Save our Southend Questions and outlines sent to RM

[KiwiRob]

i CAN ANSWER THAT ,YES IT WAS WISE ,WHILE AT LEAST THERE IS A GLIMMER OF HOPE ,YES IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AFTER THE PORT VALE FIASCO IN HINDSIGHT. WE NOW HAVE A MANAGER PB WHO KNOWS TACTICS AND HOPEFULLY THE MANAGER REBOUND CAN KICK IN AND KEEP US UP .

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

 

[Barling Magna]

These are good questions. Thank you for what you are doing.

However I would prefer to see them as a simple list of questions phrased as concisely as possible without the need for all the other comments and opinions that you have included. Although I agree with most of them they make your document denser and muddy the waters.

For example why say this?:


This Club ‘Southend United’ is simply more than just a football club for so many people, so many families, lives, industry, local economy they all rely on having a league club to support within this borough of Essex. (that maybe surprising to you, just how deep this club runs through the people, although we hope it isn’t a surprise).

We are not a ‘Protest group’ we are a ‘lobbying group’ we will look to seek answer to the many, many genuine questions that worried Southend Supporters have been asking for a number of years, more so now, now that the club is perilously close to falling out of the football league for the first time in its history, more so now, due to your property deals that are now so, so close to becoming reality.



This is unnecessary self justification - Ron knows who you, who we, are. Just stick to the questions we want answered please.

I repeat, thank you for what you are doing, but keep it tighter please.

 

[fbm]

Well done TB.

However, if he responds to those questions truthfully as far as he is concerned, how many people will believe him? And what is it that people want to hear for them to accept the answer as "the truth"?

 

[rigsby]

These are good questions. Thank you for what you are doing.

However I would prefer to see them as a simple list of questions phrased as concisely as possible without the need for all the other comments and opinions that you have included. Although I agree with most of them they make your document denser and muddy the waters.

For example why say this?:


This Club ‘Southend United’ is simply more than just a football club for so many people, so many families, lives, industry, local economy they all rely on having a league club to support within this borough of Essex. (that maybe surprising to you, just how deep this club runs through the people, although we hope it isn’t a surprise).

We are not a ‘Protest group’ we are a ‘lobbying group’ we will look to seek answer to the many, many genuine questions that worried Southend Supporters have been asking for a number of years, more so now, now that the club is perilously close to falling out of the football league for the first time in its history, more so now, due to your property deals that are now so, so close to becoming reality.



This is unnecessary self justification - Ron knows who you, who we, are. Just stick to the questions we want answered please.

I repeat, thank you for what you are doing, but keep it tighter please.

Spot on Barling M some good questions that we all want a clear answer to. But a personal dig before the question will mean Ron will only give guarded answers.... We have all had enough of them but what i can tell you for an absolute fact is Ron is much better in a conversation rather than an Inquisition. In the past he has surprised me when people have asked the right questions.

Same for the NL questions. Now just isn't the time, he wont be even considering that until Wednesday morning at the earliest, so don't expect much in 7 days.

This round should be the finances, FF and the future beyond Ron. Ask In 4/6 weeks time about next season.

'Slowly slowly catchy monkey'

 

[WestyReturns]

Disappointed that it's gone back to asking questions. A backwards step in my opinion. Playing right into Ron's hands again sadly.

 

[blues exile]

Unless the questions are framed in a yes/no format, which is impossible I know, Martin will use every opportunity to 'manage the game' by evasion, obfuscation , ambiguity and diversion to use up time. As we have seen before, he is a past master in this regard. The age old riddle that asks the question, is the man who admits he always tells lies telling the truth when he says this, could have been invented for this most slippery of eels.

 

[Super Kevin Maher]

Why should he reply to your questions and why would you believe any of his responses?

 

[Strykr]

Why should he reply to your questions and why would you believe any of his responses?

Fair point. But you have to try dont you.

 

[Supa Shrimpa]

Why should he reply to your questions and why would you believe any of his responses?

(a) because we are customers and some are even shareholders of the company (b) we will probably treat his responses with scepticism, but it will enable us determine which areas still need clarification and what our next course of action should be.

 

[Super Kevin Maher]

a) I don’t think being a shareholder makes any difference as he holds the majority of shares.
b) What course of action? He makes the decisions, he pays the bills.

 

[Super Kevin Maher]

a) I don’t think being a shareholder makes any difference as he holds the majority of shares.
b) What course of action? He makes the decisions, he pays the bills.

Often not on time.

 

[RobQ]

I agree with Barling Magna that you may have more of a chance of reply if you keep to just the questions. I also seem to remember at the latest Zoom meeting RM said he was happy to answer your questions if you kept them to 5 or 6 questions. There are 13 questions listed. Just don't give him a chance to wriggle out of answering, he will look to use any chance to do so.

 

[Strykr]

Yep streamline the Q's in to 1/2 sentences at most for the zoom call.

 

[Suffolk Shrimper In Dorset]

Scott

I think there are some very good questions in there, and given after yesterday our fate on the pitch now sadly seems all but sealed I think the issues you are raising need to be brought to the top of everyone's agenda.

