BU Blog

[JTofBFC]

I too went looking for Nurse Betty's "correction" post and drew the same blank as you.

Perhaps the reference is to Nurse Betty's first post on this particular thread.........you know the one where she actually adds a bit of information to Nana's sensationalist guff.

I'm sure you will all jump on this comment as being anti-Nana so lets provide an example.

Banana said in his precis of the meeting:

The financial update was unavailable because of Stephen Callen's computer not working.

Whereas Nurse Betty said:

Stephen Callen telling us that his computer wasn't working and that he had not been able to access his emails for 10 days and had no financial reports - but not to worry because they are pretty much what they were last month except we are about £500 richer;

It's all about the emphasis. Both are rightly having a dig at Callen for his continuing and worrying IT problems.Banana was however happy to put his particular "spin" on the minutes around the fact there was a computer malfunction and leave it at that whereas Nurse Betty went a bit further and actually provided us with the information that at least provided some comfort around the financial position of BU being better than last month.

She also gave us an indication of why the meeting ran to "nearly 4 hours" with the comments on the questionning of the minutes.

I am not bashing Banana here, as a member of BU, I just want to hear impartial feedback on what happened at the meeting. For the record, I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us a bit more about the "playing budget has been spent including the injury budget".I'm sure it wasn't a 30 second debate at the meeting so why are we (the plebiscites) provided with a one sentence brief on this issue. What else was said about the playing budget I wonder that we aren't deemed worthy to hear about...........or does it just not make good copy.

 

[Banana]

It's all about the emphasis. Both are rightly having a dig at Callen for his continuing and worrying IT problems.Banana was however happy to put his particular "spin" on the minutes around the fact there was a computer malfunction and leave it at that whereas Nurse Betty went a bit further and actually provided us with the information that at least provided some comfort around the financial position of BU being better than last month.

I don't think Nurse's comments were designed to provide you with any comfort rofl

She also gave us an indication of why the meeting ran to "nearly 4 hours" with the comments on the questionning of the minutes.

You mean the bit of the minutes that were added a few hours before the meeting? Must have taken all of 4 minutes Also, not being at the previous two meetings I thought it would be prudent to find out what has been happening. Trust that's ok!

I am not bashing Banana here, as a member of BU, I just want to hear impartial feedback on what happened at the meeting. For the record, I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us a bit more about the "playing budget has been spent including the injury budget".I'm sure it wasn't a 30 second debate at the meeting so why are we (the plebiscites) provided with a one sentence brief on this issue. What else was said about the playing budget I wonder that we aren't deemed worthy to hear about...........or does it just not make good copy.

Joe gave a verbal update on the financial situation of the club. I asked him whether all the playing budget was spent including all of the individual line items and that was his answer paraphrased. That was basically the entire discussion. BU doesn't run the club

 

[Banana]

[*]The financial update was unavailable because of Stephen Callen's computer not working.

Here is a crumb of comfort for JTofBFC

The FD/Treasurer's resolved his computer problems and BU Board now have the current financial situation :bound:

You can sleep easy again.

 

[northantsbee]

'Nana i did indeed say you were incorrect in a post on the BAMB (glad to see you read that site too! ), merely because i felt that the slant you put on your synopsis was 'tailored' hence the re-dress in Nurse Betty's post, which basically said what i was thinking!

The meeting was indeed to long, and not enough time was given IMHO to the important issues of fundraising and communication. Whilst constitution and governance remain issues of importance too, there needs to be again IMHO a distinct focus on the other 2 areas, without communication and fundraising there will be no need to revise the constitution.

 

[Banana]

'Nana i did indeed say you were incorrect in a post on the BAMB (glad to see you read that site too! ), merely because i felt that the slant you put on your synopsis was 'tailored' hence the re-dress in Nurse Betty's post, which basically said what i was thinking!

I'm still confused. Are you saying you were thinking the same as her 4 champagne moments Help me out here please and tell me what Nurse Betty posted that "redressed the balance" and which part of my posts are "incorrect".

