Jimthor
New Member
A few months ago, trying to get any information from Coventry City Football Club was like trying to draw blood from a stone. And people were angry, rightfully, that there was such a wall between the fans and powers that be at the Ricoh.
With the board reshuffle has come unprecedented access into the goings on behind-the-scenes. A minority shareholder at our fingertips on twitter, press conferences, meeting for coffee with board members. We got the transparency we wanted.
But today we've seen the flip side. There's already been criticism of the release of the Marlon King news "before the ink has dried". Brody has come in for some criticism (unfairly i feel, as everything he's spoken has also been released to the press, announced on the website, and spoken about by Thorn and Dulieu), however, it does look possible that the club have jumped the gun and possibly made this exciting announcement a touch too early.
So, how do you strike the balance? It's not as easy to find as you may first imagine...
With the promise of transparency came the promise to pass any news onto fans as and when it happens. Exactly what we wanted. And the hot topic lately has of course been Marlon. You can see evidence almost every day of fans tweeting Brody asking for the latest. Should the fans ultimately be kept in the dark, backtracking somewhat on the promise of transparency, in order to save the potential embarrassment of releasing information early? Or is it the correct approach to keep us clued up on our questions as and when we ask them and when the answers emerge- which is what the fans have demanded.
Of course, the board clearly haven't felt that this information release was premature, or they in all likelihood wouldn't have released it. So if it's difficult to even define where premature ends and late begins, that makes it even harder to find the right timing!
I think this issue of balance in the transparency is a tremendously difficult task, but let's try to get some discussion going and see if everyone thinks the right approach is being taken, and if not, what would your approach be?
Personally, i'm happy to sit on the fence on this one until this saga plays out a bit more. What we have at the moment is two contrasting groups of information (one from our board, one from Sky Sports), and it remains to be seen which hold the correct info, or if it falls somewhere between the two. Our board may yet be proved right, or they may end up having to rethink their stance on transparency. Your thoughts?
With the board reshuffle has come unprecedented access into the goings on behind-the-scenes. A minority shareholder at our fingertips on twitter, press conferences, meeting for coffee with board members. We got the transparency we wanted.
But today we've seen the flip side. There's already been criticism of the release of the Marlon King news "before the ink has dried". Brody has come in for some criticism (unfairly i feel, as everything he's spoken has also been released to the press, announced on the website, and spoken about by Thorn and Dulieu), however, it does look possible that the club have jumped the gun and possibly made this exciting announcement a touch too early.
So, how do you strike the balance? It's not as easy to find as you may first imagine...
With the promise of transparency came the promise to pass any news onto fans as and when it happens. Exactly what we wanted. And the hot topic lately has of course been Marlon. You can see evidence almost every day of fans tweeting Brody asking for the latest. Should the fans ultimately be kept in the dark, backtracking somewhat on the promise of transparency, in order to save the potential embarrassment of releasing information early? Or is it the correct approach to keep us clued up on our questions as and when we ask them and when the answers emerge- which is what the fans have demanded.
Of course, the board clearly haven't felt that this information release was premature, or they in all likelihood wouldn't have released it. So if it's difficult to even define where premature ends and late begins, that makes it even harder to find the right timing!
I think this issue of balance in the transparency is a tremendously difficult task, but let's try to get some discussion going and see if everyone thinks the right approach is being taken, and if not, what would your approach be?
Personally, i'm happy to sit on the fence on this one until this saga plays out a bit more. What we have at the moment is two contrasting groups of information (one from our board, one from Sky Sports), and it remains to be seen which hold the correct info, or if it falls somewhere between the two. Our board may yet be proved right, or they may end up having to rethink their stance on transparency. Your thoughts?
