[Archived] BBC Radio Lancashire Q & A with Shebby Singh

[martonrover]

Couldn't listen to this last night, every time the man gets in front of a camera/microphone it's like a PR car crash waiting to happen.

Judging by the reactions of those on here, and the transcript being relayed, it seems I was right in my pre-conceptions.

This guy is a complete bell-end without a clue, the only good thing that's happened since he came on board was Kean leaving, and I daresay we're not in a much different position than when he was here.......

What's changed is that we've replaced a bullshitting moron with a lapdog.

So Hendry's already been moved to work with the reserves ( please don't sack me, I need the money ) but don't forget folks, it's all just speculation, Sbebby told us so.

[bob fleming]

I see that Shebby has held a blogging night tonight? What even is that?

Blogging seems a private thing not a social event

Where was it being held Tom ? Wembley Arena ?

[Majiball]

Yes, certainly. I thought Andy made a bit much of it really. The guy in front of me engaged Shebby in a conversation about trust. Basically the fan said you have to give us reason to trust you and the owners. responded what would make you trust us, you have to tell me. It went back and forth like that a few times. It wasn't heated just two people trying to get their point across to each other at the same time. I'm sure we've all heard similar conversations.

Andy said he wished it had been recorded as it showed the passion involved. I see his point but if the whole programme had gone that way it would have been very difficult for the listeners.

It wasn't a big deal, no shouting match or anything like that. Andy certainly wasn't ruffled in the studio - though he did have a problem with his Twitter feed just as we went back on air - so it's interesting to me it sounded so on the radio.

As today has gone by and I read the MB it's apparent to me what is said in the studio comes over differently on the radio. I think it's because the body language is missing.

So something was said in the first advert break?

[mhead]

A great summary PlasticHead.

I think what we do not fully appreciate is the Indian cultural take on failure,respect and the feeling of shame when you cock it up.

Do not want to lump the poor Nurse in London too much with the Venky's but its part of the same spectrum.

[philipl]

The problem for any fan in dialogue with the lunes or the lunes' proxies is that they risk getting dubbed as loony.

Ordinarily I would say keep to Paul and Glen to keep on talking to them.

Just make sure you have filled your face with dental filler to suppress the guffaws when you hear the answers.

[EgyptianPete]

And neither has Mulder

Oops well done, at least you knew what i mean't

[Tom]

I think anything Shebby says would hold more gravitas if he didn't speak at every opportunity

Communication is good but talking in public at every chance he gets makes the message diluted and comes across as self serving

If he tones it down I think he will be received better

[Kelbo]

I think anything Shebby says would hold more gravitas if he didn't speak at every opportunity

Communication is good but talking in public at every chance he gets makes the message diluted and comes across as self serving

If he tones it down I think he will be received better

I think Shebby would be recieved better if he started to think before he spoke!!

[Paul]

So something was said in the first advert break?

Only what I described

[AggyBlue]

I think anything Shebby says would hold more gravitas if he didn't speak at every opportunity

Communication is good but talking in public at every chance he gets makes the message diluted and comes across as self serving

If he tones it down I think he will be received better

He'd be better off speaking to the fans through the local media, be it the LT, Radio Lancs or both.

A weekly column in the LT or weekly fifteen minute slot on the radio.

[Majiball]

Only what I described

If being honest Paul I found your response shebbyesq in that it didn't definitively answer the question. Did the BBC in any way shape or form try to change the tone of the evening as the first caller was reposting to shebby's answers and no-one else really did. The Q's very quickly changed to far more rosier ones and no re-posting was occuring. I also thought Bayes became far more controlling of the evening after that point towards shebby with him throwing in the reposts not the questioner, I also found it very odd that an ad break happened so quickly during the programme as well. I can't help but think that since these guys do this sort of thing everyday that they know how to control things without actually appearing to do so.

[booth]

The BBC has to be seen to be balanced so perhaps Bayes was just trying to keep that in mind.

[tomphil]

Bayes is a Rovers fan so it must be frustrating for him, im sure he'd have taken Singh to task if he could. You could almost feel the bewilderment in his voice over the transfer window issue.

[ABBEY]

ads on the beeb?

