|
Post by leicspotter on Apr 24, 2014 14:38:37 GMT
Are admin allowed to use words like ***t ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 14:43:50 GMT
Are admin allowed to use words like ***t ? I know I'm not GD
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 24, 2014 18:29:11 GMT
I've only just read through all of the posts on this thread and I am amazed at some of the comments. It would be a loss to the club if Malcolm Clarke decides to step down from his role on the Supporters Council, as a result of some of the comments posted on here The group are there to take forward ideas and comments from all fans - they have no power to make major changes to the running of the club www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/about.aspx is on the website explaining their role "While supporters generally tend to engage more with their Club when things aren't going particularly well, it is equally important to have this means of dialogue in settled times so that we can gauge the opinions of our fans." This is a way for all fans to have a voice if they want to - some good ideas have come from the group, other requests have not progressed but just because things cannot be changed etc then it's most unfair (in fact ungrateful) to make such negative comments in my opinion. Constructive comments are surely the way forward. The recent communication re changes to the purchase of Season tickets could have been improved, the most important thing now is to learn from that. The final supporters council meeting for this season is on Saturday so get your comments to them for discussion To end on a positive note, it would appear that Season ticket sales are going very well as are tickets for our final away game at West Brom That's most kind of you to say so, Jeycov. Just to clarify what I said, it wasn't that I might not stand again because of the substantive content of comments posted on here on the issues raised, but rather that there was reference to the fact that it spoke volumes (or words to that effect) that Council members were not engaging in the debate, when I simply don't have the time to keep abreast with everything on here. I also however have sympathy with Richard's (scfcsurrey)comment about a lot of the language used on here and that abuse and stridency is not a substitute for evidence or reasoned argument, whether directed at fellow fans or club officials. It's not my cup of tea and I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned like that, perhaps because of my age or perhaps because one my father's oft-repeated life lessons to me was that if you are in the right you can afford to be civil, and if you are in the wrong, you are a fool to be anything else. Like all other Council members, I can decide not to be on the Council (by not standing again) but I cannot decide to be on the Council. That is for the electorate to determine. All Council members serve 2 year terms of office (and cannot stand for more than 3 terms) and 50% retire each year. Next Saturday's meeting will be my last in my current term of office - as it will be for Ange and half the Council. We each individually will then decide whether to stand again, and for those who do, the electorate will decide their fate (unless there are unopposed candidates - of which there have been too many IMHO in the first two years of elections). For all of us, no doubt, deciding whether to stand again is a question of determining personal priorities. In my case, attending Council meetings (including the informal ones when the Club aren't present) on match days entails considerable disruption to a long-established match day routine which involves car sharing with others and a pre-match lunch with friends and my daughter. I have chaired the ticketing sub-group, which has involved special journeys down from Manchester at my own expense. And dealing with individual casework is in additional to that. It's been worth it, because I think the Council has been worthwhile, and has achieved some positive things. To take one example, although there is an issue about the 4-month payment scheme, the Club gave us almost everything we argued for on the ticketing group, including a price freeze; a more extended payment scheme; reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended not money ( i.e abolition of platinum +, and platinum); and improvements to the online system. This isn't my promised post dealing with the issues raised in this thread - although it has turned out to be longer than I intended !
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 24, 2014 18:43:32 GMT
I've only just read through all of the posts on this thread and I am amazed at some of the comments. It would be a loss to the club if Malcolm Clarke decides to step down from his role on the Supporters Council, as a result of some of the comments posted on here The group are there to take forward ideas and comments from all fans - they have no power to make major changes to the running of the club www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/about.aspx is on the website explaining their role "While supporters generally tend to engage more with their Club when things aren't going particularly well, it is equally important to have this means of dialogue in settled times so that we can gauge the opinions of our fans." This is a way for all fans to have a voice if they want to - some good ideas have come from the group, other requests have not progressed but just because things cannot be changed etc then it's most unfair (in fact ungrateful) to make such negative comments in my opinion. Constructive comments are surely the way forward. The recent communication re changes to the purchase of Season tickets could have been improved, the most important thing now is to learn from that. The final supporters council meeting for this season is on Saturday so get your comments to them for discussion To end on a positive note, it would appear that Season ticket sales are going very well as are tickets for our final away game at West Brom That's most kind of you to say so, Jeycov. Just to clarify what I said, it wasn't that I might not stand again because of the substantive content of comments posted on here on the issues raised, but rather that there was reference to the fact that it spoke volumes (or words to that effect) that Council members were not engaging in the debate, when I simply don't have the time to keep abreast with everything on here. I also however have sympathy with Richard's (scfcsurrey)comment about a lot of the language used on here and that abuse and stridency is not a substitute for evidence or reasoned argument, whether directed at fellow fans or club officials. It's not my cup of tea