|
|
Post by hollybush on Oct 12, 2013 12:59:54 GMT
I can maybe understand why Council members don't post regularly on here, as they may see how rapidly threads can degenerate into abuse, name-calling and point scoring. However, surely this very thread has demonstrated that is is possible to have a continuing sensible debate over a subject without it degenerating. Maybe those people who don't post should be somehow pointed towards this thread as evidence that it might well be worthwhile maintaining a dialogue with this site and its posters. If anyone is put off standing as a representative of anything on the basis of being subject to any of the above then they really need to reconsider their position. It goes with the territory, rightly or wrongly. Sorry but in my opinion that is a poor excuse for not bothering to take advantage of a free and easily available communication channel to a more than decent sized community of the people the members are supposed to represent. I'm sorry, but I think you maybe misunderstood a little. I didn't mean that Council members would be put off because they might be abused, merely that they might think it was pointless to raise issues on here because of the frequent rapidity with which threads degenerate into abuse, maybe thinking that the subject would get lost in a mire of name-calling and point scoring. |
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Oct 12, 2013 13:35:24 GMT
If anyone is put off standing as a representative of anything on the basis of being subject to any of the above then they really need to reconsider their position. It goes with the territory, rightly or wrongly. Sorry but in my opinion that is a poor excuse for not bothering to take advantage of a free and easily available communication channel to a more than decent sized community of the people the members are supposed to represent. I'm sorry, but I think you maybe misunderstood a little. I didn't mean that Council members would be put off because they might be abused, merely that they might think it was pointless to raise issues on here because of the frequent rapidity with which threads degenerate into abuse, maybe thinking that the subject would get lost in a mire of name-calling and point scoring. this would bring the oatcake in line with almost any committee, assembly, parliament or democratic process then |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 12, 2013 14:35:47 GMT
I'm actually rather encouraged by this thread. A debate is being held in a fairly civilised manner despite the subject polarising opinion with quite a deep divide between those (like me) who feel that the subject of ACVs requires a much longer discussion than it got at the Council meeting with the club and those who feel the opposite. I'm encouraged by Julia's (JoolZ) suggestion above that ACVs will again be on the agenda at the next meeting - although I accept that this is only her opinion and may not be shared by the Chair of the Council or other members. I hope that if it is on the agenda for the next meeting that there will be a dialogue between members and fans before it is debated.
I also note that in the opinion of Julia and Angela the raising of the point by Malcolm was a bit "last minute" despite the prior circulation of his paper on the subject. The moral of this may be that the Council needs to have a think about the best way to treat this sort of topic. If something is felt to be very much "last minute" to the extent that it has not been fully digested by members before meeting with the club then there needs to be some sort of procedure in place where the Chair (or whoever sets the agenda) can propose that the subject is put back to the next meeting - with the understanding that a mechanism is put in place for members to debate and question the originator before the matter is put to the club staff.
Now to the question of communication between fans and the Council members. In an ideal world, as Bayern suggests on an earlier page, one would be able to click on the Council page of the official site and against the name of EACH Council Member there would be a clickable link to enable fans to email any member. There would also be a link to enable them to email ALL members simultaneously should they wish to do so. Obviously such email addresses should not be members' home or work email addresses - they should be under a domain name relating to the Supporters' Council. I'd urge the Council to try to get the club to co-operate on setting up this sort of system as soon as possible.
I note Mark W's comments about why he thinks it is not a good idea to put a link to the Supporters' Council on this site. I take his point about the present low quality of the official site. If my suggestions above were implemented as regards links to Council members then I suggest it WOULD make sense to have a link on the Oatie. And, in any case, even before improvements to the communications, surely a link to the minutes from the Oatcake is well worth while.
I note that Angela has created an account on the Oatcake (under the name scfcsc - I think!) by which board users can send personal messages to council members. With all due respect to Angela I can see several flaws in this. First, "scfcsc" is not the most memorable user name - can I suggest it is changed to "Stoke City Supporters Council".