[Tom]

Just traffic and news Abbs

[Mike Graham]

Just cyclists and squirrels Abbs

[Paul]

If being honest Paul I found your response shebbyesq in that it didn't definitively answer the question.

Having re-read my reply several times I think I did answer the point clearly. The question asked what happened, if anything. I described clearly what I observed. It would be impossible to give an honest answer in any other way

Did the BBC in any way shape or form try to change the tone of the evening as the first caller was reposting to shebby's answers and no-one else really did.

Ah different question. Absolutely and categorically NO. There is a process involved with the programme, one applies by email, receives a positive response also asking for full name and mobile number (not compulsory but kept so the Beeb can call you for opinions on other matters), on arrival one's name is checked on a list and christian name is written on a small piece of paper. You go to your seat, chat with others and wait for the programme to begin. Unless Andy Bayes knows the individuals in the audience his only insight is the name on the paper. At no point was I, or as far as I could see anyone else, asked first if we had a question and second what that question would contain.

This was a live programme and I believe i could have said absolutely anything I wished. it happens to be my view one makes more progress in life by being polite and courteous in such situations. It doesn't make me any less able to question, I believe it puts me in a much stronger position than those I observe (not on Wednesday) effing and blinding and pointing fingers.

The Q's very quickly changed to far more rosier ones and no re-posting was occuring.

The content of the questions is completely a function of the questioner. I posted earlier I felt questions are wasted at this and other public opportunities to debate with the club. However, like you, I would not seek to influence anyone's question, it's simply mine are more concerned with our long term financial security than who the manager is.

When asking a question Andy stands next to the questioner, with a microphone positioned appropriateley - quite disconcerting. He stays in place while Shebby answers, there is an immediate opportunity for the questioner to respond when Shebby finishes, as in any conversation, except this is not a normal situation. During Shebby's response one has to listen, absorb, hook on to a point, formulate a reply and be ready to go with it in seconds. Speak clearly, try not to be garbled, all this while, in my case, worrying if I'm making a complete tit of myself!!! Andy Bayes is a professional and has to keep the show flowing. I'm sure he can see quickly, in fact must do, when a riposte is coming or not. Andy can't have lots of "would you like to come back on that?" littering the programme. If he sees no riposte coming he has no choice other than to take up the flow with Shebby.

I also thought Bayes became far more controlling of the evening after that point towards shebby with him throwing in the reposts not the questioner, I also found it very odd that an ad break happened so quickly during the programme as well. I can't help but think that since these guys do this sort of thing everyday that they know how to control things without actually appearing to do so.

If there was any control it was this; several people wanted to ask a second question and we did have that opportunity but only after Andy had ensured, as he initially told us he would, everyone had the chance for one question. Only 50% of the audience asked a question. If everyone had asked a question there would have been no opportunity for second questions.

I can be very clear the live transmission breaks were taken as and when an appropriate moment occurred around the expected time. No one was cut short to silence them.

I've been posting on here for more than 10 years. In that time I have been nothing other than open, honest and truthful in my rambling. I don't always post what I know but on those occassions I stay silent. Speaking openly has caused me problems in the distance past and more recently. It therefore surprises me you described my response as "shebbyesque." I'm not unhappy about it but for me it is one of the most visible demonstrations of the suspicion surrounding every aspect of our club. The suggestion the BBC had reason to attempt to "control" the programme is frankly ludicrous. That audience members have to go to this length to describe the events of the evening is troubling. The manner in which posters have taken Shebby's words out of context to attack him and the club is a worrying show of the depth of the chasm Venkys must bridge - I don't believe they can.

In closing I know I made an error on Wednesday. if you listened I tried very hard to get Shebby to understand there is a distinction between the club and the owners. He doesn't understand this and nor do the owners. I should have told him the club belongs to these people, the audience, the thousands who have wept tears of joy and despair in following Rovers. Venkys and Shebby can NEVER have that, you can't buy that and it's why this will always be OUR club and never anyone else's.......sadly I wasn't good enough to think of and make the point in the seconds I had to work out my replies. I will next time.

I would love to get an hour on live radio with Shebby.

