Season Ticket Prices - The Net Centre Comment

[cheshire_red]

yep, why change an article to reflect the truth, when damn right lies can get your site more hit.

EMBRASSING

Where exactly are the lies in the article, point them out for me, the author has the letter from the club, do you? If so then please explain the lies in the article. Hits? I'm not selling anything, what does it matter what hits the site achieves.

[cheshire_red]

An "official" yet innaccurate letter.

Of course, how silly of me, as long as the club have said it, it must be true.

Ohh so during a day when no doubt the ST have battered the club with complaints and indignation we await official confirmation of that. So how do I or the author know it's inaccurate?

[cheshire_red]

From memory (and I stand to be corrected) the club also mentioned the consultation with the ST in it's web site article.

That mention has now been removed.

If the club issue the ST an apology, will you edit or update the article accordingly rather than considering it ?

It will be too late to edit, I think you'd agree.

I will though of course apologise, if and when that announcement by the club is made.

Additionally throughout this long thread I have yet to see one shred of evidence that the article is wrong.

[bh_red]

perhaps this article should be withdrawn until any facts can be cleared up.

This whole situation an embarrassment, following the links to such information, I'd fully understand and support the removal to any future links to his website from said poster.

Yes, it is in independent website, but so is this forum and fully within it's right to remove information that is derogatory to the Trust that is basically overseeing the running of the website.

Hopefully once the facts have been cleared up, there will be a full retraction and apology from the person managing said website, unfortunately I doubt it

[thatcham red]

Cheshire Red

You're wrong on a number of fronts.

The article on the website that you are responsible for is inaccurate. It states that the unreserved seating in the Ateyo H block is clearly not an idea the club would come up with, but one pushed on them by the Trust. In many ways this is a ringing endorsement that the author believes that the Trust has that much influence with the club. The comment is wrong, factually incorrect.

The article goes on to accuse the Trust of having made a complete hash of it, and coming across as arrogant and out of touch. Trust members spend endless amounts of time in bars on matchdays talking to fans and canvassing opinion. The events run by the Trust over the last year have been well supported, mostly by non members. Our last survey was completed mostly by non members. Over 500 City fans came to the awards evening last week. Everyone there new who I was because I drew the raffle. I don't remember anyone coming up to me and calling me arrogant or out of touch. One of our board members has sat in Ateyo H block for 8 years, having supported the club for 32 years and now doesn't intend to renew his season ticket. We run matchday Q&A forums home and away. We help run a successful internet fans forum, which provides an opportunity for other sites to link their stories to, but then, there's clearly a downside to that. Out of touch?

I have already explained the input the Trust had at short notice regarding season tickets. The author has conveniently ignored the princples expressed to the club in these suggestions including not exploiting fans financially due to promotion, making their club accessible to all, selling less attractive seats at a discount, unreserved seating and a season ticket in the East End. He has chosen to attack the Trust.

Right. I've explained the situation. Not that I know, but if the club were to come out over the next few days and reverse the decision over the unreserved Ateyo seating, that would show real balls and the fact they are listening to fans, which is more than you have done so far today. It will also make your decision to stick with the story even more difficult to understand. I, the Trust or anyone to do with the Trust have no influence over what the club decides, because frankly, it was not our decision.

I've taken up my right of reply now I require you to please take the appropriate action.

[bh_red]

Cheshire Red

You're wrong on a number of fronts.

The article on the website that you are responsible for is inaccurate. It states that the unreserved seating in the Ateyo H block is clearly not an idea the club would come up with, but one pushed on them by the Trust. In many ways this is a ringing endorsement that the author believes that the Trust has that much influence with the club. The comment is wrong, factually incorrect.

The article goes on to accuse the Trust of having made a complete hash of it, and coming across as arrogant and out of touch. Trust members spend endless amounts of time in bars on matchdays talking to fans and canvassing opinion. The events run by the Trust over the last year have been well supported, mostly by non members. Our last survey was completed mostly by non members. Over 500 City fans came to the awards evening last week. Everyone there new who I was because I drew the raffle. I don't remember anyone coming up to me and calling me arrogant or out of touch. One of our board members has sat in Ateyo H block for 8 years, having supported the club for 32 years and now doesn't intend to renew his season ticket. We run matchday Q&A forums home and away. We help run a successful internet fans forum, which provides an opportunity for other sites to link their stories to, but then, there's clearly a downside to that. Out of touch?

