Debate: The URSC, the new committee and the way forward.

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:40 pm

Tighty
A question for you, How do you know so much time was used up for these responses?

Dewi Barnes · Post by **Dewi Barnes** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:58 pm

He knows DB because everyone on this and all the other message boards are committee members. You're the only person that's not and all we do is talk about you and have a good laugh.

Gotta go we've an other secret meeting on tonight!

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:08 pm

Tighthead Prod · Post by **Tighthead Prod** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:37 pm

Dewi, thanks for coming to my rescue with ''spoiler'' - the ruthless and incisive logic of ''The Dromore Boar'' (sic) had me on the ropes and I thought I was going to be ''outed'' !!

Cockatrice · Post by **Cockatrice** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:59 pm

THP- I accept that this is getting beyond the joke stage but can't agree with summary.

Would have been much more accurate to have indicated that one and probably two meetings were taken up with the committee carrying out enquiries that established some of it members had been misled.

They where then able to answer some questions after that. As for inference it was not yourself that I was hinting at but I can only assume that the constant reference to 1-2 correspondences holding everything up must have included mine.

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:01 am

Holding what up exactly? Sorry this is a complete joke.

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:02 pm

Cockatrice wrote:DB- Maybe you should take any further enquiry that you have regarding your membership up with the membership sub-committee. They are responsible for maintaining membership database & membership package and collecting & processing applications.

If not acceptable then how would anyone in a similar position have proved membership at say last years AGM or indeed even in wanting to join the committee. I can confirm that prior to this year the URSC didn't have a list of its own membership as I recall being vocal about it in the summer as we tried to get it.

I have been looking into this and you won't believe who is on that particular committee!!! None other than Stanley Graham, so why he has first of all got the dates wrong for when I joined and then has no clue whether I had been a member the year before escapes me. But at least he is prepared not to believe me even though he has no evidence show my story to be incorrect.

I am now wondering if no records exist of who were members in the 2004/2005 season how did Stanley Graham prove his membership so as to stand for the committee? Indeed how did any of them? Did anyone check into this?

Oh and I thought you all might find the following correspondence interesting. I had originally not planned to exhibit it in this way but since nobody on the committe have come back to explain what is going on here it is:

From: URSC Secretary [mailto:ulsterrugbysupportersclub@hotmail.com]
Sent: 01 March 2006 12:55
To: *******************
Subject: e mails

MR. ******
FURTHER TO THE REQUEST FROM R. **** I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT YOU DESIST FROM COPYING EMAILS TO ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS. IN DOING SO YOU ARE TAKING UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF AN ERROR ON MY PART IN INCLUDING THEIR EMAIL ADRESSES ON AN EMAIL TO YOU.

I WILL CONTACT YOU AS SOON AS I CAN CLARIFY YOUR MEMBERSHIP OOSITION WITH EITHER ULSTER RUGBY OR THE SECRETARY THEN IN OFFICE BOTH OF WHOM I HAVE CONTACTED TODAY

regards S****** G*****

My Response. This has a bit of a back drop. I had a conversation with a member of the club who informed he asked URSC to get in touch with me and make me aware that my personal details had been leaked to other members. He was just checking this had been done and I had informed him I have had no correspondence from them on the subject. That is still the case.

Original Message Follows----
From: "**** *****" *********************
To: "'URSC Secretary'"
<ulsterrugbysupportersclub@hotmail.com>,**********
Subject: RE: e mails
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:41:58 -0000

Mr. G*****
It seems your incompetence knows no bounds. I will show the same measure of regard for their privacy as has been shown to mine by you as a committee. I think you are aware of what I am talking about.

I have found in my experience that you as a committee do not always communicate sufficiently with each other. Please see the comments of one of the previous committee members ****** ****** (he posts as Cockatrice):
phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1681

Further I do not recognize you in the capacity of Secretary due to your previous actions. If the committee decide to ignore these issues and promote you to a position of authority that is for them to answer for, I for my part have no confidence in you and therefore will continue to send emails to whomever I choose on the committee. I am unaware of any rule in the constitution that stops me from doing so.

I trust I have made my position clear.

**** *****

Then the best yet from our Club Secretary!