and I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned like that, perhaps because of my age or perhaps because one my father's oft-repeated life lessons to me was that if you are in the right you can afford to be civil, and if you are in the wrong, you are a fool to be anything else. Like all other Council members, I can decide not to be on the Council (by not standing again) but I cannot decide to be on the Council. That is for the electorate to determine. All Council members serve 2 year terms of office (and cannot stand for more than 3 terms) and 50% retire each year. Next Saturday's meeting will be my last in my current term of office - as it will be for Ange and half the Council. We each individually will then decide whether to stand again, and for those who do, the electorate will decide their fate (unless there are unopposed candidates - of which there have been too many IMHO in the first two years of elections). For all of us, no doubt, deciding whether to stand again is a question of determining personal priorities. In my case, attending Council meetings (including the informal ones when the Club aren't present) on match days entails considerable disruption to a long-established match day routine which involves car sharing with others and a pre-match lunch with friends and my daughter. I have chaired the ticketing sub-group, which has involved special journeys down from Manchester at my own expense. And dealing with individual casework is in additional to that. It's been worth it, because I think the Council has been worthwhile, and has achieved some positive things. To take one example, although there is an issue about the 4-month payment scheme, the Club gave us almost everything we argued for on the ticketing group, including a price freeze; a more extended payment scheme; reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended not money ( i.e abolition of platinum +, and platinum); and improvements to the online system. This isn't my promised post dealing with the issues raised in this thread - although it has turned out to be longer than I intended ! On the issue of plat and plat+ membership. Was a vote taken with the fans or was it just decided to bin without asking those who purchased them? How did the sc come to the conclusion this is what most fans wanted?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 24, 2014 19:30:14 GMT
I've only just read through all of the posts on this thread and I am amazed at some of the comments. It would be a loss to the club if Malcolm Clarke decides to step down from his role on the Supporters Council, as a result of some of the comments posted on here The group are there to take forward ideas and comments from all fans - they have no power to make major changes to the running of the club www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/about.aspx is on the website explaining their role "While supporters generally tend to engage more with their Club when things aren't going particularly well, it is equally important to have this means of dialogue in settled times so that we can gauge the opinions of our fans." This is a way for all fans to have a voice if they want to - some good ideas have come from the group, other requests have not progressed but just because things cannot be changed etc then it's most unfair (in fact ungrateful) to make such negative comments in my opinion. Constructive comments are surely the way forward. The recent communication re changes to the purchase of Season tickets could have been improved, the most important thing now is to learn from that. The final supporters council meeting for this season is on Saturday so get your comments to them for discussion To end on a positive note, it would appear that Season ticket sales are going very well as are tickets for our final away game at West Brom That's most kind of you to say so, Jeycov. Just to clarify what I said, it wasn't that I might not stand again because of the substantive content of comments posted on here on the issues raised, but rather that there was reference to the fact that it spoke volumes (or words to that effect) that Council members were not engaging in the debate, when I simply don't have the time to keep abreast with everything on here. I also however have sympathy with Richard's (scfcsurrey)comment about a lot of the language used on here and that abuse and stridency is not a substitute for evidence or reasoned argument, whether directed at fellow fans or club officials. It's not my cup of tea and I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned like that, perhaps because of my age or perhaps because one my father's oft-repeated life lessons to me was that if you are in the right you can afford to be civil, and if you are in the wrong, you are a fool to be anything else. Like all other Council members, I can decide not to be on the Council (by not standing again) but I cannot decide to be on the Council. That is for the electorate to determine. All Council members serve 2 year terms of office (and cannot stand for more than 3 terms) and 50% retire each year. Next Saturday's meeting will be my last in my current term of office - as it will be for Ange and half the Council. We each individually will then decide whether to stand again, and for those who do, the electorate will decide their fate (unless there are unopposed candidates - of which there have been too many IMHO in the first two years of elections). For all of us, no doubt, deciding whether to stand again is a question of determining personal priorities. In my case, attending Council meetings (including the informal ones when the Club aren't present) on match days entails considerable disruption to a long-established match day routine which involves car sharing with others and a pre-match lunch with friends and my daughter. I have chaired the ticketing sub-group, which has involved special journeys down from Manchester at my own expense. And dealing with individual casework is in additional to that. It's been worth it, because I think the Council has been worthwhile, and has achieved some positive things. To take one example, although there is an issue about the 4-month payment scheme, the Club gave us almost everything we argued for on the ticketing group, including a price freeze; a more extended payment scheme; reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended not money ( i.e abolition of platinum +, and platinum); and improvements to the online system. This isn't my promised post dealing with the issues raised in this thread - although it has turned out to be longer than I intended ! Gross oversensitivity from you and Ange, Malcolm. I cannot see any personal abuse of council members even where