BIAS / BU

[longdistancebee]

I was idly surfing the BIAS website and came upon the bit that says, “Some would argue that since the establishment of a Supporters Trust (Bees United) at Brentford, the role of an Independent Supporters Association has become redundant….”. I then could not remember the specific and formal nature of the relationship between BIAS and BU, or indeed if there still is one. Can somebody remind me. Ta.

 

[Lokster]

This issue is one which has excited much debate between BIAS and BU. BU emerged from BIAS. The Section 2 of the BIAS constitution reads as follows:
2. OBJECTS
The objects of the Association shall be:
2.1. To maintain and increase support for Brentford Football Club.
2.2. To bring together all persons interested in Brentford Football Club.
2.3. To encourage ideas and suggestions for the benefit of supporters of Brentford Football Club.
2.4. To provide an open discussion forum for issues relating to Brentford Football Club.
2.5. To promote communications between Brentford Football Club and its supporters.
2.6. To support and assist Bees United, the Brentford Supporters' Trust, in respect of the above.
2.7. To create and strengthen links with other football club's supporters groups and trusts.

2.6 being the most BU relevant. Certain people think this means that BIAS should support BU without question and that we should simple be a fund raising organisation for BU.

Others think that in view of the fact that BU representatives run the club (and have had key roles in certain decision taken by the club) and also look to take full control that BIAS should be much more Independent and to use a well-worn phrase be "a more critical friend." We should look at BU as we would look at any owner of the club perhaps.

It is up for debate.

 

[Banana]

Certain people think this means that BIAS should support BU without question and that we should simple be a fund raising organisation for BU.

What would be the point of that?

 

[Edmundo]

I'm sure there were only four objects of the Association when we first wrote the constitution. If my memory serves, they would be 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5. Not sure when the others were added, but definitely after I stepped down from the committee. I reckon 2.6 is a bit controversial, because even though BU was started by BIAS, I think the object as drafted compromises the independence of BIAS.

 

[Banana]

I don't understand the point of 2.7 either :shrug:

 

[rebus]

I don't understand the point of 2.7 either :shrug:

It stands for a big cosy love-in :banana:

 

[nocoat]

The main difference between BU and BIAS is BIAS allow the word "tw*tted" on their website! lol :bound:

 

[Mr Tree]

BIAS is the letter-writing militant wing of BU if i remember right :scratch:

 

[Banana]

It stands for a big cosy love-in :banana:

Shouldn't 2.7 be in the constitution for an Association of Independent Supporters' organisations?

It's bananas having that clause in an organisation to server BFC fans

 

[eghambee]

My two penneth.

The club and/or BU should always have an organised challenger and questioner, that is not connected .

The challenger is there to ensure issues are not being swept under the carpet, but does it in a responsible manner, ie not being bloody minded.

BU , at the moment, is frightened to do or say anything slightly controversial, so other groups should ensure issues are not forgotten.

To me fundraising, increasing support etc are the reponsibility of BU and the club.

By becoming too close to BU, if things go tits up, all that will happen is another group will set up to do the above.

 

[West Ealing Bee]

I'm sure there were only four objects of the Association when we first wrote the constitution. If my memory serves, they would be 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5. Not sure when the others were added, but definitely after I stepped down from the committee. I reckon 2.6 is a bit controversial, because even though BU was started by BIAS, I think the object as drafted compromises the independence of BIAS.

If I remember rightly a BU supporting member of the BIAS committe by the name of Jon Bishop proposed them at an AGM about 3 years ago.

They were passed by the 10 or so people at the meeting. But not without some debate if I remember rightly.

Someone might be able to expand on this........

 

[beezy babe]

I think that's right WEB. We have actually discussed 2.6 at some length this season and I will be proposing that it is removed from the constitution at the next AGM. This does not mean that we do not support BU, as we do, but means that we can maintain our independence and abillity to question BU's actions should the need arise.

 

[beezy babe]

BIAS is the letter-writing militant wing of BU if i remember right :scratch:

Nice try at winding me up Mr Tree

 

[Banana]

I think that's right WEB. We have actually discussed 2.6 at some length this season and I will be proposing that it is removed from the constitution at the next AGM. This does not mean that we do not support BU, as we do, but means that we can maintain our independence and abillity to question BU's actions should the need arise.