 

[abee]

It's all about the emphasis. Both are rightly having a dig at Callen for his continuing and worrying IT problems.Banana was however happy to put his particular "spin" on the minutes around the fact there was a computer malfunction and leave it at that whereas Nurse Betty went a bit further and actually provided us with the information that at least provided some comfort around the financial position of BU being better than last month.

I'm not certain that it did provide a lot of comfort. Bee H took out his annual loan note in July and it took two months for BU to even bother to bank the cheque. As Bee H said... if the £500 "better off" included his Loan Note then erm......the position is actually worse......or something like that......

 

[Banana]

Yes I read that as well and shaggy suggesting that the reason that chappers and northants bee had not joined in on this thread was they clearly disapproved and wanted to keep a working relationship with the other members of the BU board

abee,

You (and shaggy presumably) clearly missed chappers post earlier in the thread that reads:

If members of the public can attend then it is fine for Trevor or anyone to release this information. It's been deemed non-confidential.

We're trying to open up the flow and access to information - not stop it. You seem to be leaning towards "let's only speak about good news".

 

[Brickie Chap]

I'm amazed that Callen is still able to pull the old 'pc playing up trick'.

How will Brian Burgess reward him this time...new Dept Chair of BFC

 

[northantsbee]

I'm still confused. Are you saying you were thinking the same as her 4 champagne moments Help me out here please and tell me what Nurse Betty posted that "redressed the balance" and which part of my posts are "incorrect".

As I said (and if i didnt i meant to. Blame it on the Fundraising Action Plan distracting me!) incorrect was probably the wrong word to use, (i must stop posting in haste whilst at work ) I should have used 'imbalanced' perhaps.

Stephen Callens computer was working (as he stressed a number of times!) it was 'just his email'. Which I believe Nurse Betty mentioned. Given your penchant for getting the facts right i think we should start as we mean to go on.

You alluded to people discussing things that are of little import which i agree with but neglected to mention that you yourself did the same over the merit of a particular word in minutes of a meeting you did not attend. I appreciate the need to understand previous goings on but that is little different from the minutae that you didnt believe should be discussed (again something that Nurse Betty mentioned). Hence the comments of 'redressing the balance'

As i also said in my post on the BAMB, the idea of you posting the points on the blog is not a bad one, I believe that communication should be as open, honest and speedy as possible.

 

[abee]

I am not bashing Banana here, as a member of BU, I just want to hear impartial feedback on what happened at the meeting. For the record, I'm still waiting for somebody to tell us a bit more about the "playing budget has been spent including the injury budget".I'm sure it wasn't a 30 second debate at the meeting so why are we (the plebiscites) provided with a one sentence brief on this issue. What else was said about the playing budget I wonder that we aren't deemed worthy to hear about...........or does it just not make good copy.

The answer surely is for BU to get the minutes out a bit quicker. That may be easier said than done as it has to be done in someone's own time but would that not be the answer to the problems. Let's face it Banana "blogged" the non-confidential parts of the BU board meeting as he always said he would. His thanks for that is to be criticised on here and derided on the BAMB board with the usual suspects there claiming that he has proved that he is "unprofessional" although judging by the standard of BFC "news" on BAMB they still have to come to the GPG to find out what's actually going on. Most of the posts on there are of the:-

"Hi Marky, how's it hanging".....

"Heavy and to the left honey"

.....type and it's just a chit chat club with a diminishing number of members as far as I can see.

The issue I suppose is that given that BU doesn't run the club and indeed shouldn't run the club according to far wiser people than me on here should we be directing these questions to the BFC board rather than to the joint newest recruit to the BU board.

That is the crux of the matter I think. Given that the playing budget has been spent together with the injury contingency budget and with the attendances down on the projected average, the sponsorships dragging and the Princess Royal proving a very serious drain on the cash flow then I imagine a financial update from the BFC board is overdue telling it exactly like it is.