My next point is that, there will be times when a fan might want to communicate with the whole of the membership of the Supporters' Council - and a user name of "Stoke City Supporters Council" enables me to do that. But there will also be times when I want to communicate with one or two members of the council only. Messages sent to the "Stoke City Supporters Council" account can be read by all Council members. Supposing I had a complaint about one of the members? Or the Chair or the Vice Chair? I'd be much happier if all members had their own individual accounts on here so I could message them that way. All this would be unnecessary if the Official Site had a decent communications system for Council members.
|
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 12, 2013 16:29:27 GMT
Lakeland I tried the full name, it seems that it is too long for the forum according to the current rules of the site. SCFCSC is a general account. If you wish to address an individual member then I agree that you should speak to them direct. I do not believe that the members of the Council should have to hold an account on this forum and agree that this should be addressed via the club site. I am trying to achieve this, and will continue to do so.
I don't believe at this point that we will be able to have individual addresses on the official site. We are not employees of the club and we have to respect this point of view. Hopefully, we'll get a decent solution in due course
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 12, 2013 17:26:14 GMT
Well, you certainly started some discussion here, Mark ! The ACV topic was added to the agenda of the latest meeting by Malcolm at the last minute so no-one else really had much time to consider it in advance. We also had a full agenda of planned items to discuss and as this item came near to the end of the meeting there wasn't much time to expand on it. Our next full council meeting is on 23rd November where I'm sure this topic will be on the agenda. To be fair and accurate, it was on the agenda on the same basis, and to the same timescale, as all the other items. The agenda was circulated by myself 3 days before the meeting together with a paper on ACV which I had written to explain the issue. I placed this item last on the agenda because it was not an urgent item, and, by the same token, if any colleague had suggested that it be deferred to the next meeting to give members time to think about it or further research it, that proposal would have received no opposition from me. I won't be drawing up the next agenda, but I assume it will only be discussed if another member wishes to raise it under "matters arising". As I stated above, having placed the item on the agenda, and it having been discussed, it not would be appropriate for me to try to do so again ( although if it were discussed again, I am quite likely to contribute to the discussion.) At the risk of repeating myself, I remain somewhat mystified by the notion that raising this could be regarded as insulting to the owners. If you look at it the other way round, the proposition that the stadium is not an asset of community value could be reasonably seen as contrary to the views expressed by Peter Coates about the importance and benefit of the club to the local community - views shared, I'm sure, by nearly all of us. Personally, I think the issue has been explored more fully in this thread than it was at the Council meeting. As I stated earlier, I think it would be highly likely to have more symbolic than practical importance - but I think sometimes symbolism is important. As other posters have stated, in fact, taking forward an ACV proposal doesn't require the involvement or approval of either the owners or indeed the Supporters Council, and could be done by another local body or organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2013 2:23:09 GMT
It is true to say that the ACV isn't much protection for supporters and their club. It is intended to delay any sale (of club and/or ground) giving supporters (in the football ground example) more time to make a bid (for the business / ground). While anything is better than nothing, it is only a delay and nothing more. I made the point about not upsetting club/personnel/owners too much, over this issue, because in the end the ACV offers little. Were it to offer effective protection, then that would be different and worth losing a few brownie points over. On the other hand - As Malcolm originally put - As a symbol of how much The Family loves SCFC, it seems a good idea - But that is almost certainly an idea The Family needs to have; not one they need to be seen to be accepting. There's even a compensation scheme if it can be shown an ACV has reduced the potential value of the asset (will those funds go towards team strengthening, Denise?!  ) So I still think talking direct to Saint Peter is the best way forward at the stage you are at. Why turn it all into a political rally and bitching session with the CEO? During one home game or another this season, Saint Peter will have to go for a p1ss and someone should bump into him in the bogs (without knocking the dear old man into the p1ss tray! ) and see if he has ever heard of an ACV (it's extremely probable he's never read the legislation ... and as probable he won't find it as terrifying as Scholsey fears he might). All that written ... I couldn't find links to all of the relevant stuff behind ACVs, on this topic ... ACVs are part of the process behind this: mycommunityrights.org.uk/community-right-to-bid/And that (Community Bidding) is part of the wider: mycommunityrights.org.uk/my-community-rights/ legislation of 2011/12 |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Oct 13, 2013 8:46:44 GMT
It is true to say that the ACV isn't much protection for supporters and their club. It is intended to delay any sale (of club and/or ground) giving supporters (in the football ground example) more time to make a bid (for the business / ground). While anything is better than nothing, it is only a delay and nothing more. I made the point about not upsetting club/personnel/owners too much, over this issue, because in the end the ACV offers little. Were it to offer effective protection, then that would be different and worth losing a few brownie points over. On the other hand - As Malcolm originally put - As a symbol of how much The Family loves SCFC, it seems a good idea - But that is almost certainly an idea The Family needs to have; not one they need to be seen to be accepting. There's even a compensation scheme if it can be shown an ACV has reduced the potential value of the asset (will those funds go towards team strengthening, Denise?! ) So I still think talking direct to Saint Peter is the best way forward at the stage you are at. Why turn it all into a political rally and bitching session with the CEO? During one home game or another this season, Saint Peter will have to go for a p1ss and someone should bump into him in the bogs (without knocking the dear old man into the p1ss tray! ) and see if he has ever heard of an ACV (it's extremely probable he's never read the legislation ... and as probable he won't find it as terrifying as Scholsey fears he might). All that written ... I couldn't find links to all of the relevant stuff behind ACVs, on this topic ... ACVs are part of the process behind this: mycommunityrights.org.uk/community-right-to-bid/And that (Community Bidding) is part of the wider: mycommunityrights.org.uk/my-community-rights/ legislation of 2011/12 Just to play Devil's advocate for a mo'. If "the ACV offers little" why would the current Owners be "insulted" by such a process? It only offers the body behind the ACV time to take part in the bidding process, nothing more. If the current Owners were to sell why would they care if there was a bid tabled by the we-love-the-Britannia-Stadium-even without-the-corners-filled-in Society, along with some Arab Chappy (probably) and a dodgy Russian (allegedly)? I like the idea of tapping up PC for his views but I'm sure that Mr Scholes does speak on the Chairman's behalf so could he be asked to divulge just why the Owners would be opposed to an ACV? Also, to add to the debate about awareness and contactability(not sure that's a word actually) of the Supporters Council it's not difficult to find them; Club site, FANS tab, Supporters Council in the drop-down menu.... BOOM. That said, why not post a short update as to the discussion topics, club replies, future events etc, etc on this forum, a bit like Knot FM do for their upcoming programmes. Nothing too time consuming, just a brief note half a dozen times a year to put the SCFCSC thread at the top of the forum for how ever long before it's relegated to the 2nd page by the inevitable "Man gets pen1s stuck in toaster" type threads. |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 13, 2013 8:57:33 GMT
It is true to say that the ACV isn't much protection for supporters and their club. It is intended to delay any sale (of club and/or ground) giving supporters (in the football ground example) more time to make a bid (for the business / ground). While anything is better than nothing, it is only a delay and nothing more. I made the point about not upsetting club/personnel/owners too much, over this issue, because in the end the ACV offers little. Were it to offer effective protection, then that would be different and worth losing a few brownie points over. On the other hand - As Malcolm originally put - As a symbol of how much The Family loves SCFC, it seems a good idea - But that is almost certainly an idea The Family needs to have; not one they need to be seen to be accepting. There's even a compensation scheme if it can be shown an ACV has reduced the potential value of the asset (will those funds go towards team strengthening, Denise?! ) So I still think talking direct to Saint Peter is the best way forward at the stage you are at. Why turn it all into a political rally and bitching session with the CEO? During one home game or another this season, Saint Peter will have to go for a p1ss and someone should bump into him in the bogs (without knocking the dear old man into the p1ss tray! ) and see if he has ever heard of an ACV (it's extremely probable he's never read the legislation ... and as probable he won't find it as terrifying as Scholsey fears he might). All that written ... I couldn't find links to all of the relevant stuff behind ACVs, on this topic ... ACVs are part of the process behind this: mycommunityrights.org.uk/community-right-to-bid/And that (Community Bidding) is part of the wider: mycommunityrights.org.uk/my-community-rights/ legislation of 2011/12 Just to play Devil's advocate for a mo'. If "the ACV offers little" why would the current Owners be "insulted" by such a process? It only offers the body behind the ACV time to take part in the bidding process, nothing more. If the current Owners were to sell why would they care if there was a bid tabled by the we-love-the-Britannia-Stadium-even without-the-corners-filled-in Society, along with some Arab Chappy (probably) and a dodgy Russian (allegedly)? I like the idea of tapping up PC for his views but I'm sure that Mr Scholes does speak on the Chairman's behalf so could he be asked to divulge just why the Owners would be opposed to an ACV? Also, to add to the debate about awareness and contactability(not sure that's a word actually) of the Supporters Council it's not difficult to find them; Club site, FANS tab, Supporters Council in the drop-down menu.... BOOM. That said, why not post a short update as to the discussion topics, club replies, future events etc, etc on this forum, a bit like Knot FM do for their upcoming programmes. Nothing too time consuming, just a brief note half a dozen times a year to put the SCFCSC thread at the