FSA AGM - reportedly a fans' motion supportive of APT rules proposed

pottsy said:
Joe Blott from Spirit of Shankly who led this motion , who seems to question City’s owners as being fit and proper , seems to have got rich a few years ago with his own legal challenge.

I have it on good authority he is an ego driven careerist who wants to get to the top of the tree amongst football fans nationally. Many LFC fans have apparently tried to reason with him over the years.

It’s like Ken Dodd trying to give a lecture on legal matters whilst having half a million under the bed in stuffed brown envelopes.


https://johnbrace.com/senior-manage...oss-misconduct-for-email-about-joe-blott/amp/

https://wirralleaks.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/spot-the-blott/

wirralleaks.wordpress.com

Blott’s Pension Pot

As we exclusively revealed in February Wirral Council Super – Duper Director Joe Blott is about to escape. Most appropriately the article featured a ticking clock as we can only imagine that …
wirralleaks.wordpress.com wirralleaks.wordpress.com
Click to expand...

A Blott on the football landscape.

(Someone had to be first ........)
 
Blue Mist said:
We are now getting to the realms of stupidity. No baby who is still being breast fed should be at a football match.
Click to expand...
They can be at a game. I took my youngest a few times under 6 months. I took bottles of milk with me (obviously I wasn't going to get my tits out in the middle of the Family Stand).
I just feel fans are being too entitled. "Oh I need somewhere to put my buggy..."
I carried her in a sling.
The FSA needs to get back to real fan issues
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
When I was on the National Council, the FSF (as it was then) received funding from the PL (who gave it very reluctantly) as well as the PFA too. The PL funded it as they have to support various causes as part of their commitment to grass roots football and other aspects of the game. I recall after one meeting with the PL, which was quite heated, the PL ''threatened'' to pull the plug on the funding if the FSF continued to be a thorn in their side.....
They also received money from the Home Office for organising the Free Lions / and the Welsh equivalent free fanzines at England & Wales away games and associated costs of sending folk out there before hand to suss the place out etc.
Click to expand...
Are you Ann Marie perchance?
 
This “will also further increase the gap between clubs that seek to be self-sustaining and those that can rely on unlimited investment from their ownership models”.

They don't seem to understand what self-sustaining means:

A self self-sustaining process or system that is able to continue by itself without anyone or anything else being involved.
 
tregyblue61 said:
This “will also further increase the gap between clubs that seek to be self-sustaining and those that can rely on unlimited investment from their ownership models”.

They don't seem to understand what self-sustaining means:

A self self-sustaining process or system that is able to continue by itself without anyone or anything else being involved.
Click to expand...
It certainly doesn't include clubs which run up a billion pounds worth of debt and never pay it back.
 
Over the weekend both 1894 Group and the MCFC OSC have written to the FSA in very strong terms to say they are unhappy about the way this "anti-City motion" was raised. 1894 spoke to a couple of groups in particular, MUST and Hammers Utd, who were on the motion as seconders. They were given very short notice about it and some of them who did have a chance to amend (not us) wanted it making clear that the bill should not be seen as an attack on Manchester City or our fans - particularly (West Ham fan groups said this on record in front of everyone) more the concern that football clubs generally were going down a Litigation route on decisions that don't go their way...

How do people think the Premier League was formed in the first place ? By clubs threatening the football league with legal action in the first place !

We've asked for the way these motions get brought up to be changed. It's a premier league group of 20 clubs and their elected fan groups. 3 or 4 groups/clubs seem to have decided the wording of the motions themselves without giving anyone lease in the email chain the chance to amend before it goes onto the agenda. in other words a stitch up
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.