language is at its most robust. The facts remain that at the commencement of this council we were told that this time it would be different, previous bullied, beaten and ultimately discarded versions of it were a thing of the past. They're clearly not and the reasons why can be located in Mark Wolstantons post on the previous page. You were LIED to by Scholes (and for that and many, many more reasons, he is very much fair game for comic book supporter abuse) but the fact that you all sat there whilst he not only diminished but mocked supporters on this forum and told you what to think and what sources you should trust. Whilst those minutes remain public and signed off as an accurate representation of what went on at that meeting, the supporters council is dead. I'll try again, are those minutes an accurate representation of what occurred at that meeting? If so it shows the council to be a weak willed, kowtowing, forelock tugging, obsequious body, incapable of supporter representation. If they are not an accurate representation of what went on, why were they signed off and what does the council intend to do about it?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 24, 2014 19:30:19 GMT
I've only just read through all of the posts on this thread and I am amazed at some of the comments. It would be a loss to the club if Malcolm Clarke decides to step down from his role on the Supporters Council, as a result of some of the comments posted on here The group are there to take forward ideas and comments from all fans - they have no power to make major changes to the running of the club www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/about.aspx is on the website explaining their role "While supporters generally tend to engage more with their Club when things aren't going particularly well, it is equally important to have this means of dialogue in settled times so that we can gauge the opinions of our fans." This is a way for all fans to have a voice if they want to - some good ideas have come from the group, other requests have not progressed but just because things cannot be changed etc then it's most unfair (in fact ungrateful) to make such negative comments in my opinion. Constructive comments are surely the way forward. The recent communication re changes to the purchase of Season tickets could have been improved, the most important thing now is to learn from that. The final supporters council meeting for this season is on Saturday so get your comments to them for discussion To end on a positive note, it would appear that Season ticket sales are going very well as are tickets for our final away game at West Brom That's most kind of you to say so, Jeycov. Just to clarify what I said, it wasn't that I might not stand again because of the substantive content of comments posted on here on the issues raised, but rather that there was reference to the fact that it spoke volumes (or words to that effect) that Council members were not engaging in the debate, when I simply don't have the time to keep abreast with everything on here. I also however have sympathy with Richard's (scfcsurrey)comment about a lot of the language used on here and that abuse and stridency is not a substitute for evidence or reasoned argument, whether directed at fellow fans or club officials. It's not my cup of tea and I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned like that, perhaps because of my age or perhaps because one my father's oft-repeated life lessons to me was that if you are in the right you can afford to be civil, and if you are in the wrong, you are a fool to be anything else. Like all other Council members, I can decide not to be on the Council (by not standing again) but I cannot decide to be on the Council. That is for the electorate to determine. All Council members serve 2 year terms of office (and cannot stand for more than 3 terms) and 50% retire each year. Next Saturday's meeting will be my last in my current term of office - as it will be for Ange and half the Council. We each individually will then decide whether to stand again, and for those who do, the electorate will decide their fate (unless there are unopposed candidates - of which there have been too many IMHO in the first two years of elections). For all of us, no doubt, deciding whether to stand again is a question of determining personal priorities. In my case, attending Council meetings (including the informal ones when the Club aren't present) on match days entails considerable disruption to a long-established match day routine which involves car sharing with others and a pre-match lunch with friends and my daughter. I have chaired the ticketing sub-group, which has involved special journeys down from Manchester at my own expense. And dealing with individual casework is in additional to that. It's been worth it, because I think the Council has been worthwhile, and has achieved some positive things. To take one example, although there is an issue about the 4-month payment scheme, the Club gave us almost everything we argued for on the ticketing group, including a price freeze; a more extended payment scheme; reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended not money ( i.e abolition of platinum +, and platinum); and improvements to the online system. This isn't my promised post dealing with the issues raised in this thread - although it has turned out to be longer than I intended !
Is this actually for certain Malcolm ... Ange seemed to suggest otherwise on her community internet broadcast?
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Apr 24, 2014 20:34:05 GMT
Are admin allowed to use words like ***t ? It is always allowed when used in the same sentence as Wolves
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 24, 2014 23:06:20 GMT
The other post I promised. First, I want to make some general points. There are very few clubs which have genuinely democratic fans consultative bodies, as ours is in the sense that every fan is either directly elected or appointed by a democratically structured fans organisation. In many other clubs fans are "selected" in some way by the Club or the "forum" itself, and there are plenty of examples of active fans groups being excluded. In many cases there is a simply a refusal to have such a body. I think it is to the Club's credit that it has been established in this way. I believe there is a commitment by the Club to take it seriously, albeit that there have been some problems. If I didn't believe that, I would have resigned long ago.
I sat on the old Fans Forum and there is no comparison between the SC and that body in its later years, which was self-appointed fans and not attended by the senior management of the Club.
