Fan Advisory Board confirmed

[rigsby]

Surprisingly, as far as I can tell, none is amongst our 1,500+ shareholders.

Surely anyone who bought shares in SUFC has already proved they don't have any business nous

 

[rigsby]

I almost got a full house for mentioning the word 'woke' on another thread. I agree, the moaning this last two months has gone through the roof. I would have been no good putting this Fan Advisory Board together. As I live in the past I was thinking, a Milkman, a Coalman, a Dinner Lady and a Laundrette Lady for starters.

Ernie, Arthur Scargill, Victoria Wood and Dot Cotton?

 

[CanveyCastle]

Anyone from the Zone on this group?
As there are thousands of members I would have thought someone should be on there.

 

[danbowen]

Can any of them play centre back?

 

[Strykr]

Anyone from the Zone on this group?
As there are thousands of members I would have thought someone should be on there.

Wiggy and shrimpet.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I thought Michelle was already on The Trust board? If so with another Trust Board member in the people running the board it makes it two from that avenue.

I believe Michelle made it perfectly clear that she was standing independently, and, in her position as the landlady of the Blue Boar, custodian of such an important part of the Club's history, she is a perfect candidate.

I also feel that this is far too male orientated, and would have liked to see another female there. @Tinks would have been perfect.

 

[Hawkwell Blue]

I believe Michelle made it perfectly clear that she was standing independently, and, in her position as the landlady of the Blue Boar, custodian of such an important part of the Club's history, she is a perfect candidate.

I also feel that this is far too male orientated, and would have liked to see another female there. @Tinks would have been perfect.

Maybe the 1/6 female representation reflected the split of those who applied.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Maybe the 1/6 female representation reflected the split of those who applied.

Possibly. But without getting all political, isn't this going on in many places where selection is required? I didn't apply as I have plenty enough that I am already dealing with, but other women certainly did. Like I said, Jacks would have been an excellent choice.

 

[BoyWonder2]

Possibly. But without getting all political, isn't this going on in many places where selection is required? I didn't apply as I have plenty enough that I am already dealing with, but other women certainly did. Like I said, Jacks would have been an excellent choice.

Surely you want the best people for the job, and that it doesn’t matter if they are male, female, transgender, black, white, old, young, someone who identifies as a tree or whatever.

I can only assume, COSU, or whoever picked these people did so in good faith, and picked who they deemed to be the best person for the job instead making sure a quota of women, for example, are selected.

Far too much of that nonsense goes on when the best people qualified aren’t selected because they have to pick a “type”.

 

[Tampa Blue]

Surely you want the best people for the job, and that it doesn’t matter if they are male, female, transgender, black, white, old, young, someone who identifies as a tree or whatever.

I can only assume, COSU, or whoever picked these people did so in good faith, and picked who they deemed to be the best person for the job instead making sure a quota of women, for example, are selected.

Far too much of that nonsense goes on when the best people qualified aren’t selected because they have to pick a “type”.

The initial applications that were reviewed prior to interview were redacted to remove all details of age, name and sex.

I really don't think any bias can be directed at this process,

 

[OldBlueLady]

Surely you want the best people for the job, and that it doesn’t matter if they are male, female, transgender, black, white, old, young, someone who identifies as a tree or whatever.

I can only assume, COSU, or whoever picked these people did so in good faith, and picked who they deemed to be the best person for the job instead making sure a quota of women, for example, are selected.

Far too much of that nonsense goes on when the best people qualified aren’t selected because they have to pick a “type”.

Yes, absolutely, my comment was merely an observation that you have the whole COSU board is all men, and now, only one woman on the FAB. I would have hoped for more. I merely said that I knew that selection, according to tick boxes, IS going on elsewhere.

 

[BoyWonder2]

The initial applications that were reviewed prior to interview were redacted to remove all details of age, name and sex.

I really don't think any bias can be directed at this process,

I’m sure some on here will.

I’m going to blame Stan, it’s been a while since he has been blamed for anything. Or Crate, probably Crate and his documentaries actually. Sorry Stan.

 

[Hawkwell Blue]

Possibly. But without getting all political, isn't this going on in many places where selection is required? I didn't apply as I have plenty enough that I am already dealing with, but other women certainly did. Like I said, Jacks would have been an excellent choice.