[arbitro]

If being honest Paul I found your response shebbyesq in that it didn't definitively answer the question. Did the BBC in any way shape or form try to change the tone of the evening as the first caller was reposting to shebby's answers and no-one else really did. The Q's very quickly changed to far more rosier ones and no re-posting was occuring. I also thought Bayes became far more controlling of the evening after that point towards shebby with him throwing in the reposts not the questioner, I also found it very odd that an ad break happened so quickly during the programme as well. I can't help but think that since these guys do this sort of thing everyday that they know how to control things without actually appearing to do so.

In no way,shape or form was any of this stage managed. The only breaks were for news and travel bulletins and iirc advertising some programme which is coming up.

I was the person who engaged Shebby in dialogue during one of these breaks and Andy Bayes listened intently to what was being said. What really irks me is that there are many posts on here which are critical of the tone and nature of questions to Shebby Singh. Everybody had an opportunity to apply for tickets to this and it seems that some of the more vocal critics of the attendees couldn't be a*rsed themselves.

[Majiball]

I've been posting on here for more than 10 years. In that time I have been nothing other than open, honest and truthful in my rambling. I don't always post what I know but on those occassions I stay silent. Speaking openly has caused me problems in the distance past and more recently. It therefore surprises me you described my response as "shebbyesque." I'm not unhappy about it but for me it is one of the most visible demonstrations of the suspicion surrounding every aspect of our club. The suggestion the BBC had reason to attempt to "control" the programme is frankly ludicrous. That audience members have to go to this length to describe the events of the evening is troubling. The manner in which posters have taken Shebby's words out of context to attack him and the club is a worrying show of the depth of the chasm Venkys must bridge - I don't believe they can.

In closing I know I made an error on Wednesday. if you listened I tried very hard to get Shebby to understand there is a distinction between the club and the owners. He doesn't understand this and nor do the owners. I should have told him the club belongs to these people, the audience, the thousands who have wept tears of joy and despair in following Rovers. Venkys and Shebby can NEVER have that, you can't buy that and it's why this will always be OUR club and never anyone else's.......sadly I wasn't good enough to think of and make the point in the seconds I had to work out my replies. I will next time.

I would love to get an hour on live radio with Shebby.

Paul, firstly I'll apologise I wasn't in any way shape or manner intending to question your integrity or character, in fact that's the very reason I responded to you. I have time for your comments on here and know from our interactions on here you'll post what you think in a balanced manner and I respect that. I should have been clearer in my questions and as always make assumptions over how it will be interpreted. I asked as I've seen how these things (the Q & A broadcast) can be manipulated and controlled even in subtle ways. Again this is another reason I questioned you as your an observant and intellectual chap as I remember the detail you responded with on the cycling issue. Most sports people would give me 2-3 lines yours was very detailed. You see I see SS as a bit of a puzzle, (please see accompanying PM) and puzzles need to be solved.

Having re-read my reply several times I think I did answer the point clearly. The question asked what happened, if anything. I described clearly what I observed. It would be impossible to give an honest answer in any other way

Ah different question. Absolutely and categorically NO. There is a process involved with the programme, one applies by email, receives a positive response also asking for full name and mobile number (not compulsory but kept so the Beeb can call you for opinions on other matters), on arrival one's name is checked on a list and christian name is written on a small piece of paper. You go to your seat, chat with others and wait for the programme to begin. Unless Andy Bayes knows the individuals in the audience his only insight is the name on the paper. At no point was I, or as far as I could see anyone else, asked first if we had a question and second what that question would contain.

Perahps I should have been clearer in my post, I meant any sort of interaction whether verbal, visual or other medium. I wondered whether you might have to submit your question first something I've seen before and thanks for letting me know the procedure.

This was a live programme and I believe i could have said absolutely anything I wished. it happens to be my view one makes more progress in life by being polite and courteous in such situations. It doesn't make me any less able to question, I believe it puts me in a much stronger position than those I observe (not on Wednesday) effing and blinding and pointing fingers.