top of the forum for how ever long before it's relegated to the 2nd page by the inevitable "Man gets pen1s stuck in toaster" type threads. Yes, they (the Council) are easy to find and easy to identify who the members are. That isn't the problem, it is contacting them as individuals (or some of them) which is the problem. For most we don't know their personal or work email addys, telephone numbers or addresses. And I can quite understand why many would not wish that information to be known. So we need links against their names on the Supporters Council web page which would enable us to email them at email addresses other than their personal or work emails. If the club can't do this (for contractual reasons?) then perhaps we need a separate Supporters Council website (with email links) separate from the club website - but it would be a pity if the council had to go down that route. Maybe the club would allow links on their site to emails under a totally separate domain name outside the club email system? I'm not really technical enough to know the problems this would raise. |
|
|
|
Post by BoothenenderGaz on Oct 13, 2013 11:25:01 GMT
Just to play Devil's advocate for a mo'. If "the ACV offers little" why would the current Owners be "insulted" by such a process? It only offers the body behind the ACV time to take part in the bidding process, nothing more. If the current Owners were to sell why would they care if there was a bid tabled by the we-love-the-Britannia-Stadium-even without-the-corners-filled-in Society, along with some Arab Chappy (probably) and a dodgy Russian (allegedly)? I like the idea of tapping up PC for his views but I'm sure that Mr Scholes does speak on the Chairman's behalf so could he be asked to divulge just why the Owners would be opposed to an ACV? Also, to add to the debate about awareness and contactability(not sure that's a word actually) of the Supporters Council it's not difficult to find them; Club site, FANS tab, Supporters Council in the drop-down menu.... BOOM. That said, why not post a short update as to the discussion topics, club replies, future events etc, etc on this forum, a bit like Knot FM do for their upcoming programmes. Nothing too time consuming, just a brief note half a dozen times a year to put the SCFCSC thread at the top of the forum for how ever long before it's relegated to the 2nd page by the inevitable "Man gets pen1s stuck in toaster" type threads. Yes, they (the Council) are easy to find and easy to identify who the members are. That isn't the problem, it is contacting them as individuals (or some of them) which is the problem. For most we don't know their personal or work email addys, telephone numbers or addresses. And I can quite understand why many would not wish that information to be known. So we need links against their names on the Supporters Council web page which would enable us to email them at email addresses other than their personal or work emails. If the club can't do this (for contractual reasons?) then perhaps we need a separate Supporters Council website (with email links) separate from the club website - but it would be a pity if the council had to go down that route. Maybe the club would allow links on their site to emails under a totally separate domain name outside the club email system? I'm not really technical enough to know the problems this would raise. This issue is one that Angela (both as vice-chair and now as chair) and I have had over the last weeks with correspondence after correspondence after correspondence with the club over both the visibility on the website of the Supporters Council and contact details. We were asked as the whole council for our email address and phone numbers and then asked if we wished these details to remain anonymous from the other council members. There are a portion of Supporters Council members who have asked for their details to remain anonymous which they have every right to do as there is nothing to say that you have to disclose any personal details to stand on the council. As we are not employees of the club (and do not wish to be seen as part of the inner workings of the club) we cannot have stokecityfc.com email addresses. This is because there are compliance and usage policies for employees who have access to email accounts. We were also told that we cannot have a 'mailing list' so an email to one stokecityfc.com email address would auto forward on to the personal email addresses of council members as effectively we would be using the clubs email system as a proxy. The other issue is that as a Supporters Council, we do not receive funding etc. so would have to spend money on a domain name with no way of claiming it back as well as money per email address per month and anyone who can register a supporters club with the minimum number of members can sit on the council, therefore, there isnt a finite number of people who can sit on the council so where do you stop with paying for email addresses and how can you fund this exercise? Also, if a person has paid for the domain name and email addresses then technically the domain etc. belongs to them even after they have finished their tenure on the council. The other issue is that because of elections and tenure of your seat on the council etc. the members of the council are fluid and again would have to be an administrative task to close down and setup email addresses etc. The best idea was to have the correspondence coming via the chair and forwarded on to the relevant members of the council who the email was intended for. This also means that it is one easy email address to contact regardless of swapping and changing of council members. This has been funded out of one of the council members own pocket and setup by them too. We can have the discussion that it should have been the club paying for it etc. but the fact was that there was a gap and we have filled it, wanting to be