Leopards don't change their spots

[BFR]

[color:"purple"]PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A PERSONAL OPINION OF THE AUTHOR AND DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VIEW OF THE SUPPORTERS TRUST, NOR OTHER SUPPORTERS [/color]

 

 

 

Thank you Gary Chappell, for reverting to your usual approach to journalism and dumping the club, or in this case the Trust in the $hit. Last week you probably wrote your best articles about Slough Town over the breakdown between Martyn Deaner and Slough Borough Cuncil in light of the comments from Councillor Stokes. But then in today's publication you have undone the good publicity of before.

 

Why in God's name have you written the subheadline 'Refusal of Cllr Stokes' offer'? The Trust have not yet met with Councillor Stokes nor had any offers made to us by the Council regarding the future of Slough Town Football Club. You appear to have asked Chris Sliski what his thoughts would be about Slough Town merging with another club, and he answered with a solid no, like any supporter of this great club would. But to dress this up as a refusal of an offer from the council is the sort of tabloid trite that I have come to associate with you, providing misinformation to anybody who reads it.

 

Now it will appear to those who are anti-stadium and anti-football club that the Trust are refusing to discuss the offers of the council, whereas in fact we have yet to meet the Council and NO offers have been made to us.

 

Thanks a bunch Gary, thanks for nothing.

[Guest]

BFR,

 

Thank you for your comments.

 

Cllr Richard Stokes was interviewed by the Observer this week. He said he would be offering the club some options in his meeting on Monday. One of these options he suggested was an amalgamation.

 

I rang Chris Sliski and he raised this point with me. He was astonished that Cllr Stokes was even thinking such a thing. As you quite rightly say ‘he answered with a solid no like any supporter of this great club would’.

 

So here we have a scenario. The club will be offered some options, one of which the Trust will refuse on Monday. This is what I have reported. I could have waited until next week and said that the Trust met with Cllr Stokes on Monday and refused, rightly, one of his three options. Either way, I feel the result would be the same.

 

Feel free to write to me if you stand by your comments and want them published.

 

Gary Chappell

Sports editor, Slough & Windsor Observer

 

[Guest]

I hope I was not out of order...but when ever I have spoken with our fellow supporters, they have always told me that this was not an option...

 

speaking personally.... I would not like to see Slough Amalgamated with another team !

 

Yes Monday seam to be the set day when we get told something good or bad until then ....

 

 

We must ensure we have those supporters here at the town hall 6pm..... Tuesday 20th July 2004...

 

we need hundreds not a few !!!!!

 

cheers chris <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

 

 

[BFR]

Gary,

 

I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my comment, but my point stands. Richard Stokes has NOT met with the Board of the Supporters Trust and has NOT offered any options. The Board will meet with Cllr Stokes and whoever else attends with him on Monday and at this meeting there MAY be some offers on the table to the Trust. Your report therefore is misleading in saying that the Trust has refused the suggestion of Cllr Stokes, when no such suggestion has been made.

 

The football club needs to win a lot of people over if it is to exist post Martyn Deaner. The sub-headline in the article could easily be read as Cllr Stokes offering an olive branch to the supporters but the supporters aren't interested. We want to hear what the council have to say, which is why Board members are attending this meeting on Monday. I'm also pretty sure that the Board would prefer to hear this from the horses mouth, rather than through a third party. It is pretty insulting to arrange a meeting with the Trust Board to discuss the future of the club, but then tell the press what the options are a week in advance. I find it particularly interesting that Cllr Stokes appears to have learned nothing from his spat with Martyn Deaner. Why has he again chosen to speak out in the media rather than first talk to the parties concerned?

 

In response to Chris, no you were not out of order in saying no to an amalgamation. I don't think any supporter would want that and I certainly don't. I just think that at this critical time for our football club we can't afford any sort of negative publicity.

 

Just as a side point, I've noticed that Niall Campbell has signed the Save Our Slough Town guestbook on the website - can we count on you to do the same Gary?

 

[BOSSWEBB]

how many times has the football club carried on after an amalgamation

[Chris Mullen]

BFR, didn't think Gary Chappell was creating negative publicity. I thought the reporting of information, not speculation or gossip, was OK and at least kept the subject going in the local media, which I think you'll agree we need.

 

Stokes is obviously prone to saying things when he shouldn't and clearly shows that at 81 (Observer), he's out of touch with with the current state of football in Slough and what's been happening over the last 6 years with regard to STFC.

 

Merger? Who with? ICI has a nice sports ground for instance, but you can't play top non-league football on it. The man's an idiot.

