Some points to the URSC

Questions for the players, the management, the UAFC, the URSC or other supporters... Someone might answer you!! (and pigs might fly)

Moderator: Moderators

ballpark
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:52 pm

Some points to the URSC

Post by ballpark »

Accountability is the single most important element for me as a member of the URSC. At both AGM's attended a number of committee member’s where elected on the basis of a proposal and a seconding of the proposal from the floor thus establishing a link in accountability between the committee and the membership. Other members of the committee have been around since the inception of the URSC and it is not clear how their appointments where arrived at.

Bottom line for me is the committee position is one of responsibility. There is little point in putting yourself forward as a committee member and then reiterating that you’re only a volunteer when questions are asked about your behaviour on behalf of the membership. A recent event proposed for the Ulster/Leinster match at Ravenhill was cancelled without official explanation, that I am aware of, from the URSC. Someone is accountable for managing that event and in the event cancelling it. An explanation is owed to the membership.

Stanley Graham, a committee member made statements on the Nolan Show on behalf of the supporters club. I have been cautious about this up to now whilst ascertaining that my facts are correct. In the face of claims that I am only 'half right', not completely right' or a 'dubious informant' I am saying, Stanley made comments such as 'our supporters' or 'our Ulster Rugby Supporters Club' and clearly believed he was representing the supporters club.

The committee have either been mislead or are being disingenuous about Stanley’s actions. They say Stanley was acting in his capacity as an ordinary supporter and not a committee member acting on behalf and with the permission of the committee. Fair enough, maybe?

Stanley having failed to corroborate the tapes information, however ridiculous it was, before giving it out on National radio, blamed others for giving him the information in the first instance. Information he received as I understand it, through his position as a committee member. He subsequently told UR about his comments on the radio show and apologised to UR and the committee for giving out incorrect information. This is hardly the actions of an ordinary supporter who just happened to pick up the phone and participate in a National Radio show.

Frankly he (Stanley) has shown a clear lack of responsibility for his own actions. That he gave out this information whilst claiming to represent the supporters club means he should be accountable to the supporters club for his actions and apologise to the members of the URSC for misrepresenting them.

His subsequent behaviour and that of others who have sought to confuse the issue under the guise of monikers whilst still committee members, calls into question the whole problem of accountability and communication between the URSC committee and its membership. Do I want Stanley representing me as a URSC member? Personally no, he clearly does not appear to think he is accountable to the members of the URSC.

Communication is I understand a problem for the URSC and I have some insight into the difficulties. Some of these difficulties could be overcome with transparent use of mediums available. The URSC have made announcements on both the UR and UAFC forums under the guise of monikers such as URSC on Tour, URSC Events, and URSC Secretary. For transparency a single source of communication with the name of the committee member attached say 'USRC Chairman, Bob Sloan' for example would remove doubt as to the credibility or official capacity of these monikers.

A set of minutes or even a summary of meetings would go some way to alleviating concerns re accountability and what transpires at committee meetings. Such a set of minutes would have made members aware of why the Leinster match event was cancelled for example. I understand a News Letter has been muted and again this would be an excellent way of communicating whether as an A4 flyer at matches or as an e-mail circulated edition or both. I know there have been problems with getting someone to layout it but we have for example the FRU producing an excellent edition of a 'News Letter' complete with asses heads on human shoulder graphics and the technical expertise used could be perhaps ‘press ganged’ to assist the URSC, (minus the asses’ heads of course). Match programme notes for the URSC seemed to disappear and have reappeared in the last Ravenhill match programme and of course provide a very good means of getting information across.

At the moment the URSC website section is tucked away on the UR site Given the state of that site it is hardly going to be an ongoing concern for members to read. Although some people have claimed that the now defunct URSC website attracted few members. True, that is not to say that the website couldn’t have developed in the way that the UAFC one has. These things take time and the absorption of the site into the UR board for whatever reason robbed it of its independence and a valuable communicating tool.

As a result of the lack of events, communication and resignations recently, the committee and it’s chairman have become practically invisible. There may have been resignations but so cloudy and so ineffective is communication it is impossible to tell who is on the committee and who is not. By extension the behaviour of some individuals and statements from them, it’s unclear whether they are acting on behalf of the URSC or not.