-----Original Message-----
From: URSC Secretary [mailto:ulsterrugbysupportersclub@hotmail.com]
Sent: 01 March 2006 14:33
To: *****************
Subject: RE: e mails

I AM SO PLEASED THAT YOU REFUSE TO RECOGNISE ME AS THE SECRETARY OF URSC AS THIS LEAVES ME AND THE COMMITTEE WHO ELECTED ME FREE TO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AND YOUR RANTINGS IN FUTUREi AM QUITE SURE YOU HAVE NEVER MADE A MISTAKE IN YOU LIFE WHICH PROBABLY MEANS THE ONLY CONTRIBUTITION YOU EVER MAKE IS CRITICISM. IT SEEMS YOUR RUDENESS KNOWS NO BOUNDS AND YOUR REGARD IS ONLY FOR YOURSELF.

Interestingly this added to the bottom of the email recieved from the Club's official email account!

THIS LETTER IS A PERSONAL ONE , I HAVE NOT CONSULTED THE COMMITTEE ON ITS CONTENT

No sh1t Stanley!

Cap'n Grumpy · Post by **Cap'n Grumpy** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:46 pm

Good to see he has learnt from previous mistakes and clarified his position when stating his views.

I.E. he was NOT speaking on behalf of URSC!

Tighthead Prod · Post by **Tighthead Prod** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:00 pm

Cap'n - As they say in these parts ''that was a good spake'' by Mr Graham and should be wholeheartedly endorsed by the ursc committee as a matter of urgency !

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:10 pm

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:10 am

Tighthead Prod wrote:Cap'n - As they say in these parts ''that was a good spake'' by Mr Graham and should be wholeheartedly endorsed by the ursc committee as a matter of urgency !

Is Tighty SG's moniker??

ballpark · Post by **ballpark** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:27 am

In the beginning there was a lack of interest....................

Only 3 or was it 4 members bothered to put their concerns in writing to the committee.

There was an online poll conducted on behalf of the membership and a whole host of signatures garnered at the gates to Ravers signalling supporters didn't want to leave Ravers at least not for the Maze location anyway.

A committee member appeared on TV on the Maze move debate with the approval of the committee.

2 days later another committee member spoke on the radio apparently on behalf of the membership but without approval of the committee. He misled the Ulster public about UR and some mythical tapes Mike Reid did not possess. He blamed another committee member for giving him the info which he erringly used on the radio. He apologised to the committee and UR but was acting as an ordinary supporter despite this.

Another committtee member misled the committee apparently

2 committee members resigned, reasons unclear, but one's resignation appeared to be carried out in the manner of a suicide bomber with all it's intended martyrdom and subsequent devastation. He has reappeared clad in heavenly white armour spreading love and goodwill all over the shop and never put a foot wrong during his time on the committee apparently.

One event was cancelled, several explanations available for this depending who you listen to.

Another event barely got off the ground due to the vagary of circumstances depending who you believe.

An event did take place involving a well known former rugby star turned coach and was successful.

Several mythical events took place during the 6N matches which where advertised and attended by the membership but appeared not to involve the committee.

An additional meeting of the committee was held to respond to membership concerns and this was seem as detrimental to the committee carrying out its normal business, ie organising events. and wasting committee time in responding to membership concerns. Subtext - don't waste committee time with membership concerns.

Hey what's another year in the life of the URSC committee??

I look forward to next season's soap opera.

Dewi Barnes · Post by **Dewi Barnes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:41 am

Dead Ball,

For somone who has stated that they do not have enough time to stand for the URSC Committee you seem to have more time than anyone else to get involved in worryingly excessive postings on this and other boards.

Why do you not try to divert your boundless energies into a positive contribution to the Ulster Rugby experience.

In other words put up or shut up you big girl.

Dead Ball for the URSC Committee.

dead ball · Post by **dead ball** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:46 am

Barnes

Thanks for that vote of confidence.

pwrmoore · Post by **pwrmoore** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:53 am

Just think DB - if you stood for the committee you could use your powers of persuasion to convince the entire URSC to stand foursquare behind the Maze proposal

The UAFC

Debate: The URSC, the new committee and the way forward.

Has the URSC any future?