|
Post by ange1 on Oct 8, 2013 13:29:53 GMT
sheikhmomo It was "rigorously" discussed and I have no doubt that everyone understood why it was debated. Tony Scholes has never bullied me, or tried to. He does of course have his own point of view (which naturally reflects his employers wishes) and sometimes,I like you and many others disagree with that viewpoint. That is when the "fun" starts and I think I stand my ground (and that of the supporters) in my role as indeed do many of the current Council. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter too
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 8, 2013 14:34:09 GMT
sheikhmomo It was "rigorously" discussed and I have no doubt that everyone understood why it was debated. Tony Scholes has never bullied me, or tried to. He does of course have his own point of view (which naturally reflects his employers wishes) and sometimes,I like you and many others disagree with that viewpoint. That is when the "fun" starts and I think I stand my ground (and that of the supporters) in my role as indeed do many of the current Council. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter too Respect for what you do ange, not everyone would be willing and you clearly have had successes but I have heard first hand testimony as to how Scholes behaved towards the old Fans Forum and it wasn't pretty listening. Hopefully his attitude has changed but reports of this exchange do not exactly instil confidence. I suppose it boils down to what you see as the exact role of the Chief Executive but I'm fairly sure shielding a family of a hardened business folk from some perceived minor slight, regardless of whether the idea was in the long term interests of the club and the community or not is not a particularly healthy situation.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 8, 2013 14:40:19 GMT
Any chance of proposing one of these ACV's for Bego?
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 8, 2013 16:18:11 GMT
Sheikh (I feel that I can call you that now:) ) The old fan's forum, which I attended towards the end, was indeed no longer fit for purpose, hence the forming of the democratically elected Council. With voting every year, we should be able to keep it fresh and represent the views of all sections of fans. Thanks again for your comments. If anyone has any items for the next meeting (Nov 23) please DM me
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Oct 8, 2013 16:39:28 GMT
Why would any owner make his asset potentially less attractive to a potential buyer? Or am I missing something? As I understand it, having an ACV wouldn't make the asset potentially less attractive. It only gives the 'community' time/a chance to table a bid themselves. If the 'community' don't make a bid or are not successful with their bid then the potential buyer buys the club as he/she planned.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 8, 2013 22:55:31 GMT
Why would any owner make his asset potentially less attractive to a potential buyer? Or am I missing something? As I understand it, having an ACV wouldn't make the asset potentially less attractive. It only gives the 'community' time/a chance to table a bid themselves. If the 'community' don't make a bid or are not successful with their bid then the potential buyer buys the club as he/she planned. Correct. I also think it has symbolic value, which is important. But of course it's a very new concept so its difficult to predict.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 8, 2013 23:24:11 GMT
sheikhmomo It was "rigorously" discussed and I have no doubt that everyone understood why it was debated. Tony Scholes has never bullied me, or tried to. He does of course have his own point of view (which naturally reflects his employers wishes) and sometimes,I like you and many others disagree with that viewpoint. That is when the "fun" starts and I think I stand my ground (and that of the supporters) in my role as indeed do many of the current Council. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter too Respect for what you do ange, not everyone would be willing and you clearly have had successes but I have heard first hand testimony as to how Scholes behaved towards the old Fans Forum and it wasn't pretty listening. Hopefully his attitude has changed but reports of this exchange do not exactly instil confidence. I suppose it boils down to what you see as the exact role of the Chief Executive but I'm fairly sure shielding a family of a hardened business folk from some perceived minor slight, regardless of whether the idea was in the long term interests of the club and the community or not is not a particularly healthy situation. Not that it really matters anymore, but as a regular member of the old fans forum, I'd say the problem wasn't how the CEO treated it, but that he didn't attend, which I could fully understand because it had no democratic legitimacy. Garreth Ekin as Chair did his level best, but it degenerated into arguments between self-selected fans who didn't really represent anybody, and Club middle/junior managers who often didn't even have the relevant information, let alone the authority to speak on behalf of the club. But that's all water under the bridge now. I don't have a problem with the CEO representing the views of the club on ACVs (or anything else). That's his role. If I have a disappointment on this issue, it is with myself, for being unable to persuade my fellow supporters that this might be an issue worth looking it, notwithstanding the contrary views of the Club, as presented by the CEO.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Oct 9, 2013 5:28:36 GMT