 

A large prosperous town like Slough should have a team in the Football League or whatever it's called now, not struggling to keep a side playing in non-league football.

 

Thorne, Stokes and Cutting the architects of a major non-footballing town alongside the likes of Maidstone, Leamington and Telford.

 

We fight on, we won't go away, keep your windows shut at the Town Hall.

[Tom]

I noticed in that report that one of the suggestions was to do an AFC Wimbledon and have the supporters form there own club. I hope on behalf of the clubs history that this option is also disregarded. Appart from losing the clubs history how many players would want to join the club and start from many leagues lower than we currently are.

 

Why cant the council see the club is on the way back up again and without there help we can only go so far. Cllr Stokes is clearly showing how out of touch he is with the football, and at 81 he surely must have seen the highs and lows of the club.

 

Lets see what Monday and Tuesday have to bring. I would also like to say at the town hall on Tuesday supporters of the club need to be on the best behaviour (as if they wouldnt be). If anything bad happens this could add to the growing rumour that Sloughs supporters are hooligans and swey the councillors to make judgements that do not favour our cause.

[Ted]

I thought the report was OK.

Interesting that Stokes suggested we emulate Dagenham and Redbridge---the chance would be a fine thing as its the Local Council that own Dagenham's ground.Suggesting we find a Millionaire to bankroll us shows just how far from reality he is. I'd rather not criticise him for his age, but I can't help criticise him for his stupidity, and hypocracy.

 

Great letter by Lisa Evans in the letters column.

 

 

[Ian]

I also didn't think the Observer did too much wrong. I can also however appreciate BFR's point that anyone seeing the headline, without reading the article or understanding the sensitivity of the Club losing its identity, might think we had rejected a viable solution.

 

People who don't follow football like we do, or who think supporting a team means buying a Sky subscription, will never understand the depth of feeling and consequently why we want to protect the Club we love.

 

[Chris]

His response was absolute nonsence - he does not know what he's talking about.

 

Merge the club? No chance - throw away all that history and the special bond the supporters have with each other and who would want to merge with us anyway!

 

Form an AFC Slough? We'll that's an impressive idea it just leaves us in the same scenario as before - no ground and no backer and also no team!

 

Find a millionare - I'm just waiting on my responce from Bill Gates, but he was not replied to my email yet.

 

Pathetic!

[Ian]

There's a negotiating tactic often called "The Russian Front". The name comes from the 1st/2nd World War when German soldiers would be given two choices of actions to carry out - one terrible and the other being sent to the Russian Front which was even worse so they chose the first one.

 

Maybe the Council are employing a similar tactic. They do not want to run Slough Town FC and will be trying to get rid of it like the proverbial hot potato. Therefore, give supporters four options, one of which is not viable (rich benefactor) and another two which are total non starters (merging or re-forming). Therefore, we accept taking control of the Club and they get it off their hands. Or, maybe I'm giving them too much credit. After all, it's their incompetence that's got them in this mess in the first place.

 

If the Trust accepts control it has to be on our terms. If we're just taking control with no funding then I don't want to play a part in killing the Club, I'd rather let the Council have the blood on their hands. If the Trust taking control is an option, let's make sure we get what we want, that it's legally binding and any future changes of Council Leadership are unable to renege on the agreement.

[Guest]

BFR,

 

Of course the club can count on me to sign the guestbook. I'll be posting something soon.

 

Best regards

 

Gary Chappell

[Burnham Lad]

Maybe the Council should be told "Never mind about suggesting a benefactor - we had one(and alright he wasn't pefect) but he has kept us going for six years, but your actions upset him so much he has walked away. You dug yourself into this mess, we suggest that you try and persuade him to dig you out of it! You caused the problem, you solve it!"

[Guest]

Indeed, The Daggers do not own the ground, the Council do.

 

They also let it to the Club at exceptionally preferrential rates. Perhaps Stokes is suggesting Slough Council do the same for STFC.

[BFR]

There would have to be a council owned stadium first for that to happen - and I can't see them building us one

[GarySTFC]

Considering the issues they've had in finding space for a private owner to build one for us with other ammenities (sp?) to support the football side of things, I wouldn't hold my breath on them finding some new land for us now.

[Guest]

Quote:

Gary-STFC said:
Considering the issues they've had in finding space for a private owner to build one for us with other ammenities (sp?) to support the football side of things, I wouldn't hold my breath on them finding some new land for us now.

I was being flippant.

However, it does highlight the naivety and ignorance of certain members of the Council.