|
Post by dwr17477 on Apr 19, 2014 6:47:10 GMT
So Scholes is trying to bullshit to the supporters? This bloke needs getting rid of.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on Apr 19, 2014 7:16:45 GMT
I suggest you all download last week knotfm Sunday sports show where a more than eloquent explanation of why the 4 month plan has gone was given by the scfcfc chairperson Angela Smith ie it isn't legal anymore apparently and the club were rapped by the fca/fsa for offering it even last year I believe that's exactly what the scfcfc were told[/quote] Hi JSU Did they explain on the show why it wasn't legal or can anyone on here help to explain why this arrangement would not be legal? Thanks GB [/quote] Quite a significant part of the programme was spent on it where Angela explained what the fans council were told by mr scholes
|
|
|
Post by robinreliant on Apr 19, 2014 7:20:08 GMT
It's very easy to criticize behind the key board. Pointing problems out is constructive and helpful going beyond that is not fair. If people feel that the club is failing them badly then they should join with the supporters council and discuss it with Tony Scholes face to face, as they say put up or shut up Are you on the Supporters Council, by any chance ? ???? Though in danger of being " black balled" by the club, I'm happy to add my opinion having asked a question to be raised by the SC recently, without response or feedback. There's a famous quote, from Groucho Marx, that "I'd never be a member of a club who'd be willing to have me as a member" and this seems applicable to the SC. There are patently SC members who do it for the love of Stoke City, but there are also those who do it for the status it implies; I'll leave it up to you to decide who fits which description. The bottom line is TS f@cked up in not communicating the removal of the (very popular) 4 month interest-free plan, and now is hiding behind FCA rules to justify it; the simple payment of a £300 FCA registration fee would have made it legally permissible under current FCA rules. The thread on the Oatcake filled the information vacuum created by TS's lack of information to supporters seeking clarity before renewal. Any club who takes the unilateral decision not to send out any renewal paperwork, instead relying on their media profile to inform supporters of the options available, wants to take a good hard look at their marketing and commercial departments and the way they treat their existing customers. As an aside, it's interesting to read that the club doesn't view Twitter or Facebook as sites for banter, as stated in the SC meeting minutes ! If they can't take a joke, they shouldn't have joined ! ????
|
|
|
Post by DansViews on Apr 19, 2014 7:29:25 GMT
It was 150 if they registered a few months back.. it has been announced for a long time the charges. Also - this covers all aspects of credit facilities - so would apply even more so to an interest bearing 12 month facility.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2014 7:32:05 GMT
Here is Ange's reply to my question on the Knot FM community broadcast last Sunday, sadly (although I'd left the question on the Oatcake) I missed the start of the show, so didn't realise that there actually had been a explanation given (in last Saturday's programme) by the supporters council - apologies there Ange.
Still think it warranted a response on here mind and of course there is still the (very important) issue of why Stoke aren't able to continue with the interest free 4 month plan, when other clubs are seemingly able to do so?