I would suggest that photos of the committee chairman and members are posted on the web and a brief synopsis of their talents and mission statement for being on the committee. That way members can recognise who they are at matches home and away and express concerns or otherwise. Johnathon Bill the ex chairman was always a visible presence at matches and events and in my opinion reasonably well known and approachable. The perception is that the current committee wish to remain invisible. Hiding behind monikers whilst conducting a committee agenda on the websites is hardly conducive to bringing transparency to URSC affairs. I’m not against monikers, I use one myself and indeed I’ve nothing against committee members using monikers on the UAFC site. Where I do draw the line is where they are putting forward a committee agenda on the site under the guise of the moniker.

Perhaps the biggest perception is that the URSC is controlled by the invisible hand of Mike Reid and Ulster rugby. I am sure some members wonder, as I do, why there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the URSC and UR. Why have an MOU when you would imagine a supporter’s club would be of mutual benefit to Ulster rugby and the supporters to such an extent that an agreement of any kind would be unnecessary. One would imagine they could happily co-exist side by side to each one’s mutual benefit without having to be tied to the other’s apron strings contractually. The perception is that UR need to keep an eye for whatever reason on the supporters club and indeed control it. There are of course the incidents which fuel this perception such as the failed attempt to have a UR stall at the BBQ or the rumour that UR pocketed the profits from the supporter’s trip to Dublin, or Stanley’s apology to UR and indeed his telling UR what he’d said on the radio. A simple communication through committee minutes or a regular e-mail update would blow away any perceived or otherwise perceptions that something invisible is going on beneath the surface that the members aren’t being told about. It does seem strange that so few of the events have been held at Ravenhill which is after all the supporters club’s spiritual home.

The URSC could die in a sea of apathy caused by lack of communication, lack of transparency in its dealings with UR and indeed between the membership and the committee. On the other hand it has the potential to grow and become a very positive force as a supporters club for Ulster Rugby. 900+ members should not to be sniffed at for a fledgling club. Some events have been very well attended and others for a variety of reasons have been poorly organised and as such have had a resultant negative reaction from the supporters, the Biarritz supporters event being a case in point where the impression given was that it was an event primarily for those who where at Biarritz, (members and non members).

The URSC was originally set up in part because of the mess over travel arrangements to away games. It does seem that the travel arrangements beyond these shores remain much as they where with supporters swapping information and getting on with going to the away games without much input from the URSC. That is fair enough. Therefore it would seem the events may well be the main priority for the URSC committee as well as tapping into the greater and so far non participating part of the membership, which for me, remains a mystery as to why they joined the URSC.

If the URSC committee are serious about developing the supporters club and tapping into the potential of its membership then they need to refocus on what they are about as a club. Supporting Ulster rugby as a team is obviously the main aim but how they do it is the single most important issue. Whilst there remains a perception that the URSC is there for the benefit of UR rather than a mutual and common aim of supporting the team without terms and conditions being attached to it, then the perception will persist that the supporters club are being used for a purpose other than merely giving organised and vocal backing to a rugby team and being solely for the benefit of supporters.

If events for supporters are seen as the way forward for the club then the focus should be on a full programme of these for the season with clear and unambiguous commitments to holding them at appropriate venues. That some may be poorly attended is probably a price to be paid which can be offset against others which will have or have had excellent attendance e.g. the BBQ and Willie John McBride evening. There must be a commitment to persist with them as arranged in order that the idea can take root amongst the supporters. It won’t happen overnight.
The uncertainty created by the cancellation of the Ulster /Leinster match supporter’s event and the ambiguity surrounding the Biarritz one raises questions about the committee’s commitment to events. As a result future events may well be subject to a reciprocal lack of commitment from the supporters.

Unambiguous and clear statements from the committee and from a single source will help make the workings and efforts of the committee far more transparent and appreciated by the membership than they have been in recent times.

This post is also being forwarded to the URSC committee via e-mail.
User avatar
B.Y.O
Novice
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:49 pm

Post by B.Y.O »

Not a bad read, I cannot write or express myself like the above, but i started a thread about a seperate / independant URSC.

The point I am commenting on is the lack of communication and the visable recognition of the new committee members and especially the new and seemingly aloof chairperson. I feel there is a need to have open channels of communication and more regular updates and new events organised, or the URSC is pretty pointless!