Add 2.7 to the list too

 

[beezy babe]

I don't see the problem with 2.7 to be honest.

Links with supporters groups have proved valuable in the past and may prove valuable again. It's important that we learn from other Club's supporters associations' experiences and that we have their support if we need it.

 

[beezy babe]

Or are you trying to wind me up again?

 

[rebus]

BIAS is the letter-writing militant wing of BU if i remember right :scratch:

 

[Banana]

I'm not trying to wind-up you

It may be "useful" to learn from other ISAs but it shouldn't be in the constitution. It's useful to have to meeting above The Griffin too.

Also, why do you want to wait for an AGM? Let's just have a poll on the GPG

 

[beezy babe]

I'm not trying to wind-up you

It may be "useful" to learn from other ISAs but it shouldn't be in the constitution. It's useful to have to meeting above The Griffin too.

Also, why do you want to wait for an AGM? Let's just have a poll on the GPG

Because the constitution says that we can only change the constitution can only be changed at an AGM!! It doesn't cause enough problems currently to warrant calling an EGM.

I think 2.7 is fine in the constitution to be honest - I can't see how it would cause problems. I guess it may be shouldn't be a key objective.

If you want it taken out then put a proposal to the AGM!!

 

[Simon T]

I don't understand the point of 2.7 either :shrug:

It stands for a big cosy love-in :banana:

Surely they should just be more honest and change it to a once a once a year visit to AFC Wimbledon when we are away to Franchise FC

 

[beezy babe]

Surely they should just be more honest and change it to a once a once a year visit to AFC Wimbledon when we are away to Franchise FC

Very funny

:yawn: :yawn:

 

[rebus]

Very funny

:yawn: :yawn:

That's the perception though, boring or not.

 

[longdistancebee]

..."or indeed if there still is one..."

I'll take that as a No then.......

 

[Lokster]

That's the perception though, boring or not.

Well neither Beezy nor I were at AFC Wimbledon so I'm not sure where this perception comes from. Perhaps you could help Mark.

Right, I'm off to Cheltenham. If anyone else is going, I'll see you there.

 

[beezy babe]

That's the perception though, boring or not.

One of the reasons why I stood for the committee was because all I ever saw BIAS doing was protesting about MK Dons and I thought it had a much more important role to do than this. Since November last year, we've worked hard to raise our profile, to be involved in more issues surrounding our own Football Club and to be completely independent from BU. I actually think we have achieved the second two of these objectives but obviously we are failing with the first if people who should know better still think we are a) an arm of BU b) only there to whinge about MK Dons.

And I wasn't referring to the perception as boring

 

[beezy babe]

Well neither Beezy nor I were at AFC Wimbledon so I'm not sure where this perception comes from. Perhaps you could help Mark.

I was at MK Dons!!! lol

 

[Banana]

One of the reasons why I stood for the committee was because all I ever saw BIAS doing was protesting about MK Dons

Check Clause 2.7 of the BIAS Constitution

 

[Lokster]

I was at MK Dons!!! lol

Were you? I thought we were all at AFC Wimbledon. That's the perception...

 

[beezy babe]

Check Clause 2.7 of the BIAS Constitution

"create and strengthen links" does not mean 'make it your sole issue on the agenda' or even that we have to necessarily support other groups.

Give it up Nana. Your constant attempts to wind me up are getting boring

 

[Les Beeavinu]

I find the constant critisism of BIAS very odd. Surely we can all see that, with the limited resources available to them, BIAS are truly making an effort to represent fans. I would imagine the job is made doubly difficult trying to make both BFC and BU accountable for their actions.

Would we prefer BIAS not to bother? It would be far easier for Beezy Babe, Lokster et al to walk away but they choose to give their time and I thank them for that.

Perhaps the critics and carpers would find it in themselves to get out from behind their keyboards to assist.

 

[Banana]

"create and strengthen links" does not mean 'make it your sole issue on the agenda' or even that we have to necessarily support other groups.