When asking a question Andy stands next to the questioner, with a microphone positioned appropriateley - quite disconcerting. He stays in place while Shebby answers, there is an immediate opportunity for the questioner to respond when Shebby finishes, as in any conversation, except this is not a normal situation. During Shebby's response one has to listen, absorb, hook on to a point, formulate a reply and be ready to go with it in seconds. Speak clearly, try not to be garbled, all this while, in my case, worrying if I'm making a complete tit of myself!!! Andy Bayes is a professional and has to keep the show flowing. I'm sure he can see quickly, in fact must do, when a riposte is coming or not. Andy can't have lots of "would you like to come back on that?" littering the programme. If he sees no riposte coming he has no choice other than to take up the flow with Shebby.

When I say controlling I don't mean in obvious ways. As in the PM we do this sort of thing and managers come in for Q & A sessions with students. Questions are submitted in advance (not my choice). but during these things there are ways of controlling things in less obvious ways. Interceding in the conversation, getting in at the end of the managers comments. Leading the conversation by speaking for a short period before moving on to another question. (there's more techniques but those will suffice) There all techniques taught to us for these things so I assume that people like Bayes have this experience and knowledge.

If there was any control it was this; several people wanted to ask a second question and we did have that opportunity but only after Andy had ensured, as he initially told us he would, everyone had the chance for one question. Only 50% of the audience asked a question. If everyone had asked a question there would have been no opportunity for second questions.

I can be very clear the live transmission breaks were taken as and when an appropriate moment occurred around the expected time. No one was cut short to silence them.

Now I see no second questions as an element of control hidden behind fairness, a double bladed sword to a host of a Q & A session. I am doing a right thing IE everyone gets a go, but also I can use that to ensure control by not allowing second questions as my 'guest' is suffering. Maintaining the relationship with the guest is paramount and given priority in these situations. The BBC will want to keep doing 'Evenings with Shebby'.

[Majiball]

In no way,shape or form was any of this stage managed. The only breaks were for news and travel bulletins and iirc advertising some programme which is coming up.

I was the person who engaged Shebby in dialogue during one of these breaks and Andy Bayes listened intently to what was being said. What really irks me is that there are many posts on here which are critical of the tone and nature of questions to Shebby Singh. Everybody had an opportunity to apply for tickets to this and it seems that some of the more vocal critics of the attendees couldn't be a*rsed themselves.

I don't think I have been or am being critical towards any of the questioners. I have explained how I interpreted events and was pursing more info to perhaps gain a better insight into what occurred. I shouldn't have used to term shebbyesq as clearly people are interpreting it wrong, it was used as SS has a habit of answering Q's without answering them and Pauls response seemed that way. As SS is seen as a negative figure by most people seem to then be applying that to my response and interpreting critic when none is intended.

[Paul]

Well I'm smiling. Thanks for the PM. I'll reply later as I'm busy with housework before leaving for Blackpool - coffee break at the mo!

I get your points, interesting perspective. I shall observe more closely in future. Thanks I do understand and I don't take the questioning personally but as I said I find it disturbing the general fan base have reached this point

[arbitro]

I don't think I have been or am being critical towards any of the questioners. I have explained how I interpreted events and was pursing more info to perhaps gain a better insight into what occurred. I shouldn't have used to term shebbyesq as clearly people are interpreting it wrong, it was used as SS has a habit of answering Q's without answering them and Pauls response seemed that way. As SS is seen as a negative figure by most people seem to then be applying that to my response and interpreting critic when none is intended.

I could accept criticism of the event or the questions. It is the moron and slack jawed yokel references among other I took exception to.

[Stuart]

The suggestion the BBC had reason to attempt to "control" the programme is frankly ludicrous.

Good post Paul.

I picked out this line in summary. I think that because of the lies and deceit (and disappointment) we've all endured over the last couple of years people have a hard time trusting anyone or anything surrounding the club.

We've consistently heard the words but the actions never seemed to line up.

I'd like some positive action from the club, and a sense that Berg has complete control over all football matters. Singh hasn't yet convinced me that he isn't hands-on in this regard. That worries me.

[ABBEY]

Shabby has a twin.

[RibbleValleyRover]

The Trust and John Williams rarely spoke to the fans but they rarely needed to. Their actions always spoke a thousand words.

And then we have Venky's...

Agreed. If everything was rosy at Rovers and the team were doing well on the pitch not many would be complaining about the lack of communication from the club.