I have already explained the input the Trust had at short notice regarding season tickets. The author has conveniently ignored the princples expressed to the club in these suggestions including not exploiting fans financially due to promotion, making their club accessible to all, selling less attractive seats at a discount, unreserved seating and a season ticket in the East End. He has chosen to attack the Trust.

Right. I've explained the situation. Not that I know, but if the club were to come out over the next few days and reverse the decision over the unreserved Ateyo seating, that would show real balls and the fact they are listening to fans, which is more than you have done so far today. It will also make your decision to stick with the story even more difficult to understand. I, the Trust or anyone to do with the Trust have no influence over what the club decides, because frankly, it was not our decision.

I've taken up my right of reply now I require you to please take the appropriate action.

Not been the biggest fan of the trust in the last year or so have have crtisised when I felt the need, but I totally agree 100% without doubt with this posting!

[lukejones2]

Not been the biggest fan of the trust in the last year or so have have crtisised when I felt the need, but I totally agree 100% without doubt with this posting!

Just to add - criticism is fine. Criticism is not a bad thing at all, we don't hide from it and we go out of our way to discuss the criticism supporters have of anything we do. I am sure there are areas from which all parties may take lessons today but the article is inaccurate and that is the problem here.

Please pass to the author that the Trust would be happy to meet with him to officially discuss this matter - perhaps he would like to interview a board member or two? Perhaps you would? Maybe the author would be more comfortable coming out for a beer to chat informally? I'll buy.... that is an offer. The point is that we are not hiding - you all know who we are and we are completely accesible. To express such inaccuracies is unnecessary when these issues could be clarified simply.

[CGS RED]

Ian,

It's a pity that you and Mr James failed to take any notice of Trust Chairman Stuart Rogers' conciliatory comments before publishing your article.

Like the American Fox News network, is it now your editorial policy to villify and then ask questions later?

Surely you mean CNN.

[Olé]

Glad it's not just me.

Come back Rob Fernandez - all is forgiven!

Hi,

Just to back up Cheshire on this one, as he says, he has been running the site now for 3 or 4 years, which whatever you feel about the output is a commendable task. I haven't read the piece in question as I (rightly or wrongly) tend to ignore anything about the trust as I have an inherent suspicion of people on committees, but it's not fair game to be so churlish about Cheshire's efforts because you don't agree with a point of view

I could no longer find the time or effort to produce the site and I was grateful to him for taking it on rather than letting the website die. It was an open offer, and after building a huge site which pre-dated bcfc.co.uk and otib.co.uk, was more popular that both, gave away prize money to fans and paid ALL the hire costs associated with the first fans derby*, it was disappointing that no one else wanted to contribute or help Ian.

However, that's nothing compared to how disappointing now it is to see people rubbish Ian's efforts. If people value the site enough to think it worth passing comment on his output (which from what I see remains broadly commendable) then why does no one actually put their views to more constructive use and actually help produce alternative content which is to your liking, to help maintain the site in a way you'd want?

Running such a site was and is a huge task yet it was as relevant then as it is now to have an independent platform and forum. This is the basis, I assume, for the Trust. I don't want to second-guess the background to Ian's position, but someone mentioned personal agendas and here is one - the Net Centre has been going since 1998, in that time various other platforms have come and gone, sabre-rattling along the way.

I know if I was still running the site I would be more than a little suspicious and cynical, and rightly so. The aims of all different groups are to be commended, particularly the Trust based on recent initiatives, but without speaking for Ian, as time goes by I imagine it gets a little tiresome seeing independent platforms spring up and position themselves square alongside the club and profess their importance, this is the third now.

Rob (F)

p.s. what am I forgiven for? :tongue: The only thing I regret was joining Rivals, in its wholly independent pre-Rivals form the Net Centre was better designed and better used than most of what has followed from the official site. I met with the club back then because they wanted the official site to be as good, so hopefully the Net Centre pre-empted what has followed. Only Ian and Sipowicz have carried on that challenge.

*Facilities now laid on free of charge by the respective clubs - origination kindly acknowledged on the fans derby website but support long since forgotten, I assume, from the attitude displayed on here nowadays to the site and Cheshire & co's aims...