 

[abee]

abee,

You (and shaggy presumably) clearly missed chappers post earlier in the thread that reads:

I didn't miss it........shaggy did.....and I was commenting on his comment on your comment........

 

[Banana]

As I said (and if i didnt i meant to. Blame it on the Fundraising Action Plan distracting me!) incorrect was probably the wrong word to use, (i must stop posting in haste whilst at work ) I should have used 'imbalanced' perhaps.

Stephen Callens computer was working (as he stressed a number of times!) it was 'just his email'. Which I believe Nurse Betty mentioned. Given your penchant for getting the facts right i think we should start as we mean to go on.

You alluded to people discussing things that are of little import which i agree with but neglected to mention that you yourself did the same over the merit of a particular word in minutes of a meeting you did not attend. I appreciate the need to understand previous goings on but that is little different from the minutae that you didnt believe should be discussed (again something that Nurse Betty mentioned). Hence the comments of 'redressing the balance'

As i also said in my post on the BAMB, the idea of you posting the points on the blog is not a bad one, I believe that communication should be as open, honest and speedy as possible.

Well I'm not sure it was "stressed a number of times". However, next time I will attempt to give a accurate diagnosis on the exact problem on a computer that I haven't seen

Also, I firmly believe that debating the minutes are a valid function of a meeting. Debating the policy with regards to away fan ticketing at Griffin Park and the layout of a form and the bouncers at the Princess Royal.......... ain't

 

[Brickie Chap]

Stephen Callens computer was working (as he stressed a number of times!) it was 'just his email'. Which I believe Nurse Betty mentioned. Given your penchant for getting the facts right i think we should start as we mean to go on.

So why didnt he simply save the information to disc and ask someone else to email it

 

[Banana]

So why didnt he simply save the information to disc and ask someone else to email it

or print it out........

 

[Brickie Chap]

Anyone else reckon he hadnt bothered to do the work

 

[northantsbee]

or print it out........

Who knows........

 

[northantsbee]

Well I'm not sure it was "stressed a number of times". However, next time I will attempt to give a accurate diagnosis on the exact problem on a computer that I haven't seen

Also, I firmly believe that debating the minutes are a valid function of a meeting. Debating the policy with regards to away fan ticketing at Griffin Park and the layout of a form and the bouncers at the Princess Royal.......... ain't

I didnt say they werent a valid function 'Nan, of course they are but its tricky to debate the validity and accuracy of minutes of a meeting you (not personally anybody i mean! ) didnt attend.

Anyway i really must start calling you Trevor, else i am going to end up debating with you as 'Nana in the next board meeting

 

[Brickie Chap]

Who knows........

Do you believe that Stephen Callen had completed the oh so difficult task before him

 

[Banana]

I didnt say they werent a valid function 'Nan, of course they are but its tricky to debate the validity and accuracy of minutes of a meeting you (not personally anybody i mean! ) didnt attend.

To be clear here is the extract from the minutes:

"BB reported that the BFC board had resisted his suggestion.................."

Now what does "resisted" mean? Does it mean they resisted and then rolled over or does it mean that they successfully resisted. IMHO it says nothing about what actually happened and if the proposal was either i) accepted or ii) rejected. I thought we on the BU Board should know one way or the other - especially as BB decided to add it to the minutes.

 

[northantsbee]

Do you believe that Stephen Callen had completed the oh so difficult task before him

I dont know.

The thought did cross my mind, and like i say it didnt surprise me. :sad:

 

[northantsbee]

To be clear here is the extract from the minutes:

"BB reported that the BFC board had resisted his suggestion.................."

Now what does "resisted" mean? Does it mean they resisted and then rolled over or does it mean that they successfully resisted. IMHO it says nothing about what actually happened and if the proposal was either i) accepted or ii) rejected. I thought we on the BU Board should know one way or the other - especially as BB decided to add it to the minutes.

