isn’t interested. I just think taking him on was not going to get anywhere due to his ego. It’s now probably too late for any other approach though. Now, if the real intention of the letter was more a case of putting down a marker and beginning an audit trail for legal purposes then fine, it’s achieved that, but in no conceivable way could it be considered as ‘reaching out’. It was never going to please everyone...we went on the passion/concensus from the meeting with i hoped a balanced push on both fan mood and Trust entitlement. We do appreciate your feedback. That is why i love this forum. Cheers PS and my dog has now managed to eat through her paw bandage....I am not amused Edited April 12, 2019 by underdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobledgersheart Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 9 minutes ago, underdog said: PS and my dog has now managed to eat through her paw bandage....I am not amused I've got a muzzle for a big dog it it's any use ? Could bring it tomorrow as I'm not boycotting ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowenicki Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, lookersstandandy said: Humour me..... and take it that I’m being respectful..... the Trust have already spent over 12 months doing what you suggest..... which is politely encouraging him to meet and requesting dialogue with him.... which he has - through pleasantries & a polished smile - consistently failed to take them up on. The letter is in a change in tack because their previous/your recommended approach had failed.... and because more fans are requesting the Trust step up to the sh1t show - constant negative press stories culminating in Scholes walking after 31 days - he’s running. What would you have done differently in these circumstances? I refer you to the trust saying they wanted to “reach out”.... but yes I kinda knew this. I guess my final paragraph isn’t far off the mark. Edited April 12, 2019 by kowenicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy b Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 20 minutes ago, kowenicki said: Ok. So this is where some will get defensive and others will just jump on me. I would hope people don’t ask questions only to get answers they like. People are allowed opinions. I wouldn’t have sent a letter. But if I had I wouldn’t have included such ‘trivial’ detail and ‘petty’ demands. Some of it was cringeworthy honestly, not worth mentioning and would get most people’s backs up. The letter was labelled by the Trust as a way to “reach out”, but it read more like a letter to chastise to me and was a series of demands. I would have just urged him to meet... put across the mutual benefits of a meeting, explained how the Trust intentions are honest and constructive and left it at that. If he doesn’t want to meet on even that basis then a confrontational letter of demands is going to get binned anyway. In the end you would probably be in the same place anyway, as it seems he isn’t interested. I just think taking him on was not going to get anywhere due to his ego. It’s now probably too late for any other approach though. Now, if the real intention of the letter was more a case of putting down a marker and beginning an audit trail for legal purposes then fine, it’s achieved that, but in no conceivable way could it be considered as ‘reaching out’. Thanks. It’s honestly much appreciated feedback. I know you recognise that we won’t please everyone and there is no right way of going about it. For what it’s worth, the letter is a reach out but aims to be assertive at the same time. Its put down a marker and is a statement of intent. It is multiple things and has multiple purposes. As an expression of our position, it provides a platform for next steps. It’s not the end but one step in a process. I wouldn’t have expected a response if the letter has been toned down and thus that approach wouldn’t have achieved any more. I wouldn’t disagree that the questions don’t necessarily sit comfortably in the context of the rest of the letter. They are important questions however for various reasons and we want to know the answer to these as they help understand how the club is being run. It’s the trust’s responsibility to ask these questions. You clearly didn’t attend the meet on 23rd March when there was a concensous that we ask these specific questions as part of this correspondence. As Tracy has advised, we are taking steps on the back of no response. I am on a long weekend away whilst Darren is in Korea until next week. We are mobilising next steps but it might take a couple of days. Thanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 13 minutes ago, Bobledgersheart said: I've got a muzzle for a big dog it it's any use ? Could bring it tomorrow as I'm not boycotting ! Actually I have one now yo mentioned it..cheers.....the other option is one of those neck brace thingies...however trying to get a German shepherds neck into one that I have left over from my jack russel ain't going to work. Cheers though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latics22 Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 1 hour ago, kowenicki said: Ok. So this is where some will get defensive and others will just jump on me. I would hope people don’t ask questions only to get answers they like. People are allowed opinions. I wouldn’t have sent a letter. But if I had I wouldn’t have included such ‘trivial’ detail and ‘petty’ demands. Some of it was cringeworthy honestly, not worth mentioning and would get most people’s backs up. The letter was labelled by the Trust as a way to “reach out”, but it read more like a letter to chastise to me and was a series of demands. I would have just urged him to meet... put across the mutual benefits of a meeting, explained how the Trust intentions are honest and constructive and left it at that. If he doesn’t want to meet on even that basis then a confrontational letter of demands is going to get binned anyway. In the end you would probably be in the same place anyway, as it seems he isn’t interested. I just think taking him on was not going to get anywhere due to his ego. It’s now probably too late for any other approach though. Now, if the real intention of the letter was more a case of putting down a marker and beginning an audit trail for legal purposes then fine, it’s achieved that, but in no conceivable way could it be considered as ‘reaching out’. Totally agree with u... for once Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythemostimportantkick Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 49 minutes ago, Bobledgersheart said: I've got a muzzle for a big dog it it's any use ? Could bring it tomorrow as I'm not boycotting ! Take it anyway and muzzle that twat Birkett. Won’t stop him biting but might stop him talking (shouting) bollox... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 24 minutes ago, simplythemostimportantkick said: Take it anyway and muzzle that twat Birkett. Won’t stop him biting but might stop him talking (shouting) bollox... notice hes changed his little fan page so everything posted has to be aproved by him first but he aint gonna stifle debate he pwomises just dont say anything nasty about his mate al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latics and England Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 It seems to me that the Trust have tried to engage with Abdallah for some time and have now made a formal attempt following a meeting of fans (not just Trust members) which has once again been ignored. I think this was the right approach. In ignoring the deadline set on the letter Abdallah shows contempt for the concerns of the fans. It seems most people expected no response, personally I thought there would be a short reply which answered none of the questions set. That would have ticked a box for Abdallah that he was engaging with the supporter base. A refusal to even do that is a clear sign that he doesn't have any desire to engage. The upturn of form means that even those with strong views against the owner will be somewhat torn and I don't see a boycotting as being the answer right now. I am pleased to hear that the Trust has been speaking with Supporters Direct and has a plan of action. I would like to think that this will be shared imminently. The next step is very important. There are only a handful of games left and there will be little opportunity to be heard by those in charge once the season ends. I think those who believe that our position is a long way from that of Bolton, Bury, Coventry, Birmingham etc. are kidding themselves. We need to bring attention to the situation now before it is too late. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 7 hours ago, kowenicki said: The letter wasn’t great honestly, but the fact he hasn’t responded in any way at all is worse.... but 100% expected. So.... I’ll leave the obvious point that can be made as it seems people get defensive about it. However, it’s clear he sees his 97% as the key factor... he does not respect or recognise the trust. In his head, he owns the club and can do as he pleases (which frankly is true). That’s your starting point. Good luck. I don’t envy you. (A confrontational approach was/is never going to work with a character that has an ego though) The thing with this letter is that it was from the Trust in behalf of the fans. It’s not a Trust/club thing. The fact he’s ignored it shows the contempt for the fan(s) that he claims that the club is nothing without. He’s showing his duplicity again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 4 hours ago, jorvik_latic said: The thing with this letter is that it was from the Trust in behalf of the fans. It’s not a Trust/club thing. The fact he’s ignored it shows the contempt for the fan(s) that he claims that the club is nothing without. He’s showing his duplicity again. Disappointing but not surprising outcome. Misjudged in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 41 minutes ago, TheBigDog said: Disappointing but not surprising outcome. Misjudged in my opinion. Irrelevant. It could have been what it was or a one liner. If he doesn't deign to answer the conclusion is the same. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 Having been given the chance to answer the questions around non payment of gas bills players washing their own kit unpaid coach bills. Plus some of the bigger problems such interference with the team. We can only assume that all those stories are true. Along with the ludricous notion that he has put £5million into the business. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laticsmarra Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 The heat needs to be turned up on AL now. This is the first outward sign of his contempt for the whole fanbase.He may have had issues with the Trust in principle so ignored them, but I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.Since the day he walked into Boundary Park he has operated as a dictator ruining the lives of many good honest employees of the club,everyone has left either through his "sackings" or voted with their feet because they couldn't stand working for him.Name me one current paid employee who was at the club when he arrived.Free scarves,re naming the stadium were fronts to keep the fan quiet allowing him to progress with his own as yet undisclosed plan.The FA and EFL know what is going on but are impotent, its up to us guys.Whether it is boycotts,protests,not buying club merchandise we have to take the hard road. Things may get worse before they get better but ultimately we want our club famed in the past for being a family friendly club back. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Og Posted April 13, 2019 Share Posted April 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, laticsmarra said: we want our club famed in the past for being a family friendly club back. Hughes and Evans put paid to that cuddly notion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.