I do though think that some of the preamble could be questioned as being subjective or incorrect.

And, unless I have missed it, I think it is now time (as I believe was your previously stated intention) to name all of the SOS Committee. I just think it is best for transparency especially if you are asking Ron to be transparent.

Re the question document:

- though Ron has seen it all ready I would personally just lose all of the preamble, I agree it sets the scene but we all know what the scene is and some of it will just wind him up which will only deflect from getting answers to your questions as he may then go off tangent in responding to the preamble/give us all another 'we are were we are' history lesson

- I agree with Strykr, shorten the questions and make each question a separate one in its own right

- for clarity, number the questions

- again as has been suggested by another, focus the questions in to themed groups and let each zoom session have its own theme leaving other question themes to other zoom calls.

- maybe if it becomes even clearer after the result on Tuesday, couch your questions on the basis that we will be in the National League rather than possibly might be

- I would like to see something specific in there re the much trawled through debate of the CEO and getting the internal club structure right. Knowing where we are (ie in the NL) no longer gives Ron the excuse of adopting a 'wait and see' approach so he must then surely either say 'yes' or 'no' to getting one appointed in the next three to six months.

It may be that any views on this forum are 'too late' as you have already sent the questions to Ron without other groups outside of the SOS having had the chance to give input first. That is fine as an approach, and I assume then that SOS will run the zoom call.

But if you are open to input from others maybe it is just worth revising them a little if the SOS Committee see fit.

Just my views, and I am totally with you, as with others that have tried before consistently, in seeking to get answers.

UTB

 

[TrueBlue]

100% he needs to answer these in writing.

RM is adept at the politicians trick of not giving straight answers to the question being asked but providing hot air & guff to take the heat off himself for a while longer.

Yea and this is the plan, not answered in any zoom meeting but in writing so it is documented from the proverbial horses mouth

 

[TrueBlue]

Not sure you will achieve any more than The Trust so don’t be disappointed if the answers are not as you want
Let’s be honest RM states he backed MM only for The Ego to announce he was touted in November
Good luck with it but think it will be another 100 pages of replies coming to nothing
UTS

Are these the questions ahead of a zoom meeting sent in by us fans and forwarded to Ron in advance? Or just the questions from SOS, the trust or a combination of all?

No these questions have been sent to the club direct from ourselves separately. We informed Ron Martin that 7 days would be a respectable time for a response, depending on the answers will depend on the next step

 

[TrueBlue]

Some very good questions there.

It would be also good to ask the Chairman why he suddently reversed himself on MM's position as manager after saying he deserved the support of the town and would remain Southend's manager until the end of the season? Was it wise to change managers 6 games before the end of the season?

Yes that would have been a key question but this took place after the questions had been sent off to the club, never a quiet moment at SUFC

 

[TrueBlue]

Scott

I think there are some very good questions in there, and given after yesterday our fate on the pitch now sadly seems all but sealed I think the issues you are raising need to be brought to the top of everyone's agenda.

I do though think that some of the preamble could be questioned as being subjective or incorrect.

And, unless I have missed it, I think it is now time (as I believe was your previously stated intention) to name all of the SOS Committee. I just think it is best for transparency especially if you are asking Ron to be transparent.

Re the question document:

- though Ron has seen it all ready I would personally just lose all of the preamble, I agree it sets the scene but we all know what the scene is and some of it will just wind him up which will only deflect from getting answers to your questions as he may then go off tangent in responding to the preamble/give us all another 'we are were we are' history lesson

- I agree with Strykr, shorten the questions and make each question a separate one in its own right

- for clarity, number the questions

- again as has been suggested by another, focus the questions in to themed groups and let each zoom session have its own theme leaving other question themes to other zoom calls.

- maybe if it becomes even clearer after the result on Tuesday, couch your questions on the basis that we will be in the National League rather than possibly might be

- I would like to see something specific in there re the much trawled through debate of the CEO and getting the internal club structure right. Knowing where we are (ie in the NL) no longer gives Ron the excuse of adopting a 'wait and see' approach so he must then surely either say 'yes' or 'no' to getting one appointed in the next three to six months.

It may be that any views on this forum are 'too late' as you have already sent the questions to Ron without other groups outside of the SOS having had the chance to give input first. That is fine as an approach, and I assume then that SOS will run the zoom call.

But if you are open to input from others maybe it is just worth revising them a little if the SOS Committee see fit.

Just my views, and I am totally with you, as with others that have tried before consistently, in seeking to get answers.

UTB

ALWAYS open for input from others, especially yourself. I will drop you a direct message in due course

 

[Westcliff DGS]

No these questions have been sent to the club direct from ourselves separately. We informed Ron Martin that 7 days would be a respectable time for a response, depending on the answers will depend on the next step

Thanks for letting me know as I took form the meeting shared that all questions would be consolodated together and sent forward. Good to know what is going on.

 

[Yer Blues]

Might I suggest that questions are posted here prior to being sent to Ron?

There are a lot of smart people on here who could assist in formatting and editing before they are sent to ensure the right things are being asked.

It's important to remember, hard as it is, to take any emotion out of the document sent to the chairman and keep it focused.