sheikhmomo It was "rigorously" discussed and I have no doubt that everyone understood why it was debated. Tony Scholes has never bullied me, or tried to. He does of course have his own point of view (which naturally reflects his employers wishes) and sometimes,I like you and many others disagree with that viewpoint. That is when the "fun" starts and I think I stand my ground (and that of the supporters) in my role as indeed do many of the current Council. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter too Respect for what you do ange, not everyone would be willing and you clearly have had successes but I have heard first hand testimony as to how Scholes behaved towards the old Fans Forum and it wasn't pretty listening. Hopefully his attitude has changed but reports of this exchange do not exactly instil confidence. I suppose it boils down to what you see as the exact role of the Chief Executive but I'm fairly sure shielding a family of a hardened business folk from some perceived minor slight, regardless of whether the idea was in the long term interests of the club and the community or not is not a particularly healthy situation. So given this unhealthy situation (the Supporters' Council debate with the club was not rigorous, the Supporters' Council is toothless,the Chief Exec is dismissive and is a bully who does whatever he wants, your 'first hand testimony' of the Chief Exec's behaviour and attitude), what do you think should be done about it?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 9, 2013 6:17:45 GMT
Respect for what you do ange, not everyone would be willing and you clearly have had successes but I have heard first hand testimony as to how Scholes behaved towards the old Fans Forum and it wasn't pretty listening. Hopefully his attitude has changed but reports of this exchange do not exactly instil confidence. I suppose it boils down to what you see as the exact role of the Chief Executive but I'm fairly sure shielding a family of a hardened business folk from some perceived minor slight, regardless of whether the idea was in the long term interests of the club and the community or not is not a particularly healthy situation. Not that it really matters anymore, but as a regular member of the old fans forum, I'd say the problem wasn't how the CEO treated it, but that he didn't attend, which I could fully understand because it had no democratic legitimacy. Garreth Ekin as Chair did his level best, but it degenerated into arguments between self-selected fans who didn't really represent anybody, and Club middle/junior managers who often didn't even have the relevant information, let alone the authority to speak on behalf of the club. But that's all water under the bridge now. I don't have a problem with the CEO representing the views of the club on ACVs (or anything else). That's his role. If I have a disappointment on this issue, it is with myself, for being unable to persuade my fellow supporters that this might be an issue worth looking it, notwithstanding the contrary views of the Club, as presented by the CEO. Malcolm, with hindsight, do you think it would help if the Supporters' Council had the facility to hold debates prior to their meetings with the club on any matters which were felt to be controversial? Obviously you had the right (some would say the duty) to raise the question of ACVs. But, if you hadn't had a discussion about it with Council members before raising it with the club, its hardly surprising that you didn't get the support which you might have wanted. I assume that the Council does not routinely hold meetings of members (as the Fans' Forum did) in advance of meeting the club? And I appreciate that such meetings are time consuming. But would it not be an idea for major topics to be aired in an email to members to see if a Council meeting prior to the club meeting would be useful. I do apologise if I am "misrepresenting" the way things work on the Council, but not being on the Council (didn't stand because of where I live) does mean I am working in the dark to some extent.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Oct 9, 2013 8:04:14 GMT
As I understand it, having an ACV wouldn't make the asset potentially less attractive. It only gives the 'community' time/a chance to table a bid themselves. If the 'community' don't make a bid or are not successful with their bid then the potential buyer buys the club as he/she planned. Correct. I also think it has symbolic value, which is important. But of course it's a very new concept so its difficult to predict. I agree with your symbolic value thought Malcolm. Lakeland mentioned something similar earlier in the thread in that PC being unopposed to, or even actively encouraging, an ACV to be put in place would be seen by all as implementing/leaving some sort of legacy for the fans. For the life of me I can't see why any of this could be deemed as "insulting". In fact the effect of the alleged Coates family stance could be construed by the conspiracy theorists amongst us as an indication that PC (or the Coates family) is readying himself to relinquish ownership. Something that I wouldn't want to see.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 9, 2013 9:52:50 GMT
