Learning from mistakes?

I still struggle to see why a hard working group of ‘business owners and senior managers’ would want to be known by the name the ‘naughty boys’, it smacks of a group of pre pubescent children, rather than mature, highly successful and focussed adults.

I find it somewhat strange that you are not a ‘member’ of this group! From the list published on the Club website there are only 15 Ambassadors:
Roger Owen (yourself), Steve Longbottom, Denis Matthewman, Jean Matthewman, Glen Ackroyd, Keith Petty, Mark Richardson, Norrie Richards, Simon Hartley, Surrinder Madhas, Adrian Lee, Lena Owen, Malcolm Scott, Mike Smith and James Lockwood. As two are female, then I assume that they are not ‘naughty boys’? Take yourself out and the number reduces. Why on earth would you be excluded from this merry little group, or in the alternative chose not to join them?

Frankly I think that the decision to ‘sponsor’ the Guiseley match in James Mason’s name, is either very ill judged or deliberately intended to cause trouble.

Your assertion that City put pressure on Guiseley on the basis of ‘fan unrest’, seems strange (but not implausible in the current circumstances). The alternative proffered by @Jam that Guiseley on reflection decided not to proceed, given the wording he used, seems very credible.

Sure James could be thanked by your group. Hell hire the Burlington at the Devonshire and have a slap up meal, which all these successful managers will be able to fund. Give him a night to remember rather than a pre season knock about!

Frankly if this is what Club Ambassadors think is an intelligent move, then they have lost credibility in my opinion.

 

Thanks. Exactly how I read it. I copied and pasted the list of 15 Ambassadors from the Club website. I was then told by @wetherbywhaler to ‘comeback’ when I have updated it. From what I can see the list I published is actually the one which I lifted from the Club website. Whatever name this group want to be known at is slightly immaterial (although quite ridiculous in my mind).

The important issues were:-
“Frankly I think that the decision to ‘sponsor’ the Guiseley match in James Mason’s name, is either very ill judged or deliberately intended to cause trouble.

Your assertion that City put pressure on Guiseley on the basis of ‘fan unrest’, seems strange (but not implausible in the current circumstances). The alternative proffered by @Jam that Guiseley on reflection decided not to proceed, given the wording he used, seems very credible.

Sure James could be thanked by your group. Hell hire the Burlington at the Devonshire and have a slap up meal, which all these successful managers will be able to fund. Give him a night to remember rather than a pre season knock about!

Frankly if this is what Club Ambassadors think is an intelligent move, then they have lost credibility in my opinion“.

There seems to be an attempt to avoid the issues, which is concerning.

Thanks for your helpful and clear view!

 

That is the source which I used, when I compiled the list in my post.