I find it hard to believe that supporters of Ulster Rugby have no credable voice or minor influence at Ravenhill, for goodness sake we are one of the biggest supported clubs in the league!

Ps Is there a case to bring back Bills?
IMHO he ticked all the right boxes.
Cap'n Grumpy
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: At sea on an insignificant blue/green planet orbiting a sun in the western spiral arm of the galaxy
Contact:

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

Some valid points there bp, and a few that some will agree with or not.

You seem keen to volunteer others (or press gang them) and at first I thought I was one of those you had in mind, but since you excluded the ass's head, that lets me out.

However, the thought did cross my mind that was that a Newsletter such as the one that has been mooted, doesn't need to be overly long to be effective. No longer than one of your missive's would suffice!

Now, who do we know with enough time on his hands to write at such length?
ballpark
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:52 pm

Post by ballpark »

Cap'n I would own up to being asked to contribute technical expertise to the formation of a News Letter but turned down the offer on the basis that I could not provide the necessary technical expertise nor indeed did I have the time and felt I could not do the project justice which I think is fair enough. I have as you know or maybe not, contributed articles to the match programme on behalf of the URSC and was proud to do so. So I am not press ganging anyone here, I realise people have to give up their time to do these things.

I am making the point that if you do decide to contribute towards the running of the URSC then you should bring something to the table in doing it in a competent manner and not resort to the old excuse of 'hey I'm a volunteer' should you be found to be guilty of incompetence.
Gary
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3642
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Carrickfergus and Odessa. (Not at the same time. That would be silly.)
Contact:

Post by Gary »

BP, so you've now taken it upon yourself to declare people guilty of incompetence. Surely someone as completely perfect as your good self would be able to assist in the running of the URSC - indeed I can't imagine how we ever expected to be a success without you on board. So how about coming down from your ivory tower, putting your money where your mouth is, and joining the Committee? Then you might have a real idea of the effort put in by those who you clearly take pleasure in lambasting. Or perhaps you prefer hiding behind your computer.

We all can have criticisms of the way things are done. Equally, while we are all entitled to our opinions, those opinions are not gospel and might not be shared by others. I would suggest that the Committee have rather more important things to get on with than responding to your continuous rantings. Perhaps things would be a lot better if we got behind the URSC - but then that mightn't be as much fun. Eh BP?
Tighthead Prod
Novice
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:31 pm
Contact:

Post by Tighthead Prod »

And all this for 10 pound a year !! I think the ursc have provided great value for money for the £10 suscription fee. Firstly the committee should be applauded for the endless hours of amusement they provided - unintentionally of course - with the StanleyGate Affair shennighans. However, and much more importantly, by ''just being there'' they have provided another easy target for some posters who appear to delight in highlighting any imperfection in the perfomance of other people !!! ( It also keeps ''the moaners'' out of the doctor's surgery therefore reducing the drain on the NHS - perhaps the ursc should apply for a grant ).
http://www.thefru.co.uk Valiant for Truth Justice and the Ulster Way.
User avatar
ding dong2u
Red Hand Ambassador
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:55 pm
Location: University of Walamaloo

Post by ding dong2u »

At the same time a lot of the flak directed towrads the committee coiuld easily have been avoided by a simple statement and the ongoing publication of minutes :?
Stand Up for the Ulster Men

RIP Nevin Spence 1990 - 2012
Gary
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3642
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Carrickfergus and Odessa. (Not at the same time. That would be silly.)
Contact:

Post by Gary »

Definitely correct Ding - hopefully the Committee will get around to this now. Doubt whether it would have made any difference to one or two of the moaners though.
Tighthead Prod
Novice
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:31 pm
Contact:

Post by Tighthead Prod »

Ding and Gary - Agree totally, the ursc is far from flawless - I just get a bit fed up with some people who moan at length if something or someone is not 150 percent perfect - not many of us about in the latter category !!
http://www.thefru.co.uk Valiant for Truth Justice and the Ulster Way.
Cap'n Grumpy
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: At sea on an insignificant blue/green planet orbiting a sun in the western spiral arm of the galaxy
Contact:

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

bp

I think I know you well enough to know you are sincere in wanting the best for URSC, and yes I admit I took the opportunity for a cheap gag in implying that anyone could produce a newsletter in the time it must take you to write one of your lengthy tomes (only rivalled by mine in length, sometimes).