Not that it really matters anymore, but as a regular member of the old fans forum, I'd say the problem wasn't how the CEO treated it, but that he didn't attend, which I could fully understand because it had no democratic legitimacy. Garreth Ekin as Chair did his level best, but it degenerated into arguments between self-selected fans who didn't really represent anybody, and Club middle/junior managers who often didn't even have the relevant information, let alone the authority to speak on behalf of the club. But that's all water under the bridge now. I don't have a problem with the CEO representing the views of the club on ACVs (or anything else). That's his role. If I have a disappointment on this issue, it is with myself, for being unable to persuade my fellow supporters that this might be an issue worth looking it, notwithstanding the contrary views of the Club, as presented by the CEO. Malcolm, with hindsight, do you think it would help if the Supporters' Council had the facility to hold debates prior to their meetings with the club on any matters which were felt to be controversial? Obviously you had the right (some would say the duty) to raise the question of ACVs. But, if you hadn't had a discussion about it with Council members before raising it with the club, its hardly surprising that you didn't get the support which you might have wanted. I assume that the Council does not routinely hold meetings of members (as the Fans' Forum did) in advance of meeting the club? And I appreciate that such meetings are time consuming. But would it not be an idea for major topics to be aired in an email to members to see if a Council meeting prior to the club meeting would be useful. I do apologise if I am "misrepresenting" the way things work on the Council, but not being on the Council (didn't stand because of where I live) does mean I am working in the dark to some extent. My paper was circulated by email in advance of the meeting, John. One member responded to say that he didn't think it is the kind of thing which we should be discussing ( which I obviously disagreed with). The fact is that I didn't predict it would be a controversial item with the Club, let alone fellow supporters, which just shows how poor my judgement is With regard to your suggestion, whilst I can see your reasoning ( and indeed one other council member has suggested this possibility - not as a result of this issue), I think it's a question of practicalities and logistics. It would require a meeting on a different day, which would also have to be a match day because of people who come a distance. We already have sub-group meetings as well, and there is probably a limit as to how many meetings it is reasonable and feasible to hold.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 9, 2013 10:40:48 GMT
Cheers Malcolm. I do appreciate the logistical problems - one of the reasons I did not stand for election! The sad tale you tell does raise another broader question. Council members (unlike the former Fans Forum members) are ELECTED to their posts. When the next round of elections are held it would be useful if the electorate (i.e. the fans in the Boothen or Q Railing Upper etc.) knew how those representatives putting themselves up for re-election actually felt on a range of subjects which had been discussed during their term of office. For example, I like your suggestion of the ACV. Yet as a season ticket holder in the Boothen I might find that my representative was the member who was against it from the start. I remember as a County Councillor at election time the spotlight was shone on my voting record (and that of all councillors) by the press, the opposition (via their leaflets) and local radio - there really was no place to hide! I'm not sure how you can get that element of democracy into the Supporter's Council elections - pity!
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 9, 2013 10:58:18 GMT
Candidates are asked to produce a 250 (? I think) word statement at election time, which is available on the club website. More pertinently, there is of course nothing to stop you or any other fan asking any council member at any time (election or otherwise )for their views on any issue.
I think most SC members would welcome that interest. The problem has been the reverse - a lack of interest in the SC. Many seats have been returned unopposed, and in those cases where there has been a contested election, I think the turnout has been low.
Although ACV is perhaps not the biggest or most urgent issue around, Mark starting this thread as a result of reading the SC minutes has had the beneficial effect of giving some focus to the work of the Council.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 11:07:16 GMT
I find it difficult to understand how the owners would see this as insulting. I certainly don’t understand why Scholes would make the point so vigorously.
As Malcolm has pointed out, this isn’t some “lock, stock” legal contract or binding agreement. The powers are restricted and it’s more of a “buying time” tool, if the worst case scenario does arise. Peter Coates has spoken time and again of his belief in community value and everything it stands for and represents. I fail to see how he would be insulted if this very same community aired an idea, based on a view to (in a very small way) protect its own identity and assets.
As Malcolm has pointed out, it doesn’t have any real authority to affect the “powers that be”. From Scholes’ reaction (from what I’ve read on this thread) it’s almost as if Malcolm raised a point that the CEO of the club should take a 50% pay cut, in order to supply his number one fan, SheikhMomo, with a gold plated Season Ticket. It all seems a bit of an over-reaction to me. It shouldn’t have been dismissed out of hand, and it definitely appears worthwhile of discussion at the very least.
Having read this thread, and from a point of minimal knowledge and research, I’d have to say I feel for you Malcolm. It sounds like you’ve been hung out to dry a bit and you definitely deserved a better level of support.