Starts at about 8.20 in: www.knotfm.co.uk/sunday-sports-show-listen-again/
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Apr 19, 2014 8:05:00 GMT
I wish it would Bayern but it won't the council could raise the issue and TS will spin it in which ever way he sees fit the fact still remains we are on course to deliver our best ST sales to date the council will swallow whatever tripe he wishes to deliver and in all fairness to them it's not their job to question him and should they become a nuisance the council will be disbanded it's a no win situation. Sent from my C6603 using proboards Nothing will come of it, Scholes has made much bigger errors than this and got with it but it is embarrassing, neither will give a flying fuck though. Which is a massive part of the problem around this club being run like a League 2 club. It's a fair comment given that when he was appointed the club was in the doldrums & since Pulis & the class of 2008 got us back into topflight footie hardly any remain. So if none of them were considered good enough to be kept on, WTF is he still doing on the payroll!?! Probably something to do employment law... Shame
|
|
|
Post by butler64 on Apr 19, 2014 8:10:55 GMT
I am by no means an expert and this has probably been covered elsewhere but the claim that offering a 4 month instalment plan on interest free credit is not legal is not entirely true. It is only not legal if the business concerned does not have a credit licence. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 most businesses that provide goods and services on credit to consumers need to have a credit licence. Trading in credit activities without a credit licence is a criminal offence. On the 1 April 2014 the Financial Conduct Authority took over regulation of consumer credit from the Office of Fair Trading. All firms that held a Consumer Credit Licence (CCL) could only be able to trade under their existing CCL until the 31 March 2014. All consumer credit licences expired on this date at midnight and if if they did not take action then they could not continue their licensable activities. All businesses who wished to continue trading their licensable activities after 31 March 2014 needed to be registered with the FCA. This would have required an application to the FCA with a fee to be able to offer consumer credit. Reading between the lines if, the club were "rapped" for offering a 4 month interest free instalment plan then it suggests that they may not have been registered previously and did not want to register from 1 April 2014. I might be way off track with this assumption, but the statement suggesting that it is not legal to offer this facility can only be true if the club are not registered to offer this facility. Ask yourself, why so many retailers offer interest free credit in instalments, if it is not legal? It is legal for them because they will be licensed to do so. They will also state clearly that they are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and that they will undertake Credit Checks with a Credit Ratings Agency before making a decision to offer you credit. Cheers GB But having said all that, is it credit when you don't get anything until after it is paid for? Hi Stafford I am assuming that it is credit because you are securing your seat for the season. Therefore, if you are not paying the full amount to the club at point of renewal you are being given credit (as indeed you are if you take the v12 option of a 12 month instalment plan). I may be wrong but thats my interpretation of it. Cheers GB
|
|
|
Post by vahl on Apr 19, 2014 8:12:19 GMT
Scholes thinks everyone is pig thick, evidently.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 19, 2014 8:37:15 GMT
But having said all that, is it credit when you don't get anything until after it is paid for? Hi Stafford I am assuming that it is credit because you are securing your seat for the season. Therefore, if you are not paying the full amount to the club at point of renewal you are being given credit (as indeed you are if you take the v12 option of a 12 month instalment plan). I may be wrong but thats my interpretation of it. Cheers GB I see what you are saying mate but you see it all the time with small shops etc where they run Xmas clubs. Pay weekly then get your goods once paid. Also why no credit search with the 4 month option? Not saying your wrong at all just think if is a very grey area and should have been communicated much better/sooner.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 19, 2014 8:38:02 GMT
This all still begs several questions;
Why is Scholes lying mis-informing supporters about the legalities of the four month option? Why did the council (if indeed they felt strongly about it) not do the basic research that tells you that four month options are commonplace? Why did the council approve minutes that make them look like patsies? Why did the council not protest when the Chief Executive mocked and dismissed supporters with genuine issues who contribute to the Oatcake Why was the Programme four days before the deadline deemed a suitable place for the information
Right or wrongly, the minutes of that meeting currently residing on the official site make the council appear toothless and pathetic and dominated by a swivel eyed autocrat.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on Apr 19, 2014 9:07:38 GMT
I'm not in the studio tomorrow but I'm sure Angela will respond to the issues a always.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 19, 2014 9:09:25 GMT
This all still begs several questions; Why is Scholes lying mis-informing supporters about the legalities of the four month option? Why did the council (if indeed they felt strongly about it) not do the basic research that tells you that four month options are commonplace? Why did the council approve minutes that make them look like patsies?Why did the council not protest when the Chief Executive mocked and dismissed with supporters with issues who contribute to the Oatcake Why was the Programme four days before the deadline deemed a suitable place for the information Right or wrongly, the minutes of that meeting currently residing on the official site make the council appear toothless and pathetic and dominated by a swivel eyed autocrat. I assume that the Council have not yet approved these particular minutes - there will be a resolution to approve (or not) the minutes at the next meeting, I expect.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2014 9:34:34 GMT
I'm not in the studio tomorrow but I'm sure Angela will respond to the issues a always.
It'd be great if she would but I think this is what a lot of people are complaining about re. communication from the SC ...
Ange hadn't mentioned it on the previous weeks shows, it had to take somebody to specifically ask the question on the knot fm thread (on the Oatcake) before it was mentioned on the show.
Unless all these questions on here now, are (via the Oatcake) asked specifically on Sunday night's show, then they probably won't get addressed.