Give it up Nana. Your constant attempts to wind me up are getting boring

Not trying to wind you up. The "Objects" of the Constitution is what The Committee is elected by the membership to do. You cannot simply ignore the aims of the organisation. Personally I'd rather you concentrate on others objectives of BIAS rather than Clause 2.7

IF IF IF you find that talking to other ISAs helps you achieve the other aims then all well and good. However if they don't then I don't see why you should be spending time on "creating and strengthening links with other football club's supporters groups and trust" when (say) you could be typing up the notes on your various meetings with BFC.

 

[beezy babe]

Not trying to wind you up. The "Objects" of the Constitution is what The Committee is elected by the membership to do. You cannot simply ignore the aims of the organisation. Personally I'd rather you concentrate on others objectives of BIAS rather than Clause 2.7

IF IF IF you find that talking to other ISAs helps you achieve the other aims then all well and good. However if they don't then I don't see why you should be spending time on "creating and strengthening links with other football club's supporters groups and trust" when (say) you could be typing up the notes on your various meetings with BFC.

That's fair enough and is exactly what we do. Personally, the only time that I have spent that could be related to 2.7 is one afternoon at an FSF meeting and I am not aware that anyone else spends any more. I agree that that would be a waste of our time when there are more important things that we could be getting on with.

 

[beezy babe]

I find the constant critisism of BIAS very odd. Surely we can all see that, with the limited resources available to them, BIAS are truly making an effort to represent fans. I would imagine the job is made doubly difficult trying to make both BFC and BU accountable for their actions.

Would we prefer BIAS not to bother? It would be far easier for Beezy Babe, Lokster et al to walk away but they choose to give their time and I thank them for that.

Perhaps the critics and carpers would find it in themselves to get out from behind their keyboards to assist.

 

[Mr Tree]

Nice try at winding me up Mr Tree

cheers!

(note to self : next time i see Beezy at GP, run very fast :box: )

i think BIAS have improved their general perception, but there's still work to be done. it must be a nightmare for those involved - i know if i had more spare time in my life i'd love to get involved but i know as it stands i'd not be able to perform effectively, as it were... to be fair, i don't spend enough time praising those involved, as they must be heaps better at time-management than me, for one thing!

maybe if i wrote them a letter they'd know how much i appreciated them :love2:

 

[rebus]

I thought that post would appeal to you. I find the constant message of "why don't you do something about then" when the going gets tough totally misses the point.

It's great you both do give up your spare time but a) don't trumpet it and b) don't whinge when ordinary BIAS members expect action on matters that crop up from time to time.

 

[beezy babe]

I thought that post would appeal to you. I find the constant message of "why don't you do something about then" when the going gets tough totally misses the point.

It's great you both do give up your spare time but a) don't trumpet it and b) don't whinge when ordinary BIAS members expect action on matters that crop up from time to time.

Is responding to criticism and explaining why sometimes it takes us a long time to get notes online trumpeting or whinging? I don't think so. :shrug:

I do this work because I believe it is important not for applaud. I can't speak for the rest of the committee, but personally I'd much rather be allowed to get on with it without any personal attention at all thank you very much.

Can't bloody win, if I don't answer BIAS queries on here I'm ignoring the supporters, if I do, I am whinging or trumpeting!!

 

[Edmundo]

I thought that post would appeal to you. I find the constant message of "why don't you do something about then" when the going gets tough totally misses the point.

It's great you both do give up your spare time but a) don't trumpet it and b) don't whinge when ordinary BIAS members expect action on matters that crop up from time to time.

Bit out of order, Mark. The truth is, sadly, that anyone who puts their head above the parapet to try and help BFC/BU/BIAS in anyway generally gets showered in criticism and abuse and the thank-yous are as rare as hens' teeth. It amazes me that people are still prepared to do it.

 

[JoeBourke]

If I remember rightly a BU supporting member of the BIAS committe by the name of Jon Bishop proposed them at an AGM about 3 years ago.

They were passed by the 10 or so people at the meeting. But not without some debate if I remember rightly.

Someone might be able to expand on this........

WEB,

To expand on this and to be fair to the signatory below, he has recanted and last year publicly apologised for this transgression when he was still an innocent youth, while also commenting on the time committment required of BIAS committee members:

I don`t know if this helps the current debate, but this a reply I sent to a Bias member.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Firstly thankyou very much for taking the time to contact Bias with your views and concerns.