[thatcham red]

Hi,

Just to back up Cheshire on this one, as he says, he has been running the site now for 3 or 4 years, which whatever you feel about the output is a commendable task. I haven't read the piece in question as I (rightly or wrongly) tend to ignore anything about the trust as I have an inherent suspicion of people on committees, but it's not fair game to be so churlish about Cheshire's efforts because you don't agree with a point of view

I could no longer find the time or effort to produce the site and I was grateful to him for taking it on rather than letting the website die. It was an open offer, and after building a huge site which pre-dated bcfc.co.uk and otib.co.uk, was more popular that both, gave away prize money to fans and paid ALL the hire costs associated with the first fans derby*, it was disappointing that no one else wanted to contribute or help Ian.

However, that's nothing compared to how disappointing now it is to see people rubbish Ian's efforts. If people value the site enough to think it worth passing comment on his output (which from what I see remains broadly commendable) then why does no one actually put their views to more constructive use and actually help produce alternative content which is to your liking, to help maintain the site in a way you'd want?

Running such a site was and is a huge task yet it was as relevant then as it is now to have an independent platform and forum. This is the basis, I assume, for the Trust. I don't want to second-guess the background to Ian's position, but someone mentioned personal agendas and here is one - the Net Centre has been going since 1998, in that time various other platforms have come and gone, sabre-rattling along the way.

I know if I was still running the site I would be more than a little suspicious and cynical, and rightly so. The aims of all different groups are to be commended, particularly the Trust based on recent initiatives, but without speaking for Ian, as time goes by I imagine it gets a little tiresome seeing independent platforms spring up and position themselves square alongside the club and profess their importance, this is the third now.

Rob (F)

p.s. what am I forgiven for? :tongue: The only thing I regret was joining Rivals, in its wholly independent pre-Rivals form the Net Centre was better designed and better used than most of what has followed from the official site. I met with the club back then because they wanted the official site to be as good, so hopefully the Net Centre pre-empted what has followed. Only Ian and Sipowicz have carried on that challenge.

*Facilities now laid on free of charge by the respective clubs - origination kindly acknowledged on the fans derby website but support long since forgotten, I assume, from the attitude displayed on here nowadays to the site and Cheshire & co's aims...

Yes and that's absolutely fine. Nobody more than a Trust activist or forum moderator will understand better about the amount of time and effort that goes into running websites and events on a voluntary basis. It is commendable. In fact Rob, when you were running the site, I staunchly defended the running of it when the club attcked sites seeking to live off the BCFC brand. (Chesh Red can check back on that one!).

This is a different issue. The facts in an article are wrong. Disappointingly, the editor of the site chooses to stand by his author despite being subsequently corrected by fellow City fans. So, this is a different issue.

On being suspicious about committees, and therefore the Trust, I'd be happy to meet with you. Many Trust activists have done this over the course of the year and met with people individually. In so doing, we can talk about the issues and be totally transparent.

[jimtastic]

Hi,

Just to back up Cheshire on this one, as he says, he has been running the site now for 3 or 4 years, which whatever you feel about the output is a commendable task. I haven't read the piece in question as I (rightly or wrongly) tend to ignore anything about the trust as I have an inherent suspicion of people on committees, but it's not fair game to be so churlish about Cheshire's efforts because you don't agree with a point of view

I could no longer find the time or effort to produce the site and I was grateful to him for taking it on rather than letting the website die. It was an open offer, and after building a huge site which pre-dated bcfc.co.uk and otib.co.uk, was more popular that both, gave away prize money to fans and paid ALL the hire costs associated with the first fans derby*, it was disappointing that no one else wanted to contribute or help Ian.

However, that's nothing compared to how disappointing now it is to see people rubbish Ian's efforts. If people value the site enough to think it worth passing comment on his output (which from what I see remains broadly commendable) then why does no one actually put their views to more constructive use and actually help produce alternative content which is to your liking, to help maintain the site in a way you'd want?

Running such a site was and is a huge task yet it was as relevant then as it is now to have an independent platform and forum. This is the basis, I assume, for the Trust. I don't want to second-guess the background to Ian's position, but someone mentioned personal agendas and here is one - the Net Centre has been going since 1998, in that time various other platforms have come and gone, sabre-rattling along the way.

I know if I was still running the site I would be more than a little suspicious and cynical, and rightly so. The aims of all different groups are to be commended, particularly the Trust based on recent initiatives, but without speaking for Ian, as time goes by I imagine it gets a little tiresome seeing independent platforms spring up and position themselves square alongside the club and profess their importance, this is the third now.