And besides knot fm has hardly got a huge audience has it?
The Oatcake is one of the biggest platforms out there, is it really that difficult for somebody from the Council (not necessarily Ange) to engage the supporters directly and (most importantly) swiftly (hey isn't that what the internet is there for?) by dealing with the questions on this thread, by, erm ... answering them on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 19, 2014 9:41:16 GMT
This all still begs several questions; Why is Scholes lying mis-informing supporters about the legalities of the four month option? Why did the council (if indeed they felt strongly about it) not do the basic research that tells you that four month options are commonplace? Why did the council approve minutes that make them look like patsies?Why did the council not protest when the Chief Executive mocked and dismissed with supporters with issues who contribute to the Oatcake Why was the Programme four days before the deadline deemed a suitable place for the information Right or wrongly, the minutes of that meeting currently residing on the official site make the council appear toothless and pathetic and dominated by a swivel eyed autocrat. I assume that the Council have not yet approved these particular minutes - there will be a resolution to approve (or not) the minutes at the next meeting, I expect. Perhaps formally so forny but on Pauls link above, Ange says that they had been 'signed off'.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Apr 19, 2014 9:54:36 GMT
This all still begs several questions; Why is Scholes lying mis-informing supporters about the legalities of the four month option? Why did the council (if indeed they felt strongly about it) not do the basic research that tells you that four month options are commonplace? Why did the council approve minutes that make them look like patsies?Why did the council not protest when the Chief Executive mocked and dismissed with supporters with issues who contribute to the Oatcake Why was the Programme four days before the deadline deemed a suitable place for the information Right or wrongly, the minutes of that meeting currently residing on the official site make the council appear toothless and pathetic and dominated by a swivel eyed autocrat. I assume that the Council have not yet approved these particular minutes - there will be a resolution to approve (or not) the minutes at the next meeting, I expect. Surely the club would not have released the minutes on the website without receiving approval from the SC, even if its was tacitly.
|
|
|
Post by butler64 on Apr 19, 2014 9:55:29 GMT
Hi Stafford I am assuming that it is credit because you are securing your seat for the season. Therefore, if you are not paying the full amount to the club at point of renewal you are being given credit (as indeed you are if you take the v12 option of a 12 month instalment plan). I may be wrong but thats my interpretation of it. Cheers GB I see what you are saying mate but you see it all the time with small shops etc where they run Xmas clubs. Pay weekly then get your goods once paid. Also why no credit search with the 4 month option? Not saying your wrong at all just think if is a very grey area and should have been communicated much better/sooner. Hi Stafford I am assuming that the reason that the club got "rapped" previously is that they were not compliant with the OFT/FCA regulations for the 2013/14 season ticket 4 interest free payment instalment plan. I think with the change in responsibility moving to the FCA from 1 April 2014, it has probably made the club realise that it could not offer the 4 interest free instalment plans unless they applied for a credit licence and did all the necessary credit checks etc. It presumably was then a business decision that the club did not want to do this and that it was more efficient and effective to hand the "credit" facility option over to a third party to operate. I think that the subtle difference with small shops might be that they are effectively running savings clubs rather than offering credit, although I wouldn't be surprised if there are FCA regulations that cover these also. I do agree that it is a grey area and that it should have been communicated much sooner by the club. I would have thought that a clear statement in the minutes of the Supporters Council explaining exactly why the 4 month month instalment option would not be legal would clarify the position for all those that are interested. Cheers GB
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 19, 2014 10:05:25 GMT
I see what you are saying mate but you see it all the time with small shops etc where they run Xmas clubs. Pay weekly then get your goods once paid. Also why no credit search with the 4 month option? Not saying your wrong at all just think if is a very grey area and should have been communicated much better/sooner. Hi Stafford I am assuming that the reason that the club got "rapped" previously is that they were not compliant with the OFT/FCA regulations for the 2013/14 season ticket 4 interest free payment instalment plan. I think with the change in responsibility moving to the FCA from 1 April 2014, it has probably made the club realise that it could not offer the 4 interest free instalment plans unless they applied for a credit licence and did all the necessary credit checks etc. It presumably was then a business decision that the club did not want to do this and that it was more efficient and effective to hand the "credit" facility option over to a third party to operate. I think that the subtle difference with small shops might be that they are effectively running savings clubs rather than offering credit, although I wouldn't be surprised if there are FCA regulations that cover these also. I do agree that it is a grey area and that it should have been communicated much sooner by the club. I would have thought that a clear statement in the minutes of the Supporters Council explaining exactly why the 4 month month instalment option would not be legal would clarify the position for all those that are interested. Cheers GB Earlier on the thread though, it is clear that at least 2 clubs in the Prem (and probably more) offer a 0% credit 4 instalment plan operated by V12 for an administration fee of £5. That way the club would not have needed a licence. I'm sure this would have been totally acceptable to most of the fans who opted for the club's 4 instalment plan least season. I really don't see why the club didn't offer this facility as well as the 12 month plan. Actually I can guess at a reason - but I don't think it is a valid one.