I have to say that I am in agreement with regards the points raised about the future role of Bias and it`s relationship with BU. I have to take a share of the blame for the current Bias and BU relationship, as it was myself who put a motion to the Bias AGM to insert an extra item in our objects, to increase our support for BU and to hopefully ensure we all pulled in the same direction. However with the perceived lack of consultation, transparency and communication at BU, this now turns out to be a misjudgement.

I think Bias faces a difficult future and I feel it will on, some issues,satisfy fans and possibly alienate itself from others. The question needs to be asked "What is the future of Bias?".
Options:
(1) Bias could of course treat BU as any other owner of BFC by severing formal links. This will involve I believe no member of the Bias committee serving on the BU Board, Bias no longer officially organising fundraising events for BU, Bias no longer running the BU Info Point and suitable BU commitments made to Bias before support without question is given ( ie: S106, groundsharing, Altonwood debt deals etc)

(2) Bias could try and improve the way in which BU operates by integration of the two committees/boards members. This is happening now, but is it working? Bias will need to improve it`s communications and general frequency of PRs, for this option to succeed.

(3) Bias could simply lay dormant until a full out campaign needs to be launched on a life or death decision for BFC.


In the defence of the Bias committee, I would like to say that the general way in which both supporters groups operate would be so much easier if we had enough volunteers coming forward to help, thus stopping the need to wear two or more hats. I personally believe that we should have three independent committees - ABeeC, Bias and BU. If either group wants the support of the other committee, then they get together and debate their objectives.

It is also important to pint out once again, that due to the resignations at the Bias AGM very shortly, unless volunteers come forward we will have no Independent Supporters Association. Being on the Bias committee is similar to being a trade union rep, you do a lot of hard work for the benefit of others with no thanks, but when you express a different view you are accused of losing sight of members views and all previous efforts are forgotten. I think getting volunteers, will be a difficult task.

Regards

Bish

 

[Ace Face]

To sum up.

I am terible with timescales, but in the distant past I was keen for BIAS to assist BU in anyway possible as at that time BIAS had a lot of "doers" who would once taken ownership of something would get it done.
I also felt the number of BIAS Committee Reps on the BU Committee needed to be reflected in the objects.

I do think now that BIAS are, for a variety of reasons, able now to be much more militant against any target than when BIAS had dual committee members.

However due to the manner in which BU has conducted itself over the last 18months approx, I feel I was wrong and I would be interested to see what others members suggest at an AGM/EGM.

 

[rebus]

Bit out of order, Mark. The truth is, sadly, that anyone who puts their head above the parapet to try and help BFC/BU/BIAS in anyway generally gets showered in criticism and abuse and the thank-yous are as rare as hens' teeth. It amazes me that people are still prepared to do it.

It's not "out of order", it's fair comment. I hope people aren't in it just for a "thank you"

 

[JoeBourke]

Ace Face,

From notes of a meeting of August 18 between BIAS and the BU Chairman as published on the BIAS website:

"BB said that he has always been in favour of BU and BIAS operating as separate organisations. BU as an Industrial and Provident Society regulated by the Financial Services Authority has to do business in a professional and disciplined way. BIAS has the ability to operate without the same constraints. BIAS represents the customers of BFC, the supporters, and can do this directly to the Club and to BU. BU represents its members, not only the supporters but also the local community. This is a wider remit."

Do these comments broadly reflect your own views on the issue?

 

[PJ]

.
We should look at BU as we would look at any owner of the club perhaps.

It is up for debate.

IMHO BIAS should look at BU as a supporters trust. That`s what it is. It has 1300 (?) members and is not just about its reps on the Club`s board.

BIAS should look at the board of BFC as the BFC board, for that is what it is. I`m always surprised BIAS cannot separate the two and see the bigger picture

 

[Banana]

I`m always surprised BIAS cannot separate the two and see the bigger picture

Maybe it's because Bees United haven't been able to seperate to two and see the bigger picture

 

[Banana]

"BB said that...... BU .... has to do business in a professional and disciplined way. BIAS has the ability to operate without the same constraints."

rofl

 

[Ace Face]

Joe

I would say that BB is correct and that he sums up the preferred relationships accurately. I would also like to place on record and I hope my original AGM motion backs this up, that I take no pleasure in seeing the mess BU is in at present.

