It’s been a peculiar week. The statements, arguments and blogs (this is one) attempting to justify viewpoints/rationalise the situation. The involvement of high-profile supporter groups breeding new discussion. The feuding sides then displaying the first signs of sanity in months.
And yet, I continue to be wary about how further forward we are.
Don’t get me wrong, job one is clearly attempting to rectify what is fundamentally a broken relationship between Sisu and the Council. The news that Joy will meet Ann surely has to be welcomed, IF your aim is to get City back to the Ricoh as quickly as possible that is. If you’d rather Sisu slung their hook above anything else, then it’s probably not as welcome to you.
But differences in perspective, opinion, reason, rationale and interpretation throughout this entire saga requires another blog post entirely. And I will write one eventually. Understanding why right and wrong can never really cut it is something which tasks me on a daily basis. This situation isn’t maths, science or anything else which can be qualified through water-tight patterns. Dig beneath the complexity of administration, politics, PR brashness, judicial reviews, NOPM and Sisu sympathisers, and much of the disputes among fans boil down to how things are making people feel. Nothing more than that.
In short, I believe we each view this situation slightly differently because we each hold personal, and often indefinable values which drive us along in life. Supporting the club means different things to each of us. It’s the way it is. None of you give a monkeys about the specifics behind me being unable to watch the matches with my Dad and mate Stu anymore, but that matters to me more than anything else.
Obviously this will regularly lead to views which feel so far removed from our own interpretations. I do get that. Of course we can all find these annoying and unfathomable because all we really know is how to reason based on our own morals and ethics. That’s human nature for you I guess. From the evolution of a human race which now recognises “you can’t go eating other people nowadays”, to the nuances of certain behaviours being acceptable in different countries – we believe and reason against these rules, often taking these as a given.
But we should all remember, it is quite possible, however absurd, to reason for and against anything. And it’s that notion which grips me. Because in the end, maybe culture is arbitrary. We may crave patterns in our search for understanding, but maybe life is a contradiction in itself? Maybe, just maybe, we’re never going to agree on some of these things, because the rationale behind each argument only fits for the individual that believes in it.
Anyway, I digress massively. Sorry if that kind of self-indulgent brain dumping isn’t for you.
The point of all this being (before I rudely interrupted myself with that glimpse into my whirring physche): it feels as though step one has been achieved and they’re going to talk. That’s great for many, possibly the majority. But maybe not for some.
Step two on the other hand is where the real resolutions lie, and equally, resides the fear that if we’re not careful, we will fall immediately back into an impasse between the two parties.
Let’s forget for a moment that they seem to hate eachother. That alone is going to drive and influence their thoughts, regardless of the substance behind what is being said. What we have here are two sides which have been worlds apart in their views on the Ricoh over last 12 months, so much so that they’ve allowed a football club to be relocated from its City rather than force themselves to compromise. That’s a pretty bad starting point for any negotiation.
I can’t help but be cynical of the suggestion that anything too different has happened or been said over the last week or two – but we do at least have a hint of improvement in the relationship. The pressure to compromise is now the challenge for these two, as is resisting what I can only imagine is an overwhelming urge towards antagonistic rhetoric.
As far as our position in all of this, I’m becoming increasingly wary of the moral high-ground in this argument becoming somewhat hijacked by those who claim total balance, when in reality that balance is actually a flipped and fairly dedicated focus towards aiming grief to the Council, and the council alone.
The idea that we should be pressurising both sides appears to have evolved into something which a large proportion of us can accept. But for that to engage the masses and breed some semblance of solidarity, both surely has to mean both. I’m interested to hear what the plan of action is to maintain equal pressure on Sisu.
At its core, when you dig around the differences of opinion and approaches, the challenge of forcing both sides to adjust their stance is what remains. Stubbornness from either party achieves very little now.
So continuing the campaign to badger the council into letting down they defences remains a crucial part of this, but I feel that can only be successful in conjunction with equivalent pressure on Sisu – otherwise known as the boycott – so they remain fully aware that their willingness to reside in Northampton for 3 years is unacceptable.
At least, that’s how I’m feeling. Feel free to utilise your brains differently.