|
|
|
Post by butler64 on Apr 19, 2014 10:39:35 GMT
Hi Stafford I am assuming that the reason that the club got "rapped" previously is that they were not compliant with the OFT/FCA regulations for the 2013/14 season ticket 4 interest free payment instalment plan. I think with the change in responsibility moving to the FCA from 1 April 2014, it has probably made the club realise that it could not offer the 4 interest free instalment plans unless they applied for a credit licence and did all the necessary credit checks etc. It presumably was then a business decision that the club did not want to do this and that it was more efficient and effective to hand the "credit" facility option over to a third party to operate. I think that the subtle difference with small shops might be that they are effectively running savings clubs rather than offering credit, although I wouldn't be surprised if there are FCA regulations that cover these also. I do agree that it is a grey area and that it should have been communicated much sooner by the club. I would have thought that a clear statement in the minutes of the Supporters Council explaining exactly why the 4 month month instalment option would not be legal would clarify the position for all those that are interested. Cheers GB Earlier on the thread though, it is clear that at least 2 clubs in the Prem (and probably more) offer a 0% credit 4 instalment plan operated by V12 for an administration fee of £5. That way the club would not have needed a licence. I'm sure this would have been totally acceptable to most of the fans who opted for the club's 4 instalment plan least season. I really don't see why the club didn't offer this facility as well as the 12 month plan. Actually I can guess at a reason - but I don't think it is a valid one. Hi Lakeland That's exactly it - the club could have done this also but they have chosen to hide behind the line that it would not be legal for them to operate the scheme. However, what they have failed to say is that it is legal for an organisation (such as V12)licensed to offer this facility and that as a club we could have negotiated with V12 to set this up in anyway that we wanted. I work for an organisation in a completely different sector that collects instalment payments from its customers on an annual basis. The dates are set well in advance and communicated clearly. I can safely say that if these dates were changed at short notice without consulting our customers that there would be uproar. However, we are acutely aware that our customers are our lifeblood and that without them we don't have a job. I don't know exactly how many season ticket holders there are at Stoke but it appears to be anywhere between 18,000 and 22,000 depending on how well sales go. Therefore, the numbers of customers (c. 23,000 per annum) that we deal with are not dissimilar to the number of fans that that would have season tickets at Stoke. I still think it would be useful, if the Supporters Council representatives could ask for a clear statement from the club on this. Personally, I doubt that the club care because in their eyes they have still sold a huge amount of season tickets and as was mentioned in the minutes they believe that the decision only impacted on a few people. Thanks GB
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2014 10:56:09 GMT
Earlier on the thread though, it is clear that at least 2 clubs in the Prem (and probably more) offer a 0% credit 4 instalment plan operated by V12 for an administration fee of £5. That way the club would not have needed a licence. I'm sure this would have been totally acceptable to most of the fans who opted for the club's 4 instalment plan least season. I really don't see why the club didn't offer this facility as well as the 12 month plan. Actually I can guess at a reason - but I don't think it is a valid one. Hi Lakeland That's exactly it - the club could have done this also but they have chosen to hide behind the line that it would not be legal for them to operate the scheme. However, what they have failed to say is that it is legal for an organisation (such as V12)licensed to offer this facility and that as a club we could have negotiated with V12 to set this up in anyway that we wanted. I work for an organisation in a completely different sector that collects instalment payments from its customers on an annual basis. The dates are set well in advance and communicated clearly. I can safely say that if these dates were changed at short notice without consulting our customers that there would be uproar. However, we are acutely aware that our customers are our lifeblood and that without them we don't have a job.
