• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Save our Southend Thursdays meeting here!

I was on the Zoom call, spent the first 30 mins off camera coz I was eating and came in at 40 mins. I am on my fourth lockdown beard and desperately need a hair cut. Not I am a pretty picture at the best of times :)

This is the fourth time I've been in involved in one of these meetings. I usually find him quite personable, but this time I didn't. I thought he was surly and combative.

The real difficulty I found was doing this via Zoom. I know there isn't an alternative at the moment. You can't really judge the mood of the room and its very hard to get into the debate. I thought he picked out the youngest member of the panel, and that didn't come across well at the time. I don't know what everyone else thought.

I got a bit ranty because I felt I was talking to a brick wall and being told stuff we'd discussed several time before that really have no relevance. And yeah, I fell into that trap as well.

I think, going forward, a smaller number of attendees would be helpful, but also a bit more than a few days notice. Everything was a bit rushed - but that was to be expected given the circumstances. I thought all the supporters came across well, but handling Ron is a bit like nailing jelly to the wall.

I am banging on about openness, transparency and honesty, so videoing the meetings unedited is an excellent idea. People can see how difficult these are sometimes - and of course, we're all going to have different opinions.

It's a start.....
 
First of all, huge respect to all of you that have put yourselves up for this and I also include Ron in that because I don't think many chairman would be willing to face fans' representatives in an open forum, especially in the current position we find ourselves as a club.

The meeting seemed a bit disjointed to me until Scott was given the opportunity to question Ron. Scott appeared to have prepared an agenda of things for himself before hand and therefore his points were fairly succinct. I don't know whether everyone involved had been consulted by Paul, or whoever, in advance so that a general agenda could have been produced and circulated to attendees giving the meeting a set structure. If there was an agenda it seemed that the meeting drifted from it too much and is perhaps why it went on for longer than initially intended.

I agree with things others have said in this thread about kerbing emotions where possible because that can also take the meeting off track and cloud some of the answers to pertinent questions.

I thought Ron was reasonable in the way he conducted himself and answered what was asked of him, particularly as he is currently not on top form with his health. I think he has a guarded personality anyway which means that people sometimes take him the wrong way and it promotes an awkward atmosphere. He appeared to be condescending towards Jack but I don't think he meant to be, merely Ron's way of imparting a fatherly perspective to a much younger man.

Anyway, well done for getting this up and running I am sure it will create a better relationship between the fans and those who run the club and everything involved with it.
 
It's good to keep a regular dialogue with Ron and most of us appreciate the efforts of all of you involved in arranging the calls.

I still think the main problem is Ron's financial situation which has caused 90 per cent of our problems but he almost certainly won't discuss it with fans groups. This is where the frustration lies.
 
The meeting seemed a bit disjointed to me until Scott was given the opportunity to question Ron. Scott appeared to have prepared an agenda of things for himself before hand and therefore his points were fairly succinct. I don't know whether everyone involved had been consulted by Paul, or whoever, in advance so that a general agenda could have been produced and circulated to attendees giving the meeting a set structure. If there was an agenda it seemed that the meeting drifted from it too much and is perhaps why it went on for longer than initially intended.

Yes, there is some preparation behind the scenes - but on this occassion we only had a few days to get many, many ducks in some sort of line. Yes, Scott had a series of prepared questions, but some of these were picked up by other attendees or RM covered them in answers. He did really well in the circumstances.

Yes, we did try to have a collaborative approach which wasn't easy as SoS didn't formally exist (in this guise) this time last week.

One of things RM does is go down side alleys and take the conversation into places you've not prepared for. Hence, nailed jelly to the wall.
 
Watched just over an hour not really sure how much is achieved through it. Problem is unless there is a coherent message from the fans any sort of message just gets lost along the way.

Not sure why people saying Ron comes across well because to me he is very condescending towards most people on the call. I also found his parrot CFO very irritating.
I find it frustrating that when a very good point is made about transfer policy’s the conversation is swiftly turned to individual cases from the past and we never really got an answer. Why do we continue to sign injured players? The answer “it’s a risk” isn’t good enough.
Another point made, what’s the strategy moving forward for the final bit of the season? “I don’t know how you expect me to answer.” Or there isn’t one.
Is that really acceptable? Not really sure why Ron isn’t being pushed for an answer. There are numerous examples of this throughout. No ones really going to respect you if you don’t challenge them for a proper response.
Other than a lot of uming and arring not an awful lot to take away in my book.
What I will say is well done to every individual involved. Takes a lot of guts to get involved and question like this and put yourself into an uncomfortable situation. Can also imagine the enormous Amount of work behind the scenes so hats of to you!
Thank you for sharing!
 