WD
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 9, 2013 11:36:59 GMT
Candidates are asked to produce a 250 (? I think) word statement at election time, which is available on the club website. More pertinently, there is of course nothing to stop you or any other fan asking any council member at any time (election or otherwise )for their views on any issue. I think most SC members would welcome that interest. The problem has been the reverse - a lack of interest in the SC. Many seats have been returned unopposed, and in those cases where there has been a contested election, I think the turnout has been low. Although ACV is perhaps not the biggest or most urgent issue around, Mark starting this thread as a result of reading the SC minutes has had the beneficial effect of giving some focus to the work of the Council. Why do you think there is a lack of interest Malcolm? Are there any genuine tangible benefits for supporters secured by the SC? If not why not? If so, why aren't these shouted from the rooftops?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 9, 2013 13:16:35 GMT
Malc and Ange; many thanks for the feedback on how the issue came to be raised and presented. That is clear enough. I did not intend for the wider debate on the Supporters Council that appears to have broken out. For me that is another discussion for another day.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 9, 2013 18:20:54 GMT
Mark the wider debate on the Supporters Council isn't a bad thing either. If anyone feels that they have something to contribute, or can do a better job as a result of this thread, that's fine by me. Hopefully more people will stand for election in the future.
|
|
|
Post by juedrops on Oct 9, 2013 19:45:46 GMT
As a supporters council member myself I can't help but feel that issues raised in this thread are not entirely directed at the actual topic raised, but at how the supporters council is ran in general. As a human being we are all entitled to our own opinion and going into my 2nd year with a general seat, in a club that I am passionate about I find some of the comments incredible. The supporters council are still finding their feet and we will always be open to constructive criticism and feedback to 1. Generate more interest 2. Improve what we have already achieved. And why wouldn't we?! We all have one thing in common "our club". We have 2 hours on a designated match day to discuss our agenda. The agenda is submitted to the club 2 wks before the meet then sent out in hard copy format for discussion. How can we improve our interaction with fellow supporters? We have twitter accounts and details on the stoke website of how to contact us to raise feedback into the club. We welcome your input when putting agendas together please get in touch. DM me for more details be great to hear from you.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 9, 2013 20:19:45 GMT
As a supporters council member myself I can't help but feel that issues raised in this thread are not entirely directed at the actual topic raised, but at how the supporters council is ran in general. As a human being we are all entitled to our own opinion and going into my 2nd year with a general seat, in a club that I am passionate about I find some of the comments incredible. The supporters council are still finding their feet and we will always be open to constructive criticism and feedback to 1. Generate more interest 2. Improve what we have already achieved. And why wouldn't we?! We all have one thing in common "our club". We have 2 hours on a designated match day to discuss our agenda. The agenda is submitted to the club 2 wks before the meet then sent out in hard copy format for discussion. How can we improve our interaction with fellow supporters? We have twitter accounts and details on the stoke website of how to contact us to raise feedback into the club. We welcome your input when putting agendas together please get in touch. DM me for more details be great to hear from you. Where can fans see what you achieved? What are these achievements? What's on the current agenda? What have the club blocked that the SC wanted implemented? Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, but where is the information on the SC?
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Oct 9, 2013 20:22:05 GMT
Precisely, whydelilah! I've been intending to raise this topic (ACV) on here, for some time, but was held back by the realisation that too many Stokies have no interest in such things, as was amply proven by the embarrassing lack of support by all but a (literal!) handful, for the formation of a Potters Trust, a few years ago. To then so harshly criticise those who indeed are willing to give up valuable time, for no other reason than to ensure that the club remains a community asset, is difficult to comprehend. Like whydelilah, I feel sumpathy for Malc, who works damned hard for supporters, at both local and national level, for little credit, at least locally. How anyone could doubt the positive and caring thinking behind his introduction of this subject, on which other more enlightened fans, elsewhere, have had the foresight to act, before it is too late, is also beyond me.
How can it be taken for granted that anyone in the profesional game, at this time, even someone like our present owners, will never change or, more likely, that their successors will not act with the same loyalty and integrity? Ask Cardiff City fans (especially after today's news,admittedly on another topic) if they are able to trust their present owners ever again.