Rob (F)

p.s. what am I forgiven for? :tongue: The only thing I regret was joining Rivals, in its wholly independent pre-Rivals form the Net Centre was better designed and better used than most of what has followed from the official site. I met with the club back then because they wanted the official site to be as good, so hopefully the Net Centre pre-empted what has followed. Only Ian and Sipowicz have carried on that challenge.

*Facilities now laid on free of charge by the respective clubs - origination kindly acknowledged on the fans derby website but support long since forgotten, I assume, from the attitude displayed on here nowadays to the site and Cheshire & co's aims...

The "forgiven" thing was just a turn of phrase (and it's good to hear from you again!)

My point was about the editorial direction of the Net Centre and my opinion that Ian is making a bad call on this. But please don't lump all of Ian's excellent contributions to the City "community" into this - this isn't a personal attack (and apologies to Ian if he's taken it that way).

I've overseen a number of big web sites in the past and when publishing controvertial articles would fully *hope* to provoke a response, good or bad. It's not criticising Ian's admirable dedication to the site and it could be argued that in prompting so much response, this article has done its job editorially (I refer back to the aforementioned Kelvin Mackenzie column)! It's just not my personal cup of tea and it would appear that other agree.

[Antman]

I've come to this party late, but it reminds me of that sketch from 'Life of Brian'

'peoples popular front of judea????!!!! efffing splitters! no mate, we're the popular peoples front of Judea..' etc.

I can see how the ST is up in arms at questions being raised about it's role in the clubs (stupid, IMO) choice to change the status of certain parts of the ground.

However, perhaps the best thing would be for the Trust to write an article refuting what was posted (as an authors opinion) and allow the Net Centre to post it.

The forums are just that - forums. for opinion and thoughts and individual interpretation of supporters views, sometimes we can't agree and so long as sensible ,educated debate takes place, then fine in my book.

As for accusations of slander and libel. the answer is perfectly clear - take counsel & take action. if not, too bad.

and I was under the impression everyone was happy we got promoted.

[greenun]

Hi,

Just to back up Cheshire on this one, as he says, he has been running the site now for 3 or 4 years, which whatever you feel about the output is a commendable task. I haven't read the piece in question as I (rightly or wrongly) tend to ignore anything about the trust as I have an inherent suspicion of people on committees, but it's not fair game to be so churlish about Cheshire's efforts because you don't agree with a point of view

I could no longer find the time or effort to produce the site and I was grateful to him for taking it on rather than letting the website die. It was an open offer, and after building a huge site which pre-dated bcfc.co.uk and otib.co.uk, was more popular that both, gave away prize money to fans and paid ALL the hire costs associated with the first fans derby*, it was disappointing that no one else wanted to contribute or help Ian.

However, that's nothing compared to how disappointing now it is to see people rubbish Ian's efforts. If people value the site enough to think it worth passing comment on his output (which from what I see remains broadly commendable) then why does no one actually put their views to more constructive use and actually help produce alternative content which is to your liking, to help maintain the site in a way you'd want?

Running such a site was and is a huge task yet it was as relevant then as it is now to have an independent platform and forum. This is the basis, I assume, for the Trust. I don't want to second-guess the background to Ian's position, but someone mentioned personal agendas and here is one - the Net Centre has been going since 1998, in that time various other platforms have come and gone, sabre-rattling along the way.

I know if I was still running the site I would be more than a little suspicious and cynical, and rightly so. The aims of all different groups are to be commended, particularly the Trust based on recent initiatives, but without speaking for Ian, as time goes by I imagine it gets a little tiresome seeing independent platforms spring up and position themselves square alongside the club and profess their importance, this is the third now.

Rob (F)

p.s. what am I forgiven for? :tongue: The only thing I regret was joining Rivals, in its wholly independent pre-Rivals form the Net Centre was better designed and better used than most of what has followed from the official site. I met with the club back then because they wanted the official site to be as good, so hopefully the Net Centre pre-empted what has followed. Only Ian and Sipowicz have carried on that challenge.

*Facilities now laid on free of charge by the respective clubs - origination kindly acknowledged on the fans derby website but support long since forgotten, I assume, from the attitude displayed on here nowadays to the site and Cheshire & co's aims...

I was a regular writer for the Net Centre from 2004 to 2005 and appreciate the hard work that Ian has put into the site, in what is often a thankless task. As you mentioned Rob, once the official site got it's act together it was impossible to try and keep up. Something Ian reminded me three years ago when I suggested that we try and output an article per day.

