I think ultimately this is true (that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't), but it's somewhat ironic. Here's why. In a number of posts recently, those who disagree with the board over our transfer policy have been criticised (often unfairly) as being a reflection of a modern age where we want everything immediately and are not prepared to wait for things to happen. It's true; in so far as a lack of patience is certainly a hallmark of the world we now live in. But it's not without irony that the same people who are lauding the board for their presumed patience and financial restraint are the same people who also applaud their engagement with supporters, which in reality is only likely to encourage false expectations, increase frustration, and encourage second-guessing.

This is not to criticise supporters or the board in any personal way. It is simply to raise the subject for discussion. My only conclusion is that for a long time (in history), the board of a football club would not have felt the need to directly update supporters on future policy (indeed, even as recently as a decade ago this was true) and I don't think it is at all clear that having a board who communicate with us through an Internet fan site and seem determined to talk in fairly granular detail on confidential subjects is a good thing.

Again, that is not to openly criticise CPFC2010...it it merely to say that I do not think it is absolutely clear that their communications strategy is sensible or desirable. And as Parish is a "media expert", I think it's quite appropriate to question him about this. I don't (personally) think it follows at all that "all noise is good noise" when it come to speaking out or that the board discussing future transfer possibilities with fans is a desirable state of affairs.

I think we need to move beyond the notion that the board are good because of the way they communicate with supporters. There isn't any evidence that at least some areas of their conversation are helping anyone and it's far from certain that discussion before the fact is preferable to a lucid and full explanation after the fact. Either way, I think this is a central point that merits discussion. I also think some fans are very lightweight and not intellectually very rigorous in their analysis; they are so flattered and impressed that the board is even speaking to them that their palpable delight blinds them to asking questions that still need to be asked.

Edited by sydtheeagle (23 Jan 2014 12.53pm)

So we can deduce from that they think Cameron Jerome is the equal of Long or Jelavic. I see. Honestly, no. If that is what they think then my comment about the board needing to stay out of football matters is bang on. And no, I'm not happy with an attitude that will get us relegated.

Well, I did agree they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. But I think one way the world has changed is that the default option used to be silence, and you spoke when you had something to say. Now, the default option is start talking and grab the limelight, never mind if you have something to say or not. In my view, this is NOT a good thing.

A good barometer of this (as any journalist will confirm) is the PR industry. When I was first writing in the early 80s, Press Releases in general arrived when something had taken place or happened. Sure, the copy was exaggerated, but it was still demonstrably related to a "thing" of some sort. Nowadays, the media is deluged with PRs that aren't news at all...just noise, rubbish, the senders talking up themselves.

To me, if I own a football team in the transfer window I speak only about transfers I have concluded, when the deal is done. What possible benefit could there be in discussing something which hasn't happened, might well not ever happen, and which by putting in the public domain might even negatively impact my negotiating position? Do you really think our owners feel so beholden to or respectful of our supporters that they're keeping us in the loop out of the goodness of their hearts? If you do, good luck with that because they're just sating their egos as football club owners by playing to their audience. Personally, I can't see the wisdom in their communications strategy.

Edited by sydtheeagle (23 Jan 2014 1.09pm)

You could have stopped at the first sentence. It's pretty clear from reading football sites in general that the sense of entitlement within supporters is seemingly growing exponentially.

One of the most revealing areas is the "Questions to CPFC2010" forum on the BBS which has become a forum to bitch about every little fault with each individual's own utopian view of how their matchday should go.

So in one sense, part of me thinks it would be better just to do what they feel is best and limit interaction to simply reading opinion and acting if they feel necessary.

On the flipside, I'm much more inclined to think a significant percentage of our supporters need to shut the f*** up, grow up and stop acting like spoilt brats.

Just an opinion though.

Edited by Hambo (23 Jan 2014 1.21pm)

I believe the total 'value' of the Dann deal was, with transfer and wages in the region of £15m...if anyone can hand on heart say that Scott Dann, a half decent CB is worth £15m of our money then you must be insane

We do need to punt here I agree, but not on half decent centre backs - a centre forward who might be able to hit 8-10 goals before the end of the season, as I think its pretty apparanet to even undiscovered Amazonian tribes where our priority and best chance of surviving lays, possibly