GovanAllan 0 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I've never got the idea of a "unified" support. Surely the fanbase is a democracy of sorts and there will always be a varying opinions Why can't you have that within one body, instead of what is it now 9/10 different groups. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 You can't combine all the groups. The BF1 groups need to be independent of everyone else.tTBO and UB could combine but they have different approaches and want to stay independent, which is fair enough. You have different forums (FF, RM, VB, GN etc) and blogs (TRS, CRO) which have different strengths and weaknesses. We have the 2 RSAs which concentrate on supporter clubs, and therefroe have different priorities from other organisations. You have the RST whose main aim is supporter ownership and representatuiion, and RU which is looking for a different approach to fan ownership. You then have groups which have very focussed aims (RFFF, RFWG) and yes, these could be dealt with by the Assembly but they do allow for a cross section of the support to be represented better than they might under one umbrella. Most of the groups have different purposes priorities and it's therefore difficult to combine them. There certainly is scope for the Assembly to get much more involved in things but they have taken a back seat recently for some reason. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Was there a meeting with reps from the various groups? or Did someone write the Statement and the groups put their name to it later? Were the RST either asked to the meeting, or given the chance to sign? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Was there a meeting with reps from the various groups? or Did someone write the Statement and the groups put their name to it later? Were the RST either asked to the meeting, or given the chance to sign? Probably not for this statement Yes No 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 While I agree with the sentiment, it really comes down to individual choice. I won't be going to any away game for the foreseeable. If someone else wants to, I'm not going to call them out over it. Each to their own. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 it shoudnt matter who we draw we will follow on our team needs our support . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Probably not for this statementYes No So who is the author? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 So who is the author? It seems to have been written by Vanguard Bears admin as it went on their site first. I could be wrong though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 You can't combine all the groups. The BF1 groups need to be independent of everyone else.tTBO and UB could combine but they have different approaches and want to stay independent, which is fair enough. You have different forums (FF, RM, VB, GN etc) and blogs (TRS, CRO) which have different strengths and weaknesses. We have the 2 RSAs which concentrate on supporter clubs, and therefroe have different priorities from other organisations. You have the RST whose main aim is supporter ownership and representatuiion, and RU which is looking for a different approach to fan ownership. You then have groups which have very focussed aims (RFFF, RFWG) and yes, these could be dealt with by the Assembly but they do allow for a cross section of the support to be represented better than they might under one umbrella. Most of the groups have different purposes priorities and it's therefore difficult to combine them. There certainly is scope for the Assembly to get much more involved in things but they have taken a back seat recently for some reason. Could you not then have a couple of members from each group, who sit on one board and that board speaks as one voice for the support. Yes you won't always get what you want on certain matters but you will on other things. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Could you not then have a couple of members from each group, who sit on one board and that board speaks as one voice for the support. Yes you won't always get what you want on certain matters but you will on other things. I guess you've got that with the RFWG. This new USP may be similar if they dropped the preconditions before certain groups can join. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.