To say that it is an insult to our owners, was an unprofessional response to divert, indeed, close any such discussion. Personally, I prefer democracy.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 9, 2013 20:34:47 GMT
Pugsley. All the minutes of the Council meetings are on the club website. As is other information about the Supporters Council
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 9, 2013 20:43:29 GMT
What I think Malcolm, Ange and Monica are clearly saying is SCHOLES OUT!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 9, 2013 20:43:38 GMT
Pugsley. All the minutes of the Council meetings are on the club website. As is other information about the Supporters Council Angela, it might be a good idea to ask the moderators if they would put a direct link on this board to the Supporter's Council pages of the Official site. The Official site is so poorly designed (and many sections are permanently out of date) that many fans have just given up visiting it.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Oct 9, 2013 20:44:24 GMT
Pugsley. All the minutes of the Council meetings are on the club website. As is other information about the Supporters Council Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 9, 2013 20:54:02 GMT
Lakeland, that is a good idea, I will ask and see if they will do so. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 9, 2013 20:58:18 GMT
Mark the wider debate on the Supporters Council isn't a bad thing either. If anyone feels that they have something to contribute, or can do a better job as a result of this thread, that's fine by me. Hopefully more people will stand for election in the future. Hi Ange No indeed. I was just observing that it wasn't really where I was coming from with my initial specific inquiry. I do however look forward to receiving the PR cheque for raising the profile.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 9, 2013 21:03:53 GMT
I don't often do this but I agree with Malcolm on this issue and I can't see why any fan or the CEO or the owner would be against it. It seems a complete overreaction and a wholly unnecessary reaction. Keep pushing for it or skip the middle man is what I say! Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 9, 2013 21:09:17 GMT
Mark, thanks you can have the same cheque that I receive for working with the rest of the Supporters Council. Don't spend it all at once. Would the moderators of the board be good enough to place a link to the supporters council page on the website please?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 2:08:10 GMT
If people really want to take the CA process further, then just get on with it. It doesn't need the club's blessing. However, politically, it would be better to keep the club on side (for things in the future, if not for this). Scholsey is much easier to deal with than popular opinion on 'ere would (too often) suggest. He is always going to say, "We don't want to be raising that with The Family" to just about whatever is suggested should be raised with the Family. But then, just like any CEO, his job is to not go bothering the owners every two minutes, or they'll start to wonder what they are paying him for. He is also, in my experience, likely to want a good idea to be seen to be proposed by the right person/people. If (some) supporters would genuinely like to see the asset receive a level of protection - in part to try and avoid the same fate as The Vic received - then being politically sensitive is the best way forward. [Giving an asset to the communtiy (not what really happens ... but that's often the impression) is always best proposed by the people who own that asset. Often all that is needed is a gentle nudge, to get them started. In my experience, it's far too easy to be - and to be seen to be - charitable with other peoples' stuff. Having a quiet chat - with the right person/people - in the comfy surrounds of the JS seating, over a plastic cup of Bovril, would be a good way to start, I reckon?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 20:28:46 GMT
Precisely, whydelilah! I've been intending to raise this topic (ACV) on here, for some time, but was held back by the realisation that too many Stokies have no interest in such things, as was amply proven by the embarrassing lack of support by all but a (literal!) handful, for the formation of a Potters Trust, a few years ago. To then so harshly criticise those who indeed are willing to give up valuable time, for no other reason than to ensure that the club remains a community asset, is difficult to comprehend. Like whydelilah, I feel sumpathy for Malc, who works damned hard for supporters, at both local and national level, for little credit, at least locally. How anyone could doubt the positive and caring thinking behind his introduction of this subject, on which other more enlightened fans, elsewhere, have had the foresight to act, before it is too late, is also beyond me. How can it be taken for granted that anyone in the profesional game, at this time, even someone like our present owners, will never change or, more likely, that their successors will not act with the same loyalty and integrity? Ask Cardiff City fans (especially after today's news,admittedly on another topic) if they are able to trust their present owners ever again. To say that it is an insult to our owners, was an unprofessional response to divert, indeed, close any such discussion. Personally, I prefer democracy. There appears to be a few, on this thread alone, that agree with Malcolm on this subject. How do we, as fans, get this issue back on the table? Are their council members that we can contact, or other representatives, in order to pursue the issue; perhaps with a bit more support next time round? I fail to see how this issue isn't at least worthy of discussion. It's in all of our interests as fans of the club. WD
|
|