conscientious and fixing the issue. There is still the issue that any email going to the whole council has to go via the club as they have all the contact details and have to BCC the council members who wish their details to remain anonymous but we are addressing that at the moment. The communication and visibility issues with the supporter base are ones that have been apparent on the Council since it's inception and I have to applaud Angela as she, as chair, has managed to get movement on all these issues in a matter of days in her new role. My own personal view on the ACV matter is that this has been whipped up into a frenzy for what, as one independent poster has put "in the end the ACV offers little" so in my opinion I would rather chase down the issues that offer a lot. The real issues are as other posters have put, the visibility and methodology of contacting your supporters council representative to air your views and to ensure they are represented in the full and proper manner at the meetings. The Council members dialogue with the supporter base they represent is paramount and if supporters want this representing again then the method to put this on the agenda should be the key as well as details on how to stand if people are not satisfied and can put their views across in person. This in my opinion has been largely addressed and a new section on the website should appear soon with representative's names and a separate section on how to contact the Supporters Council. If you wish to meet with the Supporters Council ahead of the next meeting then I am sure that could be arranged to ensure your views are represented to your satisfaction if this is not easily articulated via email, which, now the supporters/council dialogue issues are in the process of being rectified. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcsc on Oct 13, 2013 11:43:54 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts, comments and questions. We will post updates, information and comments on this site over the year. Boothenender Gaz has stated in a clear manner, the difficulties that the Council have encountered regarding communication with the supporters base via the club website. We are still working on a better method of communication with the club and will continue to do so until we reach a satisfactory outcome.
We are an elected group with the fans interests at heart and will strive to be as effective as we can on your behalf. In the meantime, any questions, requests,observations should be sent to chair@scfcsc.co.uk.
|
|
|
|
Post by juedrops on Oct 13, 2013 12:34:20 GMT
Yes, they (the Council) are easy to find and easy to identify who the members are. That isn't the problem, it is contacting them as individuals (or some of them) which is the problem. For most we don't know their personal or work email addys, telephone numbers or addresses. And I can quite understand why many would not wish that information to be known. So we need links against their names on the Supporters Council web page which would enable us to email them at email addresses other than their personal or work emails. If the club can't do this (for contractual reasons?) then perhaps we need a separate Supporters Council website (with email links) separate from the club website - but it would be a pity if the council had to go down that route. Maybe the club would allow links on their site to emails under a totally separate domain name outside the club email system? I'm not really technical enough to know the problems this would raise. This issue is one that Angela (both as vice-chair and now as chair) and I have had over the last weeks with correspondence after correspondence after correspondence with the club over both the visibility on the website of the Supporters Council and contact details. We were asked as the whole council for our email address and phone numbers and then asked if we wished these details to remain anonymous from the other council members. There are a portion of Supporters Council members who have asked for their details to remain anonymous which they have every right to do as there is nothing to say that you have to disclose any personal details to stand on the council. As we are not employees of the club (and do not wish to be seen as part of the inner workings of the club) we cannot have stokecityfc.com email addresses. This is because there are compliance and usage policies for employees who have access to email accounts. We were also told that we cannot have a 'mailing list' so an email to one stokecityfc.com email address would auto forward on to the personal email addresses of council members as effectively we would be using the clubs email system as a proxy. The other issue is that as a Supporters Council, we do not receive funding etc. so would have to spend money on a domain name with no way of claiming it back as well as money per email address per month and anyone who can register a supporters club with the minimum number of members can sit on the council, therefore, there isnt a finite number of people who can sit on the council so where do you stop with paying for email addresses and how can you fund this exercise? Also, if a person has paid for the domain name and email addresses then technically the domain etc. belongs to them even after they have finished their tenure on the council. The other issue is that because of elections and tenure of your seat on the council etc. the members of the council are fluid and again would have to be an administrative task to close down and setup email addresses etc. The best idea was to have the correspondence coming via the chair and forwarded on to the relevant members of the council who the email was intended for. This also means that it is one easy email address to contact regardless of swapping and changing of council members. This has been funded out of one of the council members own pocket and setup by them