Learning from mistakes?

Because unlike the vast majority of the fans, he isn't just a supporter, he has a role at the club of a 'Club Ambassador', i.e somebody who represents or promotes the club's best interests. If doing this is in conflict with his opinions on how the club is currently being managed and directed then he has one of three options; (1) step down from the role and stop representing the club or (2) bite his tongue and stop dissing the club from outside or (3) confront Rahic and challenge him to do things differently and better. And that goes for any of the other Ambassadors and especially those who fed Bronco with the words which started this thread.

I've said it on many other threads, I'm not a fan of the way this club is currently being led and Rahic has imo made many mistakes and despite what he has said, doesn't appear to be learning from his mistakes. But to continue to be referred to as a Club Ambassador for those who choose to pay for that privilege suggests something very different. They feel the need to be closely associated with the club for whatever reason and have the kudos which accompanies that. But in doing so, the Club Ambassadors are therefore associated with and complicit in the way it is being directed. The Club Ambassadors can't have it both ways.

And whilst I am at it @wetherbywhaler , since you say it wasn't you who supplied Bronco with his inflammatory statement, which of the other Club Ambassadors should be held responsible for this recent example of shit stirring?

 

Roger,

In many ways the list of Ambassadors or indeed the actual members of this clandestine group, known as the 'Naughty boys' is actually a peripheral matter. I aver to your knowledge, about the actual list of Ambassadors and if you are happy to update us all, like information on the pitch etc, then I am sure that many on here will welcome a current list. In respect of the composition of the group known to you as the 'Naughty boys', then I and others would be interested, but I guess that this is not central to the issue.

Earlier in this thread I raised a number of issues which I felt were relevant. I had anticipated that you may respond to some of the matters contained within the post. For some reason, although you have posted subsequently, you have not given any view, in respect of my earlier posts. To help, these are set out in double inverted comas below.

To assist these are the most germane to the subject:

"Trying to stand back and be objective, then I have a few observations.

• I think it is an excellent idea to recognise an employee on their leaving a position.
• To do this by 'sponsoring' a football game seems creative and somewhat bizarre. Perhaps they could have had a banquet meal at somewhere like the Box Tree.
• A more tangible recognition would be to use their collective strength to help the individual in their career path.
• Choosing the name 'The James Mason Appreciation Society' seems mischievous at best. Perhaps members of this august society can provide details of its aims, membership fees, and constitution?
• Little thought about the potential impact upon Guiseley FC seems to have been exercised in this matter. I note the comment, 'As to a name causing a reaction, as you put it, I would say what's in a name'.#239 wetherbywhaler, Yesterday at 9:15 AM I would suggest quite a lot is in using a name, otherwise why use it?
• If @wetherbywhaler and perhaps friends/associates have issues, then perhaps they can clarify just what they are.
• It has been suggested that Guiseley decided not to accept the sponsorship, which seems sensible, when they thought through implications.
• If City had objected, '...on the grounds that it may cause 'fan unrest', then that seems wholly dramatic and unnecessary. Just to let Guiseley know that they felt it was not appropriate, would in my mind have been sufficient, as I am sure Guiseley would wish to foster positive links with City.
• If the 'James Mason Appreciation Society', have serious issues with how the club is being run, then I think it would be more honest and constructive, if they came out directly and said it. Deliberately providing material which they must have known would cause controversy, when placed in the public domain through Bantam Talk, seems an 'interesting' way of doing business.
• There was talk of a 'Consortium' seeking to buy the club. They were not in a position to do so when the club was up for sale. Then the apparent failed take over by the Paladini group, did not lead to a public bid by a 'Consortium' to buy the club.
• Lets be clear, no Bradford or indeed West Yorkshire individual/group/business has sought to buy Bradford City since the Tordoff involvement over three decades ago.

At this stage of the year, we really need to be focusing on the new season. All this has done is create further tensions and potential disharmony. There is an old saying in Yorkshire, "you either put up or shut up". I think it is useful advice to all the parties involved in the matter".

This was #497.

I further revisited some of the points in a later post. For the avoidance of doubt, the comments were:-

"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".

For some reason, you feel it is incumbent on me to know the names of the current Ambassadors, you have pointed out that the list that I produced, was not current. Again I do not want to get 'stuck' on the membership of the Ambassadors group, but feel that many of the issues, are valid.

Having considered the evidence available in this thread, then on balance, I feel that the explanation offered by @Jam is far more credible. This is an opportunity for you to correct the situation.

I genuinely look forward to your considered response.