For reasons unknown, as this won't help my sanity in anyway, I have read the last half a dozen pages or so and thought it worthwhile to post a reply.
For disclosure, I was the Chair of SOS for quite a few years, and spokesperson etc.
A few comments have gotten my interest, and up for discussing them more with those who've posted them and I will try and reference them here rather than quote posts, if anyone wants to engage on it.
On Amseekers comments about racism/xenophobia. I'm not seeing a specific allegation, of what was said or by whom. SOS members is a broad statement, and they won't have been saying it on behalf of SoS. So it's not reflective of SoS, in the same way being a Liverpool ST holder doesn't make my views reflective of LFC and its support. On the wider point about the use of 'Yanks' etc in the Hicks and Gillett campaigning. There wasn't a delibreate antagonism, it was used for campaigning purely because of how it fitted. Maybe in hindsight we may not use that, but it isn't xenophobic or racist.
Some comments from Alan X and I think one or two others about things SOS have said or the tone of the statements. That's fair, and at times our statements might not have appealed to everyone or got the right tone - there was a period post Hicks and Gillett and the first few years of FSG, were it felt like at times fans were in a different place (not just SOS membership). But we reflected on that, and in my opinion, supporters came back towards us more than it did the ownrship in questions about what they were doing and how. I think if they were honest the would say their first half, and second half of their ownership tenure are very different. They will have learnt and so will we. Those statements or sentiments as you describe, if they were wrong or a mistake made (and I am speaking generally as I don't know which ones and I think for all our sakes, typing it out back and forth on a forum doesn't do us any good but a pint one day might be the place) they were done so honestly.
There is though a fundamental point in how supporters, and SOS in this instance, are viewed for 'mistakes' they make versus club executives and owners. I'd argue pretty strongly that SOS have been wrong less than the owners have, and certainly not made the scale of 'mistakes' that the ownership or executives have, yet were judged to a different standard. I know it exists, and I have learnt to live it with, but it doesn't make it right. Do each get it right all the time? No. But do each get the same response for not doing so? I wouldn't say so.
On the wider points of who the fan representatives should be, I think it's worth splitting this up into a few comments. It's worth pointing out, though I am not involved, I don't think there is a fixed position on how SOS would identify and choose its representatives, and I think personaltly there are ways to make it inclusive whilst retaining some important elements. (Plus never mind what it would practically mean for the supporter representative and how it would change their life, and not positively)
There is the principle and history to this, which gives it context. Who (other than SOS) has sought to represent the views of supporters and give them a voice, on a range of issues that affect supporters? If there were other groups, I would see the argument for more plurality. But there aren't, not on these issues. No one else has started a group, sought to be an alternative, or anything else. Trust me, in the last decade, I would have happily given someone everything I know and told them to crack on and wish them all the best. SOS have advocated for supporter representation since the very beginning. They have been the ones the club, the PL and others including recently the Prime Minister (though you will understand why the invitiation was declined) have gone to speak to. They are the supporters trust, of which there can only be one at each club, which comes with certain responsibilities, which is the vehicle for supporter representation and ownership. It was also the proposed vehicle for various political party manifesto commitments, including from Labour, for putting supporters onto the boards of football clubs. So having been the representative body on these issues, and the most appropriate for such a mechanism, why wouldn't they say it should be done through SOS? Why should it be another group or version, in which no one has advocated for this?
There is mention of another rep, for the wider support. The supporters committee has been mentioned. But I think you end up with something closer to Chelsea's version which is 'selection and election' or the worst of fan forums we see at other clubs. It has to have independence for me. The club, having anted to try and sideline SOS after the Hicks and Gillett ownership stuff, set about with the creation of a supporters committee. A few SOS committee members got on through the 'application' process and over the years more got on, including when the club did introduce 'some democracy' through an election after selection. Each time, the SOS member won an election. Each committee member had a consituency to represent - away fans, members young etc. Then, after the walkout which was supported by the Supporters Committee, the club disbanded that and created fans forums. SOS put forward a propsal that they engage through SOS. The clubs version of a forum was to bring over members of the SC and some others who applied to five forums on different topics, and SOS had fixed seats on each of these.
These were less representative, as there was no way for the supporters to be contacted formally to share concerns and address feedback. The SC did not build in accountability, as there was no way to know that the views of those who were emailing and contacting were what was being shared at meetings. There was no 'calling out' the club on answers or questioning things. This still remained the role of SOS. The SC had some public meetings. There were often more on the top table than in the room, and the room was mainly SOS and Spion Kop members having to go through the SC to get answers. One such meeting led to the black flags and the creation of the Ticket Working Group as we were being ignored and the SC too. What has been constant is that formally or informally, privately and publicly, throughout various different guises, the club has engaged with SOS. It's gone full circle now in that there is greater engagement. And the club knows this is useful as it speaks for a wider representation, isn't something they or anyone else can fulfil, and they know SOS can and will be held to account. The 'Chelsea version' and the idea of another non SOS representative, leaves me asking why? How would they be held accountable to? How do you choose? And given the experiences above, would it work? I think you can use some of the methods for wider representation of all the fanbase stuff to help the SOS version be even better (access to contacting members, season ticket holders etc). It's worth noting we've asked to see survey results to understand ticketing changes, or do joint questionnaires. We even offered to have them share, or do a version, of our questionnaire on safe standing to make it even more representative. They've always declined. And it's worth noting, when we've spoken in rooms with the club and others, wider impacts on supporters have been discussed, whether that is membership, pricing, access, tv fixtures etc.
This of course, I think, doesn't actually address what should be a bigger consideration - what fans think a supporter on the board actually is, what it would entail, what it would mean for you (no more quiet pints!) and what it can actually achieve. A supporter on the board would be bound by all kinds of confidentialities and conflicts, and wouldn't be to take up your individual complaint or maybe even discussion on ticketing policy. Is it a job, volunteer, what info you get, how you consult etc.
I want the rol to exist - I think it fixes so many problems in football. But it creates many more for the individual.