too. We can have the discussion that it should have been the club paying for it etc. but the fact was that there was a gap and we have filled it, wanting to be conscientious and fixing the issue. There is still the issue that any email going to the whole council has to go via the club as they have all the contact details and have to BCC the council members who wish their details to remain anonymous but we are addressing that at the moment. The communication and visibility issues with the supporter base are ones that have been apparent on the Council since it's inception and I have to applaud Angela as she, as chair, has managed to get movement on all these issues in a matter of days in her new role. My own personal view on the ACV matter is that this has been whipped up into a frenzy for what, as one independent poster has put "in the end the ACV offers little" so in my opinion I would rather chase down the issues that offer a lot. The real issues are as other posters have put, the visibility and methodology of contacting your supporters council representative to air your views and to ensure they are represented in the full and proper manner at the meetings. The Council members dialogue with the supporter base they represent is paramount and if supporters want this representing again then the method to put this on the agenda should be the key as well as details on how to stand if people are not satisfied and can put their views across in person. This in my opinion has been largely addressed and a new section on the website should appear soon with representative's names and a separate section on how to contact the Supporters Council. If you wish to meet with the Supporters Council ahead of the next meeting then I am sure that could be arranged to ensure your views are represented to your satisfaction if this is not easily articulated via email, which, now the supporters/council dialogue issues are in the process of being rectified. Crackin idea there Boothenender totally agree. Like I said in previous text the council is still very young and any feedback from fellow supporters will be looked at and taken seriously, if we didn't then as a council member we would not be fulfilling our roles. Angela as Chair and Head of Communications is perfect to distribute such feedback until the new section appears. I would also welcome a public supporter meet prior to our scheduled one to give fans a chance to offer their contribution should an email not suffice. I'd be interested to see how many people would be interested in a meet, particularly the people who have commented on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2013 1:28:22 GMT
Council: I wish we'd seperate these two topics. But - as ever - Gaz seems to have a decent system worked out ... It would, I think, benefit the council to have it's own website/comms channel ... including email system - to include club employees too, I assume. It's a lot of work for someone, so it would be good to keep it simple if at all possible ... or someone will get bored of the work it entails Brit: Just to play Devil's advocate for a mo'. If "the ACV offers little" why would the current Owners be "insulted" by such a process? It only offers the body behind the ACV time to take part in the bidding process, nothing more. If the current Owners were to sell why would they care if there was a bid tabled by the we-love-the-Britannia-Stadium-even without-the-corners-filled-in Society, along with some Arab Chappy (probably) and a dodgy Russian (allegedly)? I like the idea of tapping up PC for his views but I'm sure that Mr Scholes does speak on the Chairman's behalf so could he be asked to divulge just why the Owners would be opposed to an ACV? (I snipped mesen!) I am (trying to) make the point that The Family night not find it as terrifying as (on the face of it) Scholsey appears to think they might. And so a friendly chat with the old fella might win supporters a friend to their cause. I should note, doing so will not please Scholsey ... and so a non-council member should do the "bumping into" That said, when you read the legislation it does come across as a bit of "us and them". It appears to be set up to anticipate a problem (which - to be fair - has happened at many clubs who have gone "admin" or dodgey sales processes) where no problem may exist. Just the way it is written may indeed get The Family's back-up ... It is also written to to exclude the owners of the asset from "donating it" (as in, there is no mention of owners of an asset putting it on the register on behalf of the community that asset serves). I think this is a great shame and could well be why Scholsey would like to run a mile from it. The legislation assumes that a bid for the business/asset is not wanted from the community and that the people who own the asset will not want it on the "register". Neither of those things may be true, in each individual case, but the legislation makes it appear that it will. Lastly, the legislation makes it clear that there is likely to be a drop in the future value of the asset. So likely they put in place a compensation scheme. Again this makes the legislation read worse than it probably actually is. And again, I shud point out. As far as the legislation is concerned, it is anticipated that registering an ACV is a hostile process which needs no - and almost certainly will not have any - involvement from the asset owners. So, if you really want to do it, just get on with it. But it is that I don't really like ... It seems a shame to have to go in that direction when the current relationship between club and supporters is - as far as I know? - as good as it has been for quite some time. And a way could be found of making the gesture much more inclusive (a community win for fans and a PR win for the owners) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 21:29:21 GMT
Good piece about this in the WBA oatcake.