I would like to see a day when BIAS is never needed and all the lads are back foot soldiering helping a supporters trust to be proud of. I think however come decision day for the banks, Altonwood, BFC Directors and BU, BIAS may need to become active and again launch a SAVE OUR CLUB campaign.

 

[Ace Face]

One of the reasons why I stood for the committee was because all I ever saw BIAS doing was protesting about MK Dons and I thought it had a much more important role to do than this. Since November last year, we've worked hard to raise our profile, to be involved in more issues surrounding our own Football Club and to be completely independent from BU. I actually think we have achieved the second two of these objectives but obviously we are failing with the first if people who should know better still think we are a) an arm of BU b) only there to whinge about MK Dons.

Beezy are you saying you had never heard of No To Woking, STaG, ABeeC, No To Kingstonian etc.

I think the then BIAS Committees repulsion at Franchise FC is well documented and there are many reasons why, such as:
- BFC nearly became a Woking franchise until a brilliant BIAS campaign stopped it.
- WISA (Wimbledon Independent Supporters Assoc) were extremely helpful to BIAS and we had joint meetings to help each others clubs. We won - they lost.
- Franchise FC was the first ripping of a club from it`s fans and it is feared they won`t be the last.

Of course the new committee acts as it sees fit and if they want to go and support the BEES at the National Franchise Stadium, then good luck to them and no probs, but PJ, Stedders, myself and about a dozen others never will.

 

[longdistancebee]

Bloody 'ell...... I only arsked!!!

 

[JoeBourke]

Ace Face/Banana,

Looking at the bigger picture is what we do. Had BIAS not set up a supporters trust, there is no way that £500k could have been raised over the past 3 years, four supporter directors appointed to the BFC board and a £1m campaign to acquire control of the club put together. Ron would have no other exit than a sale to a property interest consortium, whether by direct sale of GP or sale of his shares.

Acquiring the Altonwood shareholding does not by itself get the club out the woods, it is another major step in getting the finances of the club stable. The debts do not go away, they are restructured to become more manageable as part of a business plan to replace part of the overdraft with interest free loans and generate more revenues from the facilities at Griffin Park.

That there will be considerable ongoing work to be undertaken by the club, BU and BIAS whether or not the option is exercised is not in doubt.

 

[beezy babe]

It's not "out of order", it's fair comment. I hope people aren't in it just for a "thank you"

I am certainly not in it just for a thank you and don't know any of the BIAS Committee that are.

 

[beezy babe]

Beezy are you saying you had never heard of No To Woking, STaG, ABeeC, No To Kingstonian etc.

I think the then BIAS Committees repulsion at Franchise FC is well documented and there are many reasons why, such as:
- BFC nearly became a Woking franchise until a brilliant BIAS campaign stopped it.
- WISA (Wimbledon Independent Supporters Assoc) were extremely helpful to BIAS and we had joint meetings to help each others clubs. We won - they lost.
- Franchise FC was the first ripping of a club from it`s fans and it is feared they won`t be the last.

Of course the new committee acts as it sees fit and if they want to go and support the BEES at the National Franchise Stadium, then good luck to them and no probs, but PJ, Stedders, myself and about a dozen others never will.

Sorry Bish, I should have been clear that I meant that was all I had seen BIAS doing over the past season or so. Of course I am aware of BIAS's other achievements. To make it clear, I joined the BIAS Committee as I thought BIAS should have more important priorities than protesting against MK Dons. I still maintain that view. (NB that does not mean that I support Franchising in any way shape or form it is just a matter of priorities).

I think the away support at the NHS last season showed that most Brentford fans do not support the boycott of this away fixture. Therefore, as BIAS is supposed to represent the fans whether or not to go to MK should remain the personal decision of individual supporters and not a BIAS issue.

Anyway, I refuse to get into this argument again. I took a fair amount of personal abuse over the Dons issues last season and just am not going there again. :shrug: