Another trust branded as 'at war with club'

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:
This was stopped by Kenneth who had his own agenda.
With regards to the leaking of your correspondence wuth the SC we have minuted meetings which are available to all Members if they want them therefore was it a "leak" or you just been paranoid.

I'm not paranoid but the fact I'd written to the LUSC was leaked onto waccoe by a third party,and in quite a derogatory manner-but that doesnt necessarily concern me as the door is now shut in that instance (they could always apologise but I wont be holding my breath)

I'm aware of the history with the SCs venues,but the agenda you refer to is simply one that KB wants all fans to be treated the same,and to join his own membership scheme which brings in around a million per year in revenue.This very issue is one which is a core one with many fans and provides KB with much support,which you can either choose to see or otherwise.Whether this was a direct attempt to undermine the SC is another contenious issue,but certainly the essence (although not the cost) of a 'one fits all' membership seems popular with rank and file Leeds fans.

After seeing the waccoe thread on the Peacock last night,it seems clear that the pro-SC have some way to go before they accept that membership of the SC is not something many Leeds fans wish to have forced upon them-which was certainly the case when there was a need to get an away ticket.

This btw is not an attack on you or the SC but just an observation (thumbs up smiley)

theseagullbus wrote:

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:
This was stopped by Kenneth who had his own agenda.
With regards to the leaking of your correspondence wuth the SC we have minuted meetings which are available to all Members if they want them therefore was it a "leak" or you just been paranoid.

I'm not paranoid but the fact I'd written to the LUSC was leaked onto waccoe by a third party,and in quite a derogatory manner-but that doesnt necessarily concern me as the door is now shut in that instance (they could always apologise but I wont be holding my breath)

I'm aware of the history with the SCs venues,but the agenda you refer to is simply one that KB wants all fans to be treated the same,and to join his own membership scheme which brings in around a million per year in revenue.This very issue is one which is a core one with many fans and provides KB with much support,which you can either choose to see or otherwise.Whether this was a direct attempt to undermine the SC is another contenious issue,but certainly the essence (although not the cost) of a 'one fits all' membership seems popular with rank and file Leeds fans.

After seeing the waccoe thread on the Peacock last night,it seems clear that the pro-SC have some way to go before they accept that membership of the SC is not something many Leeds fans wish to have forced upon them-which was certainly the case when there was a need to get an away ticket.

This btw is not an attack on you or the SC but just an observation (thumbs up smiley)

The FACT that KB was attacking the SC as a matter of policy has been CONFIRMED. It may be a contentious policy but it is no longer in any doubt.
Your talking about fans being forced to join the SC is absolute nonsense. You keep making things up simply so that you can then argue against them.
You say that KB wnats all fans to be treated the same but this is also obviously nonsense. He may want all MEMBERS to be treated the same but not all FANS.
Why are you observations so frequently totally incorrect ?

Rickd wrote:

theseagullbus wrote:

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:
This was stopped by Kenneth who had his own agenda.
With regards to the leaking of your correspondence wuth the SC we have minuted meetings which are available to all Members if they want them therefore was it a "leak" or you just been paranoid.

I'm not paranoid but the fact I'd written to the LUSC was leaked onto waccoe by a third party,and in quite a derogatory manner-but that doesnt necessarily concern me as the door is now shut in that instance (they could always apologise but I wont be holding my breath)WHO ARE THEY??ITS THE PERSON WHO POSTED THE REMARK YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH NOT THE SC.Seek an apology from him/her.

I'm aware of the history with the SCs venues,but the agenda you refer to is simply one that KB wants all fans to be treated the same,and to join his own membership scheme which brings in around a million per year in revenue.This very issue is one which is a core one with many fans and provides KB with much support,which you can either choose to see or otherwise.Whether this was a direct attempt to undermine the SC is another contenious issue,but certainly the essence (although not the cost) of a 'one fits all' membership seems popular with rank and file Leeds fans.

After seeing the waccoe thread on the Peacock last night,it seems clear that the pro-SC have some way to go before they accept that membership of the SC is not something many Leeds fans wish to have forced upon them-which was certainly the case when there was a need to get an away ticket.

This btw is not an attack on you or the SC but just an observation (thumbs up smiley)

The FACT that KB was attacking the SC as a matter of policy has been CONFIRMED. It may be a contentious policy but it is no longer in any doubt.
Your talking about fans being forced to join the SC is absolute nonsense. You keep making things up simply so that you can then argue against them.
You say that KB wnats all fans to be treated the same but this is also obviously nonsense. He may want all MEMBERS to be treated the same but not all FANS.
Why are you observations so frequently totally incorrect ?

Well said Rick thats the crux of the matter, how can fans groups move forward with blinkered views from the likes of Seagullbus.Two wrongs don`t make a right.
SC members are also MC members(at least 80% are) but treated differently.Why??
With regards to the OP thread on WACCOE those people are putting their own views forward and to be honest the majority`s` attitude is "they don`t speak for me" which is fair comment, but if everybody took that viewpoint there would be no fans representation because I have yet to meet football fans who agree with each other on many things and in relation to Leeds fans they only agree about their dislike for the team on the west side of the pennines(its a game of opinions).

Rickd wrote:
The FACT that KB was attacking the SC as a matter of policy has been CONFIRMED. It may be a contentious policy but it is no longer in any doubt.
Sorry but in my view the contentious issue is the presumption on your part on this confirmation.If theres something written or similar then any doubt over its authenticity is removed.Word of mouth can be easily dismissed as hearsay and without foundation

Your talking about fans being forced to join the SC is absolute nonsense. You keep making things up simply so that you can then argue against them.
Its a matter of truth that for many years membership of the SC was the best way of getting an away ticket,where many felt they were being forced into joining the SC.It was also during this time that the only guaranteed way of formally meeting the players was at the SC annual dinner dance

You say that KB wnats all fans to be treated the same but this is also obviously nonsense. He may want all MEMBERS to be treated the same but not all FANS.
The same could be said of the SC with regards to disenfranchised fans seeking away tickets at the time.I agree though thats important to differentiate between fans and members
Why are you observations so frequently totally incorrect ?
They're not

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:
WHO ARE THEY??ITS THE PERSON WHO POSTED THE REMARK YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH NOT THE SC.Seek an apology from him/her.
Sorry but correspondence between an individual and in this case the SC committee ought to be confidential

Well said Rick thats the crux of the matter, how can fans groups move forward with blinkered views from the likes of Seagullbus.
SC members are also MC members(at least 80% are) but treated differently.Why??
With regards to the OP thread on WACCOE those people are putting their own views forward and to be honest the majority`s` attitude is "they don`t speak for me" which is fair comment, but if everybody took that viewpoint there would be no fans representation because I have yet to meet football fans who agree with each other on many things and in relation to Leeds fans they only agree about their dislike for the team on the west side of the pennines(its a game of opinions).

My views are my own and I dont denigrate yours by stating they're blinkered,but by all means dont bother yourself with common courtesy as it isnt a prerequisite of posting on messageboards.
Not sure that the SC individual members are treated any differently from 'Members',certainly with regards to the allocation of tickets and other privileges-although as an organised group the SC's have elected to be excluded under the terms the club have set(their option)
Fans do disagree on many things but I think its important to concentrate on the things we agree on,and try and find a way forward rather than denigrate and criticise in an condescending,abrasive and hostile way.

I hope that you will be very careful to apply your comments to yourself when you are posting about others.

Rickd wrote:I hope that you will be very careful to apply your comments to yourself when you are posting about others.

Good-and fair-point.Just had a nice long chat with GM who got a bit of bashing last night,and with whom it was a pleasure to share a few thoughts with.

Ask him about 'bridge under the water'

Seagullbus once again don't let the truth get in the way,your correspondence with the SC was not 'in confidence' and if you think it was then post a copy on here.What's the point of posting if you are not telling the truth or is your involvement with Kenneth causing you to use his "I am right It's everyone else who is wrong'.

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:Seagullbus once again don't let the truth get in the way,your correspondence with the SC was not 'in confidence' and if you think it was then post a copy on here.What's the point of posting if you are not telling the truth or is your involvement with Kenneth causing you to use his "I am right It's everyone else who is wrong'.

Here we go again-I wrote to the SC Executive asking about possible group membership,and it was reported on waccoe by an acquaintance of one SC executive member that I'd gone 'grovelling back' trying to get back in.If you want me to find the thread and post it on here then I can do,but it wont achieve anything other than create more division.

Like I said for very obvious reasons I wanted this to remain confidential but it wasnt me who broke that confidentiality-to be honest I'd now like to leave the matter at that if thats possible.

I'm not saying I'm right on many other matters but I have my beliefs and loyalties like you do.which are at the core of my own personal values-just like you.

theseagullbus wrote:

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:Seagullbus once again don't let the truth get in the way,your correspondence with the SC was not 'in confidence' and if you think it was then post a copy on here.What's the point of posting if you are not telling the truth or is your involvement with Kenneth causing you to use his "I am right It's everyone else who is wrong'.

Here we go again-I wrote to the SC Executive asking about possible group membership,and it was reported on waccoe by an acquaintance of one SC executive member that I'd gone 'grovelling back' trying to get back in.If you want me to find the thread and post it on here then I can do,but it wont achieve anything other than create more division.

Like I said for very obvious reasons I wanted this to remain confidential but it wasnt me who broke that confidentiality-to be honest I'd now like to leave the matter at that if thats possible.

I'm not saying I'm right on many other matters but I have my beliefs and loyalties like you do.which are at the core of my own personal values-just like you.

The problem you have got is the open way the SC deals with correpondence,you from your previous dealings with the SC are well aware of the SC proceedure, but for those who aren`t I will explain.
Anybody wishing to join a new group to the SC writes to the Secretary on receipt of the application views are sought from the nearest Branch(Seagullbus is well aware of this from the time he applied to start a Fylde Branch)Other Branch Officials may also be contacted to put their views forward.The application is then brought up at an Exec meeting where the Exec decides taking into Account any objections.Objections don`t always stop applications been approved but this is the way the SC works not based on 2or 3 people making the decision as per WACCOE postings which give the idea that things are done without consultation.
How other Members of the SC use this is upto them as individuals and nothing to do with the SC.
Once again Seagullbus ask the individual for the apology don`t make out its the SC who should apologise.

So that's what this corrspondence issue is all about. I thought that I must have missed something else.
I can confirm what LUSCBradford has said above about the "branch admissions" system. I remember this correspondence being discussed at an Exec Meeting - exactly as it should be. I don't remember it being brought up on Waccoe but it is hardly surprising given the amount of repetitive bollox that some people fling at the SC on that forum.
Like SGB says though; it is history and there is no obvious reason not to let it drop (again).
In any case this forum is about the Supporters Trust, at least mostly.

Point taken Rick no more will be posted by myself

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:Point taken Rick no more will be posted by myself

and I'll have to do my best to remember my own point as well. :-)

handbags