Back the Bees - the launch

[Boston Bee]

"While errors were made, no one individual is really at fault. We've learned valuable lessons from the incident and are now putting it behind us and moving forward. We consider the whole affair over and will not comment on it again."

Sound about right?

The first step should be the identification of the person who gave the "don't worry" by the Club and his subsequent removal. A 're-education' is not good enough - how many more cock ups can they get away with?

 

[Edmundo]

Overall I thought the coverage was balanced with no more than a healthy degree of journalistic scepticism, but I leave you to make your own asessment and draw your own conclusions.

Joe, don't you think that the £1 million "last-chance" fundraising campaign is completely undermined by "two separate sources close to the club" suggesting to the sports editor of the local newspaper that there isn't really any urgency or anything to worry about? Because I certainly do. To incompetence, lies, obfuscation and unnecessary secrecy, we can now add naivete to the list of failings of the idiots who run our club. :mad1:




PS - Sorry Joe, I hadn't read the last page of this thread when I wrote the above. Clearly you do share my frustration with whoever it was said this to Tim Street.

By the way, there is no point asking Tim to reveal his sources, but maybe, just maybe, this is the wake-up call that the BFC and BU boards need to make them realise that their communications strategy is a complete f ucking disaster. On the one hand, the club leaks like a seive, with everyone left, right and centre talking to their mates, the press, whoever. And on the other, nothing ever comes out of the club officially unless it is dragged out kicking and screaming. The Gillette story only came out when the club realised it would be in Estates Gazette (and the Chronny and Times in short order).

 

[SammmeBee]

How much we got so far???

 

[Banana]

This much

 

[keefor]

Well the message that seems to be out is that we don't have to worry. The option will be extended and all of this talk about raising £1m is hype!

I'm keeping my hand in my pocket

 

[Jimbee]

Are the football club actually behind this campaign?

 

[Banana]

Are the football club actually behind this campaign?

Can you define "football club"

Do you mean the owners; the directors; the supporters; the players; the GPG ; the management; the staff; the you get the idea.

My guess is:
owners: the majority owner "yes" as the £1m goes into his pocket
directors: interesting this one - will they be all be directors if BU take over? If not then assume those individual directors that don't expect extension of tenure aren't behind the campaign
supporters: of course
players: don't really mind
GPG: always need something to complain about so whatever leaves the most to complain about
staff: the opposite of the directors

 

[Edmundo]

Are the football club actually behind this campaign?

I think it was explained somewhere else that the club isn't allowed to promote a campaign to raise the money to facilitate taking it over because it's against the law to do so. I don't understand all the city/company rules, but it doesn't sound implausible that such a rule exists. Of course, you might want to know why it hasn't occured to BU to make this clear in its own publicity for the campaign, but I am more interested to know the answer to the following question ...

Q. Why aren't BU taking urgent steps to correct the impression given by the local newspaper that the unofficial official line is that the £1m fundraising campaign isn't urgent or important?

 

[Banana]

I don't understand all the city/company rules, but it doesn't sound implausible that such a rule exists.

Yeah "interesting" that.

Of course it's not a takeover it's an option granted by a person for the acquistion of their shares.

Also, it's odd that no-one has published the supposed law is against.

Also also, how do boards that recommend their shareholders accept an offer get around these "laws"?

:shrug:


p.s. The next two excuses that will be wheeled out are
1. Health and Safety
2. Security Reasons.
3. Data Protection Act.

anyone that EVER mentions these on the phone to me are subject to a searching examination of the relevant Acts of Parliament

 

[abee]

Joe, don't you think that the £1 million "last-chance" fundraising campaign is completely undermined by "two separate sources close to the club" suggesting to the sports editor of the local newspaper that there isn't really any urgency or anything to worry about? Because I certainly do. To incompetence, lies, obfuscation and unnecessary secrecy, we can now add naivete to the list of failings of the idiots who run our club. :mad1:




PS - Sorry Joe, I hadn't read the last page of this thread when I wrote the above. Clearly you do share my frustration with whoever it was said this to Tim Street.

By the way, there is no point asking Tim to reveal his sources, but maybe, just maybe, this is the wake-up call that the BFC and BU boards need to make them realise that their communications strategy is a complete f ucking disaster. On the one hand, the club leaks like a seive, with everyone left, right and centre talking to their mates, the press, whoever. And on the other, nothing ever comes out of the club officially unless it is dragged out kicking and screaming. The Gillette story only came out when the club realised it would be in Estates Gazette (and the Chronny and Times in short order).

Absolutely Edmundo.

I am getting more hacked off by the day and that is saying something.

I bought the Chronny last Friday and was appalled with the comment from "two sources close to the Club"............I repeat it was one source.

However as usual nothing ruffles Joe and in Bees United's normal laid back style it was even suggested that perhaps it was just "fans" even maybe Bee H, Brickie Chap or abee who were the possible "sources close to the Club". We have all individually denied this and I repeat I have never ever met or communicated with Tim Street on any matter.

The fact that Tim's source needed to remain "unattributed" tells you all that you need to know. Normally many of "the great and the good" at BFC can't wait to get their names into the press or do their imitation of the prize winner for fancy dress at a Tramps Ball for their t/v appearances. But no.........not this time......."Don't mention my name Tim and between you and me I would't take too much notice of the so called deadline if I were you and if you can slip that in then................"