If all the sessions were like this then I’m sorry but you can understand why there nothing really productive come from these sessions.

I applaud the fans for doing this and for Ron taking the time to work with us, there are several things which must be changed to effective.
  • The chair needs to be stronger both but asking questions and making sure the call stays on point.
  • There needs to be less stakeholders asking questions, one or two or even three people which the chair controls.
  • There needs to be agreement by the various fan group what they want to achieve and what needs to be addressed
  • When Ron answers a question but the answer is not what you want it to be or expected, accept it and maybe question but don’t argue your point that you are right and Ron is wrong
  • It’s great for it to live stream and look forward to it.

It was clear SOS has no idea than Ron about what needs I’m sticking with Mark, SOS make changes, what changes, just changes. You need to have a considered and consistent plan when talking to someone in business.

An example early on when saying the players are playing for Mark, and Ron asks do us really believe that or is that what the fans are and thinking and there was a lot of umming and erring and then not what I think.

if you raise a topic you need to expect the answer to be a question back. At times it looked a car crash in slow motion and I can understand my Ron was getting frustrating.

This session could have been summed up in,
  1. We are unhappy with the quality in the pitch
  2. The games are unexciting and not sure if I will be watching going forward
  3. We are worried about non league
  4. Why do we alway fail to recruit the players we want and alway at the end of the window?
Ron, now you know what are you going to do about it.

I know not everyone will agree with the above, but like the team we need to up our game to challenge Ron
 
Up to now i dont belive anyone has posted on here as to who the Zoom participants were.Is this possible for outsiders to know who they were and who they represent.That would be helpfull
thankyou
Edan, The Custard Splat Podcast. I'm the one going for the 1980s Kevin Keegan look
 
Well done one and all involved in this. Great to see our club embracing the modern world. It has been over a year now since I stepped foot into my office. I can only agree with everyone's frustrations regarding video meetings, and they really do need the organisation mentioned in previous posts on here. Great effort none the less.

On the whole I thought Ron was engaging and willing to offer answers to the questions raised. I am a little concerned at what appears to be a complete lack of any strategy in running the club, be it ticket refunds, CEOs or plans for next season.

It must make MM's job that little tougher in trying to build a side, when he does not know who is going to be about next season, because the Chairman is not prepared to do any planning until the outcome of this season. All good sides have a nucleus of players, which the manager feels he can rely on and build his team around. I do feel, for the first time in what seems like ages, we have a few players we can do that with.

The general consensus on here is that it is really difficult to get promoted out of the NL, and maybe easier to get promoted out of L2, obviously there is more promotion slots up for grabs in L2. It is clear that there is currently little difference in skill levels between L2 and NL. Therefore the players who would be successful in L2 will be in NL and vice versa.

To rely on the basis that there will be plenty of players out of work due to squad size restrictions, seems a flawed approach to me. For me any lower league player worth his salt will be snapped up by League clubs, whilst those that are not quite at the races in terms of their development/ skill levels will be let go. You are hoping players would prefer to be 1st 11 in NL rather than 1st team squad in L2. Risky, and may well lead to a drop in standards within the NL.

Surely it is better to sign up our better players now, and give MM more time to focus on improving our weaker areas. I still feel one of the reasons we failed to sign a striker in January, was the time spent tying up the contracts for those already at the club. We would have surely had to spend time looking for alternatives in case they didn't sign. Which would have only took away focus on the search for a striker.

For the record I think MM has done an amazing job given the financial circumstances at the club. As a team we struggled in all areas last season and was just not competitive. With really only one transfer window MM has righted most of that. The final piece in the puzzle was the toughest to get a striker. If we could have got someone like a Danny Rowe in then I am sure we would all be much happier.

The other point that really interested me was the ownership of the new stadium. Like The Hall, Ron will maintain ownership. To me this is a shrewd move on his part. As any potential new owners of the club are either going to have to buy him out fully or be prepared to pay him rent for the use of the stadium. Question is, whilst he owns the club, the extra revenue streams go towards the club's finances. I guess that will change should someone buy the club only?

Realised yet again I have typed to much about our favourite subject. I blame lack of pub time. I do feel we are getting there, and actually like most things in life it does take time. Like Rome, the New Roots Hall certainly wasn't built in a day. UTB!
 