Under Ian's guidance the Net Centre has provided a strong independent voice for City fans. None more so than back in the dark days of October 2004, when it highlighted the terrible plight of our supporters at Walsall, their court case and subsequent exoneration. At that time there was no other media which could wholly represent fans, and the Net Centre's coverage was vital.

I appreciate that Ian is guarded about the Trust, but in doing so he shouldn't seek to polarise another independent organisation, populated by selfless, hardworking people, when we should all be striving to promote and protect the interests of City fans.

[greenun]

Hi,

Just to back up Cheshire on this one, as he says, he has been running the site now for 3 or 4 years, which whatever you feel about the output is a commendable task. I haven't read the piece in question as I (rightly or wrongly) tend to ignore anything about the trust as I have an inherent suspicion of people on committees, but it's not fair game to be so churlish about Cheshire's efforts because you don't agree with a point of view

I could no longer find the time or effort to produce the site and I was grateful to him for taking it on rather than letting the website die. It was an open offer, and after building a huge site which pre-dated bcfc.co.uk and otib.co.uk, was more popular that both, gave away prize money to fans and paid ALL the hire costs associated with the first fans derby*, it was disappointing that no one else wanted to contribute or help Ian.

However, that's nothing compared to how disappointing now it is to see people rubbish Ian's efforts. If people value the site enough to think it worth passing comment on his output (which from what I see remains broadly commendable) then why does no one actually put their views to more constructive use and actually help produce alternative content which is to your liking, to help maintain the site in a way you'd want?

Running such a site was and is a huge task yet it was as relevant then as it is now to have an independent platform and forum. This is the basis, I assume, for the Trust. I don't want to second-guess the background to Ian's position, but someone mentioned personal agendas and here is one - the Net Centre has been going since 1998, in that time various other platforms have come and gone, sabre-rattling along the way.

I know if I was still running the site I would be more than a little suspicious and cynical, and rightly so. The aims of all different groups are to be commended, particularly the Trust based on recent initiatives, but without speaking for Ian, as time goes by I imagine it gets a little tiresome seeing independent platforms spring up and position themselves square alongside the club and profess their importance, this is the third now.

Rob (F)

p.s. what am I forgiven for? :tongue: The only thing I regret was joining Rivals, in its wholly independent pre-Rivals form the Net Centre was better designed and better used than most of what has followed from the official site. I met with the club back then because they wanted the official site to be as good, so hopefully the Net Centre pre-empted what has followed. Only Ian and Sipowicz have carried on that challenge.

*Facilities now laid on free of charge by the respective clubs - origination kindly acknowledged on the fans derby website but support long since forgotten, I assume, from the attitude displayed on here nowadays to the site and Cheshire & co's aims...

I was a regular writer for the Net Centre from 2004 to 2005 and appreciate the hard work that Ian has put into the site, in what is often a thankless task. As you mentioned Rob, once the official site got it's act together it was impossible to try and keep up. Something Ian reminded me three years ago when I suggested that we try and output an article per day.

Under Ian's guidance the Net Centre has provided a strong independent voice for City fans. None more so than back in the dark days of October 2004, when it highlighted the terrible plight of our supporters at Walsall, their court case and subsequent exoneration. At that time there was no other media which could wholly represent fans, and the Net Centre's coverage was vital.

I appreciate that Ian is guarded about the Trust, but in doing so he shouldn't seek to polarise another independent organisation, populated by selfless, hardworking people, when we should all be striving to promote and protect the interests of City fans.

[Avonmouth Docker]

Fair and balanced?

Is that like using a survey of 96 ST Members to assess and truly guage the wishes of BCFC supporters?

The thing with a club like City is that there are a great number of voices to be heard who don't use the Internet!.

Look at the last game of the season..........

Must of been at least 3,000+ fans who haven't been down the Gate for "Donkey's years!".

Even stood up in the East End, you could hear so called supporter's saying; "They still sing the old songs then!", as fans started singing, "My 'ole man...........".

But those who choose to air their opinion on the Internet, have a choice of 3, 4 or 5 sites where active comment can be made.

This site didn't get the nickname of the "Borum" for nothing, and a lot of comment over the years has been suppressed by over moderation, so supporters will voice opinion somewhere else.

After all, it's a free country!!.