 

[Brickie Chap]

p.s. The next two excuses that will be wheeled out are
1. Health and Safety
2. Security Reasons.
3. Data Protection Act.

anyone that EVER mentions these on the phone to me are subject to a searching examination of the relevant Acts of Parliament

Thats three you gibbering welsh rabbit

 

[abee]

Happy to join in the administration of said kicking if the individual is identified...

Just to add a quick comment on this before I return to the day job, a statement has been issued to the Chronicle for this week's issue reiterating the urgency of the end of September deadline and the futility, to use one of the more moderate terms I could, of unnamed people speculating that this is otherwise. Tim is in NZ so it is with the man standing in.

What I find simply staggering is that Andy Finch hasn't got a hammerlock on this stuff by now. Graham Hall told us in his statement that no one on the BFC board had any expertise in communication and that is why GH persuaded the board to bring in Greville Waterman and then Andy Finch.........have I got that right......everything was down to Mr Hall if I remember correctly.

Surely to God one of the first things that any CEO of a professionsl football club does is to make contact with the local reporters and ask them that whilst Martin Allen and his team are the sources for team news and players..... please, please run everything else past me.....talk to who you like but give me a bell and let me have the flavour of anything else that is going in to give me a chance to check out any controversial stories.

I can tell you that running a company is really not that hard once you have the right people around you (and we know that Andy Finch is impressed with the staff at BFC) and it is astonishing .......well to this writer anyway....that we still have these situations. Or perhaps not.......

But then we know that Mr Finch doesn't read the unofficial websites (he may get a flavour of what upsets many fans if he did) so maybe he doesn't even check the local papers but relies on the "great and the good" for his news.

And don't tell me that it related to a Bees United news piece and was nothing to do with the club.........I'll go along with that so far and then remind you that the source "was two (actually one) persons close to BFC"......(not BU... BFC...). However if Tim wishes to persist with his "two sources" that I guess makes it even worse.........two guys who need rooting out.......

 

[The Joker]

I think it was explained somewhere else that the club isn't allowed to promote a campaign to raise the money to facilitate taking it over because it's against the law to do so.

I wonder if these rules prevent the club from putting a simple story at the top of the Latest News section of the O/S along the lines of "Bees United, the supporters trust tasked with the day-to-day running of the club" has made an important announcement on its website ".

 

[FarnhamBee]

Back the Bees website

Is anyone bothering to update the "Back the Bees" website any more?

It doesn't look like it

If you're gonna put a site up you MUST keep it updated or not bother at all IMHO.

 

[Mr Cynical]

Re: Back the Bees website

Is anyone bothering to update the "Back the Bees" website any more?

It doesn't look like it

If you're gonna put a site up you MUST keep it updated or not bother at all IMHO.

We've even lost the link to it from GPG.. Not looking promising is it??

 

[FarnhamBee]

Re: Back the Bees website

We've even lost the link to it from GPG.. Not looking promising is it??

The link is still there from the home page - down on the left - it's just the banner that's gone.

I still have the banner on my site but if the BtB website isn't going to be updated is there really any point to it?

Just makes the referring website look dumb

 

[rebus]

Re: Back the Bees website

Is anyone bothering to update the "Back the Bees" website any more?

It doesn't look like it

If you're gonna put a site up you MUST keep it updated or not bother at all IMHO.

Well the guy running it is standing for election to the BU board. Perhaps you'd like to ask him...

 

[Mulitinovic]

In May when I was putting together the Back the Bees campaign at very short notice, I agreed to fund and run the website for the duration of the campaign until the end of September. What happened in the intervening period has now passed into Brentford FC legend.

I’ve asked BU whether they would like to continue maintaining the site through the volunteers who operate the BU website (and have offered to pay for the cost of this until the end of January) as, due to work commitments and an inability to access the admin pages during work hours, I have neither the time nor the information necessary to do so. Because the site was built at very short notice and designed for a campaign lasting four months, there is no content management system meaning that adding new pages is a laborious process of creating new pages in html, changing existing pages and updating links.

At the time of the campaign’s launch, the communication coming out of BU was practically zero and its credibility among fans and members was pretty low too. That was one of the reasons for having a separate site and different brand to try to get back to the core issue of whether people supported the idea of a supporter-owned club.

As the BU website is now being updated properly and regularly with the latest information, BU has decided that this does not need duplicated on the BTB site. Instead, the Back the Bees website is being left up until the end of January as a reference tool for the information and various links on there (such as justgiving etc), and for the benefit of the various websites that currently link to it. Because it is not being updated regularly it includes two references on the front page to checking the BU website for the latest news.

Looking at it again today, clearly the ‘Latest News’ section needs to disappear too rather than the tweaking it has had. If anyone has any comments or suggestions, feel free to PM me.

 

[rebus]

due to work commitments and an inability to access the admin pages during work hours, I have neither the time nor the information necessary to do so.

If you don't have the time due to work commitments to update the Back The Bees website, what makes you think you'll have time to be a Bees United board member? Just asking like.

 

[Mulitinovic]

If you don't have the time due to work commitments to update the Back The Bees website, what makes you think you'll have time to be a Bees United board member? Just asking like.

I can answer phone calls and read and write emails in work, I can write emails on the tube. I can attend board meetings once a month or more as necessary. I can't update web pages unless I'm at home and not sleeping, which seems very rare at the moment. I also can't guarantee that when I can update websites it will be simultaneous with announcements being placed on the BU site, which they should be.