There is ongoing angst on this forum and I trust you and I are not going to follow suit over a disagreement on the best way forward. I agree there are many shortcomings within URSC and within the Committee. but where we seem to disagree is in attaching blame. Personally, I find it frustrating, but not blame worthy if someone else doesn't match up to a job, but at least attempts to do it when I am not prepared to do it myself.

On whether Stanley G was speaking on behalf of URSC just because as you quote him saying "Our supporters" or "Our URSC" is a very debateable point. I am not on the committee, but I would refer to "we" or "us", because I feel part of the club. Yes of course he made an error of judgement and has acknowledged as much, and for that reason and that reason alone, some may not want him in a position of influence (on the basis that he's done it once, he might do it again). But then, haven't we all made errors of judgement, in which case no one should be on the committee. If he was representing himself and only himself, he has already done what most would expect of him. Of course, where we disagree is whether he was speaking "officially" or "privately" and therein lies the crux of the matter.

Also worthy of consideration I believe is the potential damage that is being done to the club by the ongoing squabbles. The committee have already given an undertaking to clarify the whole matter after their meeting at the end of January ie in the next few days. I wonder what the purpose of so publicly reopening the wound is when it is going to be examined anyway.

I have many friends who watch Ulster and take a fairly close interest in their affairs. Some are members of URSC, some are not. Most do not read this or the other "Ulster" MB's. In recent discussions with several of them, it became apparent that not one of them was aware of the controversy that has been going on. More importantly, I feel, not one of them wanted to know. They are more interested in watching and supporting Ulster and taking an interest in team affairs and rugby in general.

My conclusion: You and one or two others have a legitimate concern, and obviously differ from some others on the implications for URSC of the current committee, BUT I think the whole matter has been blown out of all proportion and has the potential to cause greater damage than the initial error in judgement. I don't think the majority of members even know about it let alone care!

There have been mistakes made by most of us including the committee - for my part I tried to make light of it which probably annoyed some. In a few days (hopefully), we will receive more info/clarification/callitwhatyouwill from the committee. I sincerely hope at that stage we will draw a line under the matter and get behind the club. I fear, however, that there will be some who still demand more clarification if they don't agree with the answers given. In a few months there will be an opportunity for all members to elect a new committee. THAT will be an opportunity to re-elect or replace - if the whole thing has not been brought tumbling down before hand by a small but vociferous minority.

At the very least can we show some decorum to current members for fear of discouraging those who would stand in the future. I fear there are not many left who are willing to stand for the seemingly inevitable criticism and abuse which comes from some quarters.

(NB While I have addressed my initial comments to you ballpark, I DO NOT accuse you of the worst excesses which some have indulged in)
Gary
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3642
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Carrickfergus and Odessa. (Not at the same time. That would be silly.)
Contact:

Post by Gary »

Well said Cap'n. Now let's get back to supporting the Ulster rugby team and trying to help the URSC Committee move things forward.
Tighthead Prod
Novice
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:31 pm
Contact:

Post by Tighthead Prod »

He may be called Grumpy - He may look exceeedingly Grumpy but he talks a lot of sense - Now I never thought I would say that !!
http://www.thefru.co.uk Valiant for Truth Justice and the Ulster Way.
User avatar
bogboy
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3124
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: 2 close 4 comfort

Post by bogboy »

Captain I don't show My decorum to everyone and if you speak of some your boasting
2B or not 2B that is the question ?
ballpark
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:52 pm

Post by ballpark »

Thanks for taking the time to reply cap'n in contrast to some of the other responses on this thread which I have found ingratiating in an irritating way and less than illuminating. I'm not going to dissect and requote what you have said in the manner of another poster on this forum but will respond without recourse to your comments as i have read them twice to get the full and unequivocal meaning.

I agree with you that there may be little interest in this and indeed you have appeared to have tested the water so to speak with some friends and I presume kindred spirits. It would also be fair to say there are some people I know who are interested in how the URSC is being run. They are no less as important as your friends who aren't. (I also know a few who aren't interested ). Indeed the URSC being an accountable and fully fledged club with financial accounts, elected committee and constituition must be seen to be accountable if even one member takes an interest in how it's run. That is the principle that should be established here.