If that was the word that BB used in the meeting then i guess thats what has to be minuted, whether it was the right word would need to have been queried at the time IMHO.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

This thread hardly shows BU in a professional light. With lame excuses about computers not working, irrelevant topics being discussed in over-long meetings, and committee members arguing the toss in a public forum, I wonder if this is the correct way to encourage greater support for the organisation.

 

[northantsbee]

This thread hardly shows BU in a professional light. With lame excuses about computers not working, irrelevant topics being discussed in over-long meetings, and committee members arguing the toss in a public forum, I wonder if this is the correct way to encourage greater support for the organisation.

Exactly why i tried to stay out of it, if you are asked for your opinion i believe you have to give it, and that is what i have tried to do, rightly or wrongly.

I have said my bit and for me thats an end to it.

 

[Brickie Chap]

I dont know.

The thought did cross my mind, and like i say it didnt surprise me. :sad:

The fact you have doubts is good enough for me!

 

[Brickie Chap]

This thread hardly shows BU in a professional light. With lame excuses about computers not working, irrelevant topics being discussed in over-long meetings, and committee members arguing the toss in a public forum, I wonder if this is the correct way to encourage greater support for the organisation.

Neither BU or BFC are professional

 

[Jezybee]

I didnt say they werent a valid function 'Nan, of course they are but its tricky to debate the validity and accuracy of minutes of a meeting you (not personally anybody i mean! ) didnt attend.

Surely the prime role of minutes is to confer to those not present what happened at the meeting. If, after reading the minutes, Banana felt informed as to what happened at that meeting he would not have brought up any problems. It is very likely that if Banana didn't understand a point in the minutes the general BU membership would also have this problem.

I do, however, accept that it is difficult to discuss the "accuracy" of the minutes if you "(not personally anybody i mean! )" were not present at the meeting they refer to.

 

[Banana]

This thread hardly shows BU in a professional light. With lame excuses about computers not working, irrelevant topics being discussed in over-long meetings, and committee members arguing the toss in a public forum, I wonder if this is the correct way to encourage greater support for the organisation.

You may think that Les. Personally I think it's healthy to debate points in public. I'd much rather that than behind locked doors with censored versions of the minutes available to members whose bank accounts are debited monthly with monies that goes towards paying off a £250k loan..........

I hope that people see that people are prepared to debate the BU Board and the BU organisation as a whole. What is it? What's it for? What's it future? Where does its role in the community lie given the FITC Trust etc.

I'm happy that issues are being debated in a wider forum to be frank.

 

[abee]

Banana,

I have just looked at the BU agenda for last Thursday and the confidential part was scheduled from 7pm - 8pm.

The agenda for the confidential part included :-

BFC performance report including a financial report and operational issues

Report on the new stadium and on a possible debt re-structuring.

That suggests to me that the BFC financial business was classified as "confidential" so are you relaxed that in fact the classification was amended to "non-confidential"

Also GPSL issues and BHL issues were classified as "confidential". What exactly is confidential about this stuff.

 

[JTofBFC]

I'm happy that issues are being debated in a wider forum to be frank.

In that case, are we permitted to know the text of the "minute" in question that contained the word "resisted"? (just so we can "debate" whether it was a worthwhile use of our elected representatives time of course).

 

[PJ]

This thread hardly shows BU in a professional light. With lame excuses about computers not working, irrelevant topics being discussed in over-long meetings, and committee members arguing the toss in a public forum, I wonder if this is the correct way to encourage greater support for the organisation.

Spot on Les. If info is fed in this way we`re heading in one direction only. If the financial info was not fully available it could simply have been stated that "a full update will follow to the BU Board" (or whatever).

We dont need to know about broken PCs or email system malfunctioning - that crap should be sorted out (and indeed weeded out) in house. Kick arse behind closed doors, not on here....... i`d rather read about stuff thats important rather than tittle tattle.....but then again that leads to less "entertainment" on the GPG :zzzzz: :zzzzz:

 

[Banana]

Banana,

I have just looked at the BU agenda for last Thursday and the confidential part was scheduled from 7pm - 8pm.