Maybe the 1/6 female representation reflected the split of those who applied.

And also probably reflective of the make up of our fan base.

 

[Liam AAS]

Surely you want the best people for the job, and that it doesn’t matter if they are male, female, transgender, black, white, old, young, someone who identifies as a tree or whatever.

I can only assume, COSU, or whoever picked these people did so in good faith, and picked who they deemed to be the best person for the job instead making sure a quota of women, for example, are selected.

Far too much of that nonsense goes on when the best people qualified aren’t selected because they have to pick a “type”.

But it's not a job with an economic output. This is not a business hiring staff, this is a local institution looking to build a bridge with its key stakeholders: supporters. The best people are those that are going to effectively represent the fans and communicate the thoughts and feelings of the fanbase clearly to the clubs heirachy.

The candidates appear experieced, competent and I'm sure they'll do a good job, but personally, I don't feel they reflect the demographics of SUFC fans particularly well. This is a first go and hopefully there will be an opportunity to listen to a broader pool of people through the FAB at a later time.

 

[Tampa Blue]

The candidates appear experieced, competent and I'm sure they'll do a good job, but personally, I don't feel they reflect the demographics of SUFC fans particularly well.

I think this is a very pertinent comment.

 

[BoyWonder2]

But it's not a job with an economic output. This is not a business hiring staff, this is a local institution looking to build a bridge with its key stakeholders: supporters. The best people are those that are going to effectively represent the fans and communicate the thoughts and feelings of the fanbase clearly to the clubs heirachy.

The candidates appear experieced, competent and I'm sure they'll do a good job, but personally, I don't feel they reflect the demographics of SUFC fans particularly well. This is a first go and hopefully there will be an opportunity to listen to a broader pool of people through the FAB at a later time.

We do need to know what they believe is our best formation, whether they are Kev in or out, what they deem as unforgivable, whether the RM “legacy” is still hampering us, if they slag off new signings before they have kicked a ball for us and so on…

From reading their intros, they are Southend United fans, so they do represent us. They may not “tick every box” but they have been deemed the best applicants, and that’s good enough for me at the moment.

Time will tell of course, like it does with a new signing, new manager, new owner, but it’s very premature to be slagging them off before they’ve had a chance to do anything.

 

[Liam AAS]

No one is slagging off the applicants (well I'm not) but there are fair and reasonable questions to be asked about the club's intent, process and judgement* when putting this all together and that's all that's happening here.

Maybe they want more professional, experienced people in role, that's fine. But it's not representative and that hasn't been made clear.

I have not criticsied COSU for being all white and male up until the last month. That's their prerogative, but if they want views from the fans then a more representative FAB could have been chosen.

*not their judgement on individual candidates

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

After the selection process we seem to have a fans version of the board rather than some fans who are going to look at things from the people in the stands point of view.

Unfortunately I can see more of 'we have improved the burgers by getting a posher version of the same thing for more money' type of things rather than what the fans want.

Is that is what has happened at the Blue Boar?

 

[Mick]

Surely anyone who bought shares in SUFC has already proved they don't have any business nous

I really don't think too many of those who bought shares in the club at various times did so as a business investment. They did it because they wanted to own a (small) part of their club, to become more engaged. Many did so to help the club raise valuable funds in its time of need with absolutely no expectation of getting anything back (expect perhaps a priority in some ticketing issues.)

That's why I was surprised none of this FAB appeared in our newly published shareholder list.

The members appear to be very successful in their various fields and quite high profile. If the aims were to supplement the skills and acumen of the Board of Directors in a sort of Non-Executive Director appointment, they would, on the face of it, appear to have made good choices.
If however it was intended to form a conduit between rank and file supporters and the Board, I think this shot has gone so wide it's gone out for a throw-in.

 

[Grayson]

The members appear to be very successful in their various fields and quite high profile. If the aims were to supplement the skills and acumen of the Board of Directors in a sort of Non-Executive Director appointment, they would, on the face of it, appear to have made good choices.
If however it was intended to form a conduit between rank and file supporters and the Board, I think this shot has gone so wide it's gone out for a throw-in.

This is spot on.

I didn't apply this time, but to those who did - was the aim made clear in this regard? In terms of skillset versus representation.