I agree that the public airing of grievances may well be unseemly but if there is as little interest as you suggest then it is hardly as damaging to the URSC's image or the committee as you latterly suggest. Indeed Stanley's statements aired on National radio could be seen to be the most damaging part of this whole episode. To take this one item in isolation is of course unfair and as you say we all make mistakes. Perhaps that avoids the issue which is subsequent behaviour of individuals who have either tried to confuse issues or reverted to subterfuge under assumed monikers and so on in an attempt to divert attention away from the matter. This is what has got me interested as a club member and as one contributor to this thread said, a simple statement from the committee at the time and ongoing publication of minutes would have avoided a lot of the flak directed at them not only in relation to Stanleygate but the events mishandling. Remember at the time of the radio comments a member of the committee did appear on the TV to put the URSC's case re the National Stadium and the subsequent comments on the radio therefore must be seen in that context.

It would be better in my opinion that this was discussed in the open now as you have attempted to do cap'n and that the procedures for the transparent operation of the committee agreed by them now rather than wait for a further episode of this sort to explode with more disastrous consequences. That is why it should not be swept under the carpet because as a fully fledged and accountable club which has the potential to grow, it could find itself in the future embroiled in a matter which has legal consequences and if proper procedures are not adopted then there could be consequences for committee members. That is why accountability is so important.

I note that you say that we will receive more clarification in the next few days which I would welcome but I must admit I have not seen any statements from the URSC which said anything of that nature. I understand you may be sharing with the forum information that not all or even any non committee members have access to. I think that highlights the problems that I have found so frustrating over the last few months which is information re committee issued by proxy through sources close to the committee or even by committee members under their moniker or ex committee members. If there is to be a transparent operation of committee affairs then proxy statements should be avoided otherwise it leads one to think agendas are being promoted of one kind or another.

I agree that the AGM is a suitable vehicle for electing or deselecting committee members but is still some way off and many of the issues raised recently will be lost in the mists of time therefore if you say there will be clarification from the committee now then so be it but not before time and not without this having to be dragged out of them.

Finally to address the smart alecs who continue to ask why don't i go on the committee and see how like it. I don't have to have been in a car crash to be able to comment on one. It seems anyone who voices criticism of the URSC or the rugby team immediately have their credentials questioned and the inference is you have to have played for the Lions before you can comment on a rugby match. Of course if i said, 'hallelujah! the URSC are a top act,' nobody would be asking me to have a committee experience before saying that so why do they when i voice something negative, surely life has negative and positive experiences or do some people live in a virtual utopia.

For the record Ihave sat on committees, I was chairman of a club, albeit with a smaller but more vocal and enthusiastic membership. I chair meetings on a regular basis, take decisions and so on, so i don't need homilies from people on what it takes to be on a committee. What I do know is that i have a sense of responsibility in taking on a leadeship role and that includes the ability to put it bluntly, 'keep my gub shut' when necessary and maintain a degree of confidence and trust in my dealings with people, something that is sadly lacking with some people on this forum, the decorum factor is not revealing personal e-mails and private conversations or telephone calls. This is not rocket science or a tall order for committee members to follow and should not be seen as deterent to them from joining the committee. Had proper accountability procedures been in place in the committee then a lot of the flak as it's been termed might never have occurred. I have had as I said a periphery and modest involvement with the URSC which I enjoyed and don't wish to continue to trumpet it in anyway and would be assistance again if asked. I do not have the time at the moment to undertake any involvement with the committee cap'n you'll have to take my word for that but would not rule it out in the future if elected to the role.
Gary
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3642
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: Carrickfergus and Odessa. (Not at the same time. That would be silly.)
Contact:

Post by Gary »

A voice in the wilderness BP - as the good Cap'n has pointed out, the vast majority of the URSC membership does not share your concerns and I would hope the Committee spends its valuable time and resources on behalf of this majority instead of wasting time jumping to attention at your request. That way, hopefully any imperfections will be ironed out and we can return to what the Club was meant to be - for supporting Ulster Rugby. You might have the time to pontificate and judge the actions of others - most people, including the Committee I suspect, would prefer to use their time rather more objectively.
Post Reply