The agenda for the confidential part included :-

BFC performance report including a financial report and operational issues

Report on the new stadium and on a possible debt re-structuring.

That suggests to me that the BFC financial business was classified as "confidential" so are you relaxed that in fact the classification was amended to "non-confidential"

Also GPSL issues and BHL issues were classified as "confidential". What exactly is confidential about this stuff.

Seen as a financial update should be available from the club after the next BFC Board meeting then yes, I'm comfortable with that

 

[Les Beeavinu]

You may think that Les. Personally I think it's healthy to debate points in public. I'd much rather that than behind locked doors with censored versions of the minutes available to members whose bank accounts are debited monthly with monies that goes towards paying off a £250k loan..........

I hope that people see that people are prepared to debate the BU Board and the BU organisation as a whole. What is it? What's it for? What's it future? Where does its role in the community lie given the FITC Trust etc.

I'm happy that issues are being debated in a wider forum to be frank.

Unfortunately the only thing that's really being debated is the debate itself.

 

[abee]

Spot on Les. If info is fed in this way we`re heading in one direction only. If the financial info was not fully available it could simply have been stated that "a full update will follow to the BU Board" (or whatever).

We dont need to know about broken PCs or email system malfunctioning - that crap should be sorted out (and indeed weeded out) in house. Kick arse behind closed doors, not on here....... i`d rather read about stuff thats important rather than tittle tattle.....but then again that leads to less "entertainment" on the GPG :zzzzz: :zzzzz:

The problem with that Pete is that having taken a look at last Thursdays agenda everything that most of us would wish to know about is in the "classified confidential" section.

Have a look at last Thursdays agenda and tell me what interests you in the "public" part of the meeting......valium for the masses.......

 

[Brickie Chap]

PJ -- how many times is Stephen Callen going to be allowed to get away with this bullshit about his computer Maybe he could have bought a new one with the £20,000 plus he was paid by BFC

As for the information released, whats the harm? If BB and JB dont have the commonsense to instruct how they want the meeting to be recorded they deserve to be considered as idiots for the tales coming from the BU Board

 

[PJ]

As for the information released, whats the harm?

Internal problems should be sorted out internally IMO

 

[PJ]

The problem with that Pete is that having taken a look at last Thursdays agenda everything that most of us would wish to know about is in the "classified confidential" section.

Have a look at last Thursdays agenda and tell me what interests you in the "public" part of the meeting......valium for the masses.......

abee, I dont look at the BU site unless theres a breaking story or a link put up.
I care about BU`s image and would think any "classified confidential" section is like that for a reason. If its wrong then the BU Board should change the information flow but all this nonsense about PCs and titles should be sorted out in house rather than be used in the tabloid fashion displayed in this thread IMHO. It is doing BU no favours. I just want to read real news, good or bad, not news for the sake of it which should be sorted out in house

 

[Banana]

Can you define "in house" please?

Is it BU members? or members of the BU Board? or just some members of the BU Board? or the BFC Board? or just some members of the BFC Board? of some other set of BFC supporters/interest groups.

Thanks very much.

p.s. As a BFC Supporter/BU member I wanted to know about my club

 

[PJ]

p.s. As a BFC Supporter/BU member I wanted to know about my club

BU is managed by the BU Board - it is their responsibility (including yours) to sort out any problems it has and to release information of interest when appropriate. Right or wrong?

Not convinced you`ll get your head around that though

 

[JTofBFC]

In that case, are we permitted to know the text of the "minute" in question that contained the word "resisted"? (just so we can "debate" whether it was a worthwhile use of our elected representatives time of course).

Guess thats a no then!

p.s. As a BFC Supporter/BU member I wanted to know about my club

I think Pete's point is that he wants to hear useful information and not tittle tattle. With respect your initial blog entry didn't really provide any important information, yet it has managed to successfully engender a debate which at best is anal and which at worst is damaging to BU.