Have there been any more council meetings since this was raised?
|
|
|
|
Post by terryconroyslegs on Nov 20, 2013 17:10:38 GMT
I understand this issue is on the agenda at the Supporters Council meeting on Saturday morning before the Sunderland game. I have asked my rep on the Council to represent my views at this meeting. I am strongly in favour of fans pursuing the idea of an ACV for the Britannia Stadium and hope the idea is taken forward following the debate on Saturday.
Please urge your rep to do likewise!
|
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Nov 21, 2013 21:58:49 GMT
I understand this issue is on the agenda at the Supporters Council meeting on Saturday morning before the Sunderland game. I have asked my rep on the Council to represent my views at this meeting. I am strongly in favour of fans pursuing the idea of an ACV for the Britannia Stadium and hope the idea is taken forward following the debate on Saturday. Please urge your rep to do likewise! Well done. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 21, 2013 23:04:21 GMT
I understand this issue is on the agenda at the Supporters Council meeting on Saturday morning before the Sunderland game. I have asked my rep on the Council to represent my views at this meeting. I am strongly in favour of fans pursuing the idea of an ACV for the Britannia Stadium and hope the idea is taken forward following the debate on Saturday. Please urge your rep to do likewise! Excellent. It'll be interesting to hear what Scholesy has to say the second time around. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcsc on Nov 21, 2013 23:11:58 GMT
Angela has placed this item on the agenda once again. It will be debated and we will of course report back all the points made at the meeting as usual. Thanks again for your comments, suggestions and observations
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 10:29:42 GMT
Angela has placed this item on the agenda once again. It will be debated and we will of course report back all the points made at the meeting as usual. Thanks again for your comments, suggestions and observations Fantastic. Well done to all involved. Hopefully Scholes won't be able to shrug it off this time. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcsc on Nov 22, 2013 11:16:23 GMT
The item was not "shrugged off" last time as Malcolm, Angela and other members of the council will testify, it was not given as much time as we felt it required, we needed to listen to supporters comments and having done so we will discuss further at the meeting tomorrow. It is important that all supporters understand that whatever is said tomorrow does not open or close the debate on the ACV issue. Any group can go down the ACV route
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2013 11:25:37 GMT
The item was not "shrugged off" last time as Malcolm, Angela and other members of the council will testify, it was not given as much time as we felt it required, we needed to listen to supporters comments and having done so we will discuss further at the meeting tomorrow. It is important that all supporters understand that whatever is said tomorrow does not open or close the debate on the ACV issue. Any group can go down the ACV route It was my understanding that Scholes said it would be an insult to the owners and dismissed it out of hand. It was also my understanding that Malcolm then reveived little or no support from othet members on the council. If that's not accurate then I stand corrected. Either way, it can only be a good thing that the issue is being raised again. |
|
|
|
Post by terryconroyslegs on Nov 22, 2013 17:21:28 GMT
Agree WD. This needs full consideration and discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 22, 2013 18:11:12 GMT
The item was not "shrugged off" last time as Malcolm, Angela and other members of the council will testify, it was not given as much time as we felt it required, we needed to listen to supporters comments and having done so we will discuss further at the meeting tomorrow. It is important that all supporters understand that whatever is said tomorrow does not open or close the debate on the ACV issue. Any group can go down the ACV route It was my understanding that Scholes said it would be an insult to the owners and dismissed it out of hand. It was also my understanding that Malcolm then reveived little or no support from othet members on the council. If that's not accurate then I stand corrected. Either way, it can only be a good thing that the issue is being raised again. I think Ange's posts on page 3 of this thread suggest it was discussed and wasn't dismissed out of hand. IF Scholesy was caught on the hop and just regurgitated a standard 'party line' reply then that's one thing. If he comes back with something similar after tomorrows meeting I (we?) can only assume that this feeling of being "insulted" is actually coming from PC himself. Personally I find this 'insulted' stance illogical coming from a man who said, "As a Club, we place great importance on playing an important role within our local community." Peter Coates, 8th October 2013, The Sentinel.If he is genuinely insulted by the idea of an ACV then just come out and say so.... "I and any future Coates family Chairperson's have no intention of selling SCFC to the highest bidder." Done. If PC feels so insulted, after all he's done for the club (which I admit is tremendous) that he doesn't think he has to justify his thoughts then I'm sorry Mr Coates that's just the terrible, paranoid world that we all live in. Ask any Coventry fan. |
|
)
