I don't disagree with the sentiments and the implicit criticism.
As I'm now learning first hand, BU communications are problematic. To be blunt, almost all that BU does that is non-confidential is dull, and much of what BU does is confidential. There is also a difference in perception between what BU does to get information 'out there', and what it can do directly for members on an individual basis, particularly those without access to the internet.
Firstly, I think you're missing the point GEOFFBEE. BU has not got more news than the GPG. How could it?
BU is about governance and the long-term sustainability of the club. It's not for BU to provide match reports, transfer gossip or idle chat which may or may not be about the club.
Neither does BU have the power over local papers to have regular features included. The stories have got to be worth reading. "Voluntary body of professional people working assiduously behind the scenes at local football club" is not news. It's not even feature material. While BeeH's diary reflections might be interesting reading (and possibly libellous), those of BU board members are much less so, despite Donald Kerr's sterling efforts in the matchday programme.
As abee pointed out, it's taken more than six months for anyone to notice that the (dreadfully dull) non-confidential parts of BU monthly meetings are no longer included on the BU website. Meanwhile, apparently, nobody was interested in the annual accounts – as presented by BU on its website.
In saying this, I accept that presentation can be a problem. But while it's BU's job to make its business and that of the club accessible to members, it's not BU's role to make tabloid (or even TITS) headlines.
BU has at least a double-page spread in every match programme (and more in the Gillingham programme) and it puts these items and more on its website. I always put a link on the GPG when I post something on the website. There is also a long interview with David Merritt in the latest issue of TITS, and he has been quoted recently in the local press.
I agree totally that BU should be doing more to keep in touch with its non-internet-using members. Unfortunately, doing so directly costs money in postage, printing and materials, as well as more labour time. Every mailshot to members costs several hundreds of pounds, or maybe 20 or 30 annual subscriptions, in postage alone.
The only real alternative is indirect communications through print media like local newspapers and the matchday programme. These are both 'passive' in that BU members will not necessarily perceive them to be direct communications from BU. Moreover, the former requires BU 'news' that is thin on the ground.
Every month committee members provide reports of ongoing activities and initiatives. When they go beyond 'business as usual' and are not confidential, they get aired. For example, Brian Burgess' recent Lionel Road report was published on the BU website and in the programme.
I also wonder how much the BU members who complain about communications – and were not aware of how much the club will lose this season – would like to receive these reports every month, let alone read them.
All constructive suggestions to
[email protected] will be gratefully received.