Personally, I find it quite sad to hear that the meeting barely had time to move onto what most people would regard as the fundamental issue-fundraising- and by then some of the Board had already left, seemingly worn down by the inane minutiae of the meeting.

 

[Banana]

BU is managed by the BU Board - it is their responsibility (including yours) to sort out any problems it has and to release information of interest when appropriate. Right or wrong?

Not convinced you`ll get your head around that though

Who determines whether information is "of interest"?

I'd rather all information was released (given obvious confidential issues) and let the reader decide whether or not the information is "of interest". Obviously not everything will be "of interest" to you, but I would argue that there are many that are interested

 

[PJ]

Who determines whether information is "of interest"?

Common sense does

 

[JTofBFC]

Who determines whether information is "of interest"?

I'd rather all information was released (given obvious confidential issues) and let the reader decide whether or not the information is "of interest". Obviously not everything will be "of interest" to you, but I would argue that there are many that are interested

In that case why did you choose to omit the fact that Callen said that the BU finances were in better shape than the previous month, preferring instead to comment only on his broken computer.

I'd rather all information was released also and not just the bits that you think will show the Board in an unfavourable light.

 

[Banana]

In that case why did you choose to omit the fact that Callen said that the BU finances were in better shape than the previous month,

Because he didn't say that

 

[JTofBFC]

Because he didn't say that

Well here's what Nurse Betty said he said.

Stephen Callen telling us that his computer wasn't working and that he had not been able to access his emails for 10 days and had no financial reports - but not to worry because they are pretty much what they were last month except we are about £500 richer;

Are you suggesting she misheard or had already left the meeting by then and imagined it?

Perhaps you would like to tell us what he did say then as it is conspicuously absent from your blog.

 

[Banana]

As long as you can tell the difference between an ironic post and a non-ironic post we are saved.







oh sh*t..............

 

[JTofBFC]

Oh the old "you've missed the irony" trick again.

And the answer to the question about the text of the incorrect minutes mentioning "resisted" is?

 

[Banana]

And the answer to the question about the text of the incorrect minutes mentioning "resisted" is?

I believe this to be a confidential part of the minutes, otherwise I would have mentioned it :homer:

If it's not it will appear in the meeting summary that will appear on the BU website "soon"

 

[abee]

abee, I dont look at the BU site unless theres a breaking story or a link put up.
I care about BU`s image and would think any "classified confidential" section is like that for a reason. If its wrong then the BU Board should change the information flow but all this nonsense about PCs and titles should be sorted out in house rather than be used in the tabloid fashion displayed in this thread IMHO. It is doing BU no favours. I just want to read real news, good or bad, not news for the sake of it which should be sorted out in house

Nor do I Pete. Until Joe brought it to my attention yesterday I didn't even know that my "incentivise new membership and standing orders" offer had finally found its way on there. I happened to take a look tonight to see what the fuss was all about re the "resisted" bit that was being talked about and all of the juicy stuff is scheduled as confidential between 7pm-8pm. The amazing thing is that given that we were told that the meeting ran until almost 11pm how they spent getting on for three hours talking about the non-confidential stuff.

Of course some of us are rightly wary when we are told that the playing budget together with the injury budget contingency has all been spent before September is out. It was exactly a year ago last Saturday that Brian Burgess announced from the pitch that BFC had been within hours of going into administration and whilst I certainly hope for better from the present BFC board I for one am not prepared to relax my guard completely.

"Trust but verify".........

 

[Edmundo]

I think this thread has at least served to show to the great unwashed what really goes on at a BU meeting. It's not good, is it? Let's hope that the constitutional review process engages with this problem and tries to find a way to re-energise BU and increase the level of transparency, democracy and engagement. It's a tall order!

 

[Banana]

I think this thread has at least served to show to the great unwashed what really goes on at a BU meeting.

As if you didn't know