You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “FAO Steve Borley.”.
Tags: Steve Borley
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “FAO Steve Borley.”.
Tags: Steve Borley
Morning Bob
Thanks again for your thoughts and time. You asked Steve Borley
“to try and think back to that time before you got involved at Boardroom level when you were just an ordinary punter like the rest of us lifelong supporters are. If…..there was a demonstration arranged against the Board by supporters unhappy with the sort of issues I have outlined above, wouldn’t you have been on that march or, at least, agreed with the principles behind it?”
It’s a good question to ask – but of a kind few of us would like to be asked ourselves. I would guess that Mr Borley is still an “ordinary punter” at heart and you have played on the strings. But would we not find a vision of ourselves as young men discomforting? Have we ourselves not re-appraised many of the things we stood for once upon a time? Do we not like to believe that we have learned things over the years and changed for the better? Some of my youthful “marches” I now find a bit embarrassing. I think Mr Borley needs to have his 2010 head screwed firmly at present. If he thinks like I often did as a callow youth, he’ll screw things up!
Mr Borley is a leader now, not follower. What would you have him do?
Regards
Royale
Morning Royale, I’ve got two points to make in reply to you. Firstly, I did say that I understood why Steve Borley acted like he did at last week’s EGM and secondly, although I can see the point you are making, I was thinking more in terms of quiet moments he may have to himself when he might reflect that those who will be on the march on Saturday could have a point – in fact, he might even think that he could have been on it himself under different circumstances.
Hello there Bob
I realize that in tone and content your message is sympathetic to Steve Borley, but “the point you are trying to make” – and actually I think you always choose your words very carefully – is that…”twenty years ago.. wouldn’t (Steve) have been on (the planned) march or, at least, agreed with the principles behind it?” Your implication surely is that he should be walking with the fans (in spirit at least), not siding with his Board colleagues.
Perhaps we can agree that such doubts should be reserved for his “quiet moments” because other thoughts should weigh more heavily upon his actions.