With regard to the Supporter's Trust, their role is always going to be open to misinterpretation, because of the way it's run.

To a lot of fans, they perceive the Supporter's Trust to have a role like the Notts County version, where it was set up initially to make sure the Club didn't go under, and where supporter's can buy into the club and they have a hands on role in the day to day running of the club.

The Bristol City version has a long way to go yet to be like that model, mostly because it's run on a voluntary basis with regard to the committee.

So with regard to the role of the supporter's trust, they need not only to voice opinion and concern of their members, but to listen too to those who aren't members, to keep an unbiased opinion.

People may not join the supporter's trust for several reasons, and the trust has to work harder to win these people over

Whether you agree with opinion or not, you need 2 sides to make for a healthy debate, and it's up to the individual to make up their own minds.

We don't always have to agree with the opinion or whats being said, and there will always be fans who are suspicious of the supporter's trust, or even the intentions of the Board.

Being an exile, it's always a pain to get to Home games, as every game is an away game for me,

and unlike the supporters trust members, who i have never met, i have met Ian.

And i know that he is 100% City.

He wants to see success, wants to see the Club thrive, and wants the best for the Club.

And with regard to the Rivals site,

When popular debate is stifled on here, for what ever reason, there is a welcome alternative to this site.

And one more point............

Not so long ago, there was a clamp down on personal attacks on individuals, yet this thread seems to be going down these lines...........

So as we have a long, long Summer ahead of us, why doesn't the supporter's trust have/plan a Barbecue, where all fans are welcome to have an open and healthy debate, clear the air, erase all suspicions, gain a few more members and gain a stronger voice on the Board.

[Milo]

The thing with a club like City is that there are a great number of voices to be heard who don't use the Internet!.

Look at the last game of the season..........

Must of been at least 3,000+ fans who haven't been down the Gate for "Donkey's years!".

Even stood up in the East End, you could hear so called supporter's saying; "They still sing the old songs then!", as fans started singing, "My 'ole man...........".

But those who choose to air their opinion on the Internet, have a choice of 3, 4 or 5 sites where active comment can be made.

This site didn't get the nickname of the "Borum" for nothing, and a lot of comment over the years has been suppressed by over moderation, so supporters will voice opinion somewhere else.

After all, it's a free country!!.

With regard to the Supporter's Trust, their role is always going to be open to misinterpretation, because of the way it's run.

To a lot of fans, they perceive the Supporter's Trust to have a role like the Notts County version, where it was set up initially to make sure the Club didn't go under, and where supporter's can buy into the club and they have a hands on role in the day to day running of the club.

The Bristol City version has a long way to go yet to be like that model, mostly because it's run on a voluntary basis with regard to the committee.

So with regard to the role of the supporter's trust, they need not only to voice opinion and concern of their members, but to listen too to those who aren't members, to keep an unbiased opinion.

People may not join the supporter's trust for several reasons, and the trust has to work harder to win these people over

Whether you agree with opinion or not, you need 2 sides to make for a healthy debate, and it's up to the individual to make up their own minds.

We don't always have to agree with the opinion or whats being said, and there will always be fans who are suspicious of the supporter's trust, or even the intentions of the Board.

Being an exile, it's always a pain to get to Home games, as every game is an away game for me,

and unlike the supporters trust members, who i have never met, i have met Ian.

And i know that he is 100% City.

He wants to see success, wants to see the Club thrive, and wants the best for the Club.

And with regard to the Rivals site,

When popular debate is stifled on here, for what ever reason, there is a welcome alternative to this site.

And one more point............

Not so long ago, there was a clamp down on personal attacks on individuals, yet this thread seems to be going down these lines...........

So as we have a long, long Summer ahead of us, why doesn't the supporter's trust have/plan a Barbecue, where all fans are welcome to have an open and healthy debate, clear the air, erase all suspicions, gain a few more members and gain a stronger voice on the Board.

I think Trust members are always happy to debate. In fairness, as part of the debate we have explained why the 'author' is wrong in his assumption. Trust board members who know the facts have stated them in writing on this forum over the past 24 hours and have corrected the false assumption of the author. It is my opinion that the author set out to make a harmful accusation with a wilful view to discredit the Trust. Ian as editor of the site has a duty of care for both himself and the rivals site to be sure that the content of his website is fair.