I don't know exactly how many season ticket holders there are at Stoke but it appears to be anywhere between 18,000 and 22,000 depending on how well sales go. Therefore, the numbers of customers (c. 23,000 per annum) that we deal with are not dissimilar to the number of fans that that would have season tickets at Stoke. I still think it would be useful, if the Supporters Council representatives could ask for a clear statement from the club on this. Personally, I doubt that the club care because in their eyes they have still sold a huge amount of season tickets and as was mentioned in the minutes they believe that the decision only impacted on a few people. Thanks GB
That's it exactly.
It would be interesting for the club to provide accurate figures on how many supporters used to pay for their ticket by way of the four month instalments - I won't be holding my breath mind.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Apr 19, 2014 13:39:38 GMT
I have read the comments on this thread with great interest. I make the following suggestions. Every mail received at chair@scfcsc.co.uk is read, responded to and addressed with the club. We have a meeting with the club prior to the Spurs game on Saturday so if you wish to put your comments to the club on this or any other matter that is the best route. The comments on questions not being raised concern me and again I would appreciate these points being clarified by mail and I will address them as a matter of urgency. The good news is that elections for the Council take place in June and anyone can apply to replace some of the existing members. Anyone who feels they can do better or just wants to assist is most welcome. I am disappointed that some of you feel that we as a council emerge with "no credit" as a result of this. I can assure you that we did everything we could to get the club to realise the strength of feeling re the 4 month option. We were told that it was simply no longer an option. It is often easier to knock something rather than try to do something positive. Finally, I think to take a pop at individuals on the council whilst hiding behind a keyboard and using a pseudonym is pretty poor given that these individuals give up their time and are actually on your side. We all want the same, the best for all of us, the fans of the club. Happy Easter and thanks for your thoughts
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on Apr 19, 2014 16:35:06 GMT
Interesting that there hasn't been one single response (till mine) to what Angela has said. The invitation has been made get commenting or nominating yourself to put in the huge amount of time required to be a member of the council in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2014 16:41:45 GMT
Interesting that there hasn't been one single response (till mine) to what Angela has said. The invitation has been made get commenting or nominating yourself to put in the huge amount of time required to be a member of the council in the first place.
To be fair I doubt anybody knew Ange had even responded to the thread until you've bumped it JSU - I certainly didn't.
When was her reply added - just before kick-off or during the actual game itself?
The thread has been running for a few days now and then a response from the SC turns up whilst everybody is concentrating on the match.
I think the offer to either accept what you're getting or do better yourself is pretty poor actually - the SC shouldn't be above criticism.
Ange actively encourages people to engage knot fm on here on a Sunday night, so why not engage the supporter base on here in response to the concerns/queries that have already been articulated?
|
|
|
Post by MadMarko10 on Apr 19, 2014 16:41:57 GMT
Interesting that there hasn't been one single response (till mine) to what Angela has said. The invitation has been made get commenting or nominating yourself to put in the huge amount of time required to be a member of the council in the first place. Not really, people have been watching the match and have lives outside of this place, especially on a Saturday afternoon. Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on Apr 19, 2014 16:55:51 GMT
I'm sure she's watching fire away ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 19, 2014 16:59:41 GMT
I have read the comments on this thread with great interest. I make the following suggestions. Every mail received at chair@scfcsc.co.uk is read, responded to and addressed with the club. We have a meeting with the club prior to the Spurs game on Saturday so if you wish to put your comments to the club on this or any other matter that is the best route. The comments on questions not being raised concern me and again I would appreciate these points being clarified by mail and I will address them as a matter of urgency. The good news is that elections for the Council take place in June and anyone can apply to replace some of the existing members. Anyone who feels they can do better or just wants to assist is most welcome. I am disappointed that some of you feel that we as a council emerge with "no credit" as a result of this. I can assure you that we did everything we could to get the club to realise the strength of feeling re the 4 month option. We were told that it was simply no longer an option. It is often easier to knock something rather than try to do something positive. Finally, I think to take a pop at individuals on the council whilst hiding behind a keyboard and using a pseudonym is pretty poor given that these individuals give up their time and are actually on your side. We all want the same, the best for all of us, the fans of the club. Happy Easter and thanks for your thoughts Hi Ange. Did Mr Scholes say the names of who he was refering about the Oatie board? If not was he questioned about what he was saying? Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Apr 19, 2014 17:07:06 GMT
I too have a life outside this place and did not reply during the game, I was watching it! Paul, I have no problem engaging with anyone at any time, apart from during a game, indeed I have answered any question asked, including your own. I am unsure who has said the supporters council is above criticism, it isn't, but I still believe to take cheap shots at individuals who are attempting to do their best is not productive. The supporter base can comment wherever it wishes, but the best place is as previously stated, in that way it will certainly get to be seen by the club and addressed.