Watching this I don't think Ron came across too bad personally, couple of questions need addressing in particular the plan for next season, however the quality of the questions is so **** poor it's embarassing. Same old questions, same old crap and exact same responses from Ron. I could have watched one from 2 months ago and it would probably be the same. I like we have these meetings but please actually come up with something good.
 
Well done for this, was interesting viewing.

Thought Ron came across really well (other than his sweary rants, of which he apologised for).

He doesn't come across to me he's someone that doesn't care about the club.

How many other club chairmen would do this?

I'll look forward to watching the next one.
 
I do think there is a lot of great feedback here including number or people on the call and how it can be progressed.

What I do find a waste of time is certain posters commenting the questions are rubbish etc. I am sure both the Shrimpers Trust and SOS would welcome more questions to be presented ahead of the meeting. If you are not happy with the standard of the questions I would suggest putting forward your own questions next time and you may get the answers you are looking for.

We are all supporters in this together. The people asking the questions have had the passion and commitment to spend 2 hours on a call and put their questions forward and they should be applauded for that.

As I say I think the constructive feedback is brilliant on how to improve communication with Ron but general throw away comments that it is rubbish, really does not help anyone.
 
Last edited:
I do think there is a lot of great feedback here including number or people on the call and how it can be progressed.

What I do find a waste of time is certain posters commenting the questions are rubbish etc. I am sure both the Shrimpers Trust and SOS would welcome more questions to be presented ahead of the meeting. If you are not happy with the standard of the questions I would suggest putting forward your own questions next time and you may get the answers you are looking for.

We are all supporters in this together. The people asking the questions have had the passion and commitment to spend 2 hours on a call and put their questions forward and they should be applauded for that.

As I say I think the constructive feedback is brilliant on how to improve communication with Ron but general throw away comments that it is rubbish, really does not help anyone.
That's correct and I apologise for such a throwaway comment, it's just frustrating to see things gone over that well, we've already had an answer for several times on the call. I'll perhaps take some time to think of questions and list them as things I'd like to see spoke about.
 
I have watched htis a couple of time snow, and I think this is a good medium on behalf of the fans and the club.

For clarity I am not a Ron fan but then neither am I a fan of protests groups and it was good to have that clarified during the meeting that none of those present represented a protest group.

Like a fair few have said previous, i think it would run better if only one (maybe 2) person / people ask the questions, i think this would allow for a smoother running from all sides. I also think people should let everyone finish speaking rather than cutting in as you end up with 2 people talking and no one can really decipher what is being said.

It would be good if people on the forum can submit questions, appreciate this can be har did the calls are at short notice, but with planning this is something than can I happen i guess.

There were a few instances from both sides that I thought showed that there is clearly a gap between the club and the fans, and this is exactly what the forum is to address I guess. Ron and the others present (no idea who attends, is that published anywhere?) all need to look at how they come across body language wise at times as it was clear there was some disdain at what others were saying. By that I mean at some things Ron said and even between the fan representatives present.

I can see why people say Ron came across badly but I dont think that was his intention in any way, however he needs to be clearer when coming across with his points so this interpretation isnt taken.

Overall it is as I say a good initiative.
 
Was an interesting watch for sure - but really came away from 2 hours thinking "most of these points have been discussed to death for years".

So yea next time maybe (and Ron suggested this himself) have a set list of questions you can get to the SUFC management with a few days notice so they can answer them in more depth.

Theres an argument either way. You can ask the question on the spot and get a 'real' unprepared answer where you feel like you've got the other person in a tight spot which has its benefits - or you give them 72 hours to come up with a political answer which may have more depth, but not be the answer you really want.

Some points though were unnecessary. To say "half the team are loanee's and dont care" is not true in the slightest. Ron was right to call that out as BS and put the asker straight. I'd say all the current team care and only last week my mate and I commented whilst watching that RHF seems the most motivated of all of them. Then you have Olayinka who is pick of the current team and even Cordner who came in for a lot of praise.

So no, you cant say stuff like that and when Ron called it out, the asker had no backup to answer him.

But generally questions were well put. Ron really comes across as a chancer who's making it all up on the hoof (the answer to the refund question was particularly telling).

My final takeaway was really 'what has been achieved?'. Ron doesnt have to do these at all - but would get more criticism if he didnt, but at the same time he must have got off the call and questioned why he'd spent another 2 hours of his life answering similar topics that have been banded around for years.

That probably means we DO need to keep having these chats to get eventual answers, but maybe more direct questions. Accept the answers given even if its not what you want and maybe make a FAQ sticky post on SZ so these things dont go round and round forever.
 
Back
Top