I remember speaking with Ian when the Trust was considering the Club's suggestion to take over the funding of OTIB and the issue of hosting litigious content was discussed. I'm pretty sure it was Ian who mentioned about another Rivals site being sued for failing to remove libellous content from the site when asked. I could be wrong but I think Ian is taking advantage of the fact the Trust has little to gain from suing an independent fans website - and frankly he'd be right. But because he can get away with it makes it all the more important that he should ensure editorial balance on this issue and hopefully it explains why a few people who have spent a massive amount of time trying to improve the experience of being a City fan through the Trust are asking him to be fair and either amend or withdraw his article.

Earlier in this thread Ian states "Aditionally where exactly have I denied the right of reply or said I wouldn't publish same?" and yet he has, at the time of writing, refused to add my comment provided to him for this purpose late yesterday afternoon to the foot of his article.

And of course you're right, there are other sites other than OTIB. While we have had the right to reply on this forum not everyone who has read his article has read our comments here leaving the reader continuing to be left wondering whether the author might be right.

[Nibor]

Whether the article is wrong or right if I hear one more mention of libel or litigation my respect for the trust will evaporate.

It's a pathetic aspect of modern culture and the real culprit here is the tool at the club that sent out the letter. Save your anger for them.

Cheshire_red has said he will give right of reply, it will be a separate article not a modification to that one, bear in mind that he runs that site in his spare time and give him a chance to do it.

[cheshire_red]

I haven't had anything from you Milo, neither by PM through this site or through my email address.

Additionally I have made my position clear, once the club make it clear that the Trust were in no way involved with the decision then the article remains as published. As yet I have not seen that from the club. Should it not be the club that you should be directing your anger at rather than an independent site which reacts to an official statement by the football club?

If you'd care to resend the piece you mention then it will be placed appropriatly unedited and in its entirity.

Best email address today (I'm not in my office) is bristol_ian@hotmail.com

[reddoc]

So when the Club and ST get together does neither side take minutes? Produce them and this issue is resolved.

[Olé]

This is a different issue. The facts in an article are wrong. Disappointingly, the editor of the site chooses to stand by his author despite being subsequently corrected by fellow City fans. So, this is a different issue.

Of course - as I said, and it wasn't just a convenient sidestep, I really haven't had a chance to read the comment piece in question, let alone know how the Trust had acted in relation to this particular issue, so I wouldn't have a hope in hell of telling right from wrong or whether the piece is justified.

What I do know is that I would support the right of someone to have an opinion and express it through commentary on an independent website. The problem as I see it is not so much that this piece peddled a conflicting or incorrect view but that because so few other views are published, it carries greater weight or is considered somehow true.

This is why I was talking in terms of people actually getting involved and contributing or having pieces published. If Ian is able to publish 6 or 7 pieces a week (just as the original OTIB fanzine can each issue) then suddenly the commentary you're concerned about becomes what it should be, simply one of many points of view.

If people don't want their right of say, then the individual comment pieces published on the Net Centre, as they were when I did it, are incorrectly treated as gospel. This is why I'm sticking up for Ian, I can see the challenge, I was never deliberately sensationalist, all my views were really my own, but I did also want to engage opinion.

Or to put it another way, something I really enjoy about NOT doing the site is being able to come on here and have forthright opinions. When I did the site and published certain views as comment, I would see "Rob F has said this" on here and other remarks which suggested people assumed because it was me and on the Net Centre, my views had some validity.

That rather undermined my whole intention which was for an independent site publishing independent views of the club and the news from an independent standpoint. An independent view is just that and if you have a variety to read, they all become worthy contributions to say nothing of their validity or accuracy. But if it was only my pieces, they were treated as news.

This, it seems to me, is the challenge Ian has with this piece. If he doesn't want to remove it, so be it, in my view the correct thing to do anyway would be to publish a rebuttal from you, or some conflicting point of views. That's the whole point of an independent site, and more so now that its being the main source of news is no longer the reason the site exists.

As far as my remark about not trusting committees and so not following the Trust closely, that was semi-flippant, I've seen lots of things you've done and will probably join before next season if only to support those positive efforts*. But it is easy to be suspicious about working groups simply because of the ability to speak for a wider group, sometimes without basis.

This, of course, ties in directly with the point I'm making above about Ian's piece. Having an independent platform is exactly that, independent and not representative. That is how I'd hope my views and Ian's views would be treated, and in turn, is what others occupying an independent platform, even for good, should acknowledge is the extent of their representation.