Anyone can of course go direct to the club and ask any question if they are unhappy with the council's efforts or feel that we are not producing the desired results too. To imply that the response was placed on the board when everyone was concentrating on the game suggests that I have an agenda. I really don't, I merely had some time prior to kick off!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 19, 2014 17:14:57 GMT
I too have a life outside this place and did not reply during the game, I was watching it! Paul, I have no problem engaging with anyone at any time, apart from during a game, indeed I have answered any question asked, including your own. I am unsure who has said the supporters council is above criticism, it isn't, but I still believe to take cheap shots at individuals who are attempting to do their best is not productive. The supporter base can comment wherever it wishes, but the best place is as previously stated, in that way it will certainly get to be seen by the club and addressed. Anyone can of course go direct to the club and ask any question if they are unhappy with the council's efforts or feel that we are not producing the desired results too. To imply that the response was placed on the board when everyone was concentrating on the game suggests that I have an agenda. I really don't, I merely had some time prior to kick off!
Ange I think you're getting a little over defensive here and seeing things that aren't there.
My response was SPECIFICALLY to JSU and the post he had made about nobody having responded to your post. I was simply pointing out to him that the timing of your post had meant that people probably hadn't seen it and that if it had been made at any time in the last few days, then the the thread wouldn't have fallen so quckly down the board as it did whilst the match was taking place.
If you're happy to engage anyone at anytime ... would it be too much trouble to respond to the questions/queries that have been asked on this current thread?
Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 19, 2014 17:21:41 GMT
Hi Angela - 2 questions from me.
1. When Scholes said that the 4 instalment plan was no longer an option did he simply say that Stoke could not offer it because they didn't have a licence?
2. Was he pressed, or did he volunteer, the informaton that V12 offer a 0% credit option by 4 instalments to at least two other Premier League clubs at the princely sum of a £5 admin fee?
If the answer to my question 2 is "no" then could you ask him at the next meeting, why he did not explore the 0% credit option for 4 instalments with V12 - as at least 2 other clubs appear to have done?
Could you also ask him if he will offer this option next season?
P.S. - to back Paul up. I first saw your post about ten minutes ago. I watched the match online. Then I fed the dogs and then I had my tea! Only then was I ready to have another look at this board and I suspect that many other fans are in the same boat. So Paul is probably correct to say that few posters will have had much chance to reply to your post 3 hours up this thread until now.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 17:30:15 GMT
Are people not allowed an opinion?
All people have stated here is that it appears the Council have been a little too meek and mild in dealing with the club and that a little bit of preparation of facts could have stood them in better stead than it has. It's taken a few people seconds here to find out that it is possible to still do the 4 month plan, along with examples of other clubs that are doing it with research of very basic information that is freely available to anyone with Google, and that it is a little too disingenuous to suggest that it is not possible at all, period.
Is it any wonder that the council is having it's validity questioned under those very basic circumstances?
How do you think the club view the council in those circumstances? Is it there to be respected on their behalf when seemingly very basic questions are not being asked and very basic research is not being carried out?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 19, 2014 17:44:04 GMT
Who from the council has been personally singled out?
|
|