Rob

*I'm already indebted to Mark, who I think is involved in the trust, who probably before the Trust was formally recognised and established, had already established a regular representation to the club about anti-racism, following remarks I had made about racism experienced at an away match and a home match a couple of seasons ago.

[Milo]

I haven't had anything from you Milo, neither by PM through this site or through my email address.

Additionally I have made my position clear, once the club make it clear that the Trust were in no way involved with the decision then the article remains as published. As yet I have not seen that from the club. Should it not be the club that you should be directing your anger at rather than an independent site which reacts to an official statement by the football club?

If you'd care to resend the piece you mention then it will be placed appropriatly unedited and in its entirity.

Best email address today (I'm not in my office) is bristol_ian@hotmail.com

Hi Ian, email sent. The original request was in my post on the first page of this thread.

[Milo]

Whether the article is wrong or right if I hear one more mention of libel or litigation my respect for the trust will evaporate.

It's a pathetic aspect of modern culture and the real culprit here is the tool at the club that sent out the letter. Save your anger for them.

Cheshire_red has said he will give right of reply, it will be a separate article not a modification to that one, bear in mind that he runs that site in his spare time and give him a chance to do it.

Nibor, if you're referring to my comments then I think you've missed my drift. There has been no threat of litigation from me - in fact quite the opposite by stating that litigation wasn't going to happen. The point I was hoping to make is that stating misleading information with intention to harm is something that society (reflected by its laws) agrees is not acceptable. It was the fact that against that backdrop we weren't getting a right of reply that had got my hackles up.

The good news is that from Ian's response above it seems this is a misunderstanding and I'd like to thank him for agreeing to put my comment up.

[Nibor]

Nibor, if you're referring to my comments then I think you've missed my drift. There has been no threat of litigation from me - in fact quite the opposite by stating that litigation wasn't going to happen. The point I was hoping to make is that stating misleading information with intention to harm is something that society (reflected by its laws) agrees is not acceptable. It was the fact that against that backdrop we weren't getting a right of reply that had got my hackles up.

The good news is that from Ian's response above it seems this is a misunderstanding and I'd like to thank him for agreeing to put my comment up.

Milo the legal bullshit has been mentioned more than once in this thread and doing so is entirely unnecessary and always amounts to a thinly veiled threat no matter what's said. The subject shouldn't even enter anyone's head in a situation like this.

What the Trust should be doing, instead of having a row over an article, is taking a verbal baseball bat to the moron at the club that lied in the letter and then getting on with the more important business of explaining to Sextone just how to undo both of his latest PR faux pas. The former will not have any positive impact on how the Trust is perceived by fans. The latter will.

[cheshire_red]

The fact of the matter though is that suggesting it is a lie that the 'moron' at the club made is one sided. The silence at the club may not be due to guilt but rather to dignity. Most will be aware of my utter astonishment at some of the PR gaffs made by BCFC it is such a pity that the Trust may be learning from the master of them.

[Milo]

What the Trust should be doing, instead of having a row over an article, is taking a verbal baseball bat to the moron at the club that lied in the letter and then getting on with the more important business of explaining to Sextone just how to undo both of his latest PR faux pas. The former will not have any positive impact on how the Trust is perceived by fans. The latter will.

Issues are being addressed.

[Steve Watts]

Issues are being addressed.

Milo... If appropriate, would you be willing to give an occasional update/indication as to the progress of the addressing of issues(!). It may put other people's minds at ease if they are given an indication as to whether or not the Trust is being listened to and if there is any prospect of an explanation or reversal by the club in this situation.

Thanks in advance, and I appreciate if you deem it inappropriate.

[Nibor]

Issues are being addressed.

Thanks for your and the Trust's work on this.

[Milo]

It may put other people's minds at ease if they are given an indication as to whether or not the Trust is being listened to and if there is any prospect of an explanation or reversal by the club in this situation.

I think it's fair to say that the level of dissatisfaction has been heard. As you suggest it's not appropriate for us to comment further. I understand that an update on the unreserved seat situation will come from the Club hopefully tomorrow. Stay positive.

[Steve Watts]

I think it's fair to say that the level of dissatisfaction has been heard. As you suggest it's not appropriate for us to comment further. I understand that an update on the unreserved seat situation will come from the Club hopefully tomorrow. Stay positive.

Thanks Milo. Much appreciated.