I'm afraid I laughed out loud at the suggestion that some members are only on the SC because of its social status. What social status would that be ? "poison chalice" or " hiding to nothing" is more like it, reading some of this thread.
Second, it is only a consultative body, which does not have any decision-making powers. I would dearly love to see our club run by democratically elected fans, but I don't think its going to happen any time soon at any PL level club.
Third, minutes can often cause a problem in bodies. If you don't produce a "hansard" verbatim record of what everybody says, unless you simply have a record of the conclusion reached on discussion of an item and nothing else,somebody has to keep a note of the points individuals make, understand them and get them right and then select which are to be included and which not, in order to give a fair representation of the discussion. That's a very skilled task, which is often given to secretarial or administrative staff who may not have the skills or training to do it well. I think that is part of the problem here, although I would absolutely not criticise anyone who has done this difficult task.
The minutes are not approved until the next full meeting of the Council. If they are not published until after that, there is then a long delay, and there's been another meeting, which is not satisfactory. If they are published before, then they are not the approved version.
When they come up for approval, it's difficult in practice to spend too much time arguing the toss about their content ( although obvious errors should be corrected) because you could spend too high a proportion of the limited time available re-drafting things and debating what happened at the previous meeting, rather than taking issues forward.
In a decision-making body, then of course you have to do that if necessary on the decisions, because that's the official record of a decision. My personal view has been that in a consultative body, that's less important. For that reason, until now, on the SC I haven't worried too much about the minutes.
But the SC should worry from now on, because in terms of external scrutiny, we have gone quite rapidly from one extreme to the other - from there apparently being very little interest in the minutes to them now being forensically scrutinised,interpreted and criticised.
The Chair and I have discussed this this week and agreed that we think there is a merit in us ( i.e the supporters) producing a summary of the main items discussed and the conclusions reached in non-minute form, for early release, a bit like a news release. We cannot say how our colleagues or the Club will react to this suggestion. And it would also be more work for what are volunteers.
For the record, and without going into extensive detail, I personally do not think that these latest set of unapproved minutes which are generating so much heat, give a fully fair and accurate representation of the meeting, either in tone or content. For example, I don't think they are full enough on the ticketing issues, which are generally a positive story. But that's just my view, other SC members may see it differently.
On the specific issue of the CEO's comments about this Board, my recollection is certainly that he said that he felt the negative coverage on the 4-month issue was only a couple of people, and that this had marred what was generally a very positive story about season-ticket prices and the new extended payment option as requested by the SC.
Personally, I do not recall him counselling the SC to be cautious about reading these threads or making assumptions about how widely held the views are. We don't have a transcript and if he did say that, I missed it or have forgotten it. But in any case, I, and I'm sure most SC members, feel quite capable of making our own minds up about what weight to give the various supporter inputs into these debates, including this Board.
On the 4-month issue itself, some of us had had an advance indication that the Club had been advised that the scheme previously run was contrary to financial regulations ( which no-one on here has challenged). If that is the case, then it obviously had to end, and I'm personally not too surprised that its cessation wasn't too heavily publicised, even though I think it should have been. In my experience organisations don't tend to be too keen on publicising their own breaches of the law.
This reason was only given officially at the SC meeting, although the CEO didn't just hide behind that and was honest enough to say that he wasn't sure they would have continued it anyway. It is therefore quite unfair in my view to criticise Council members for not doing research on how other clubs possibly get round this. You can't do that actually in a meeting, and it is clearly a detailed and specialist topic. Given that, as stated,the Club might have discontinued it anyway it's not surprising that they didn't devote too much energy to it.
There have been some helpful contributions on here about how such a scheme by the Club can be brought within regulation. An informed and evidence-based discussion on that needs to had with the Club for next year. Personally, I am not too sure that there is much value in pursuing it in great detail on Saturday, because the decisions have been taken for this season.
There was some discussion at the Council, led by Ange, about whether the club should apologise for not having properly informed supporters about it, and the reasons, and consulted the SC, which the Club accepeted. There was a view that we should be looking forwards not backwards, given that the decision has been taken.
It is always difficult to guage just how big a concern an issue is, given that you can't have a plebiscite of supporters on each one. Personally, 3 people contacted me through this Board - all people who had contributed to that thread. I would like to have data on the 4-month scheme - how many fans used it ? how many of them have not renewed now it's gone ? and of those who have, how are they paying ?
The issue which perhaps worries me most on this thread is that raised by Old Stokie, which I intend to pursue. With that and the sight issue for users of the wheelchair bays, given that there is a dedicated rep. for disabled supporters, there is a question about how far, if at all, and in what circumstances, other council members should take up those issues. That said, I think both are very important issues which must be addressed.
All in all, despite the problems raised on this thread and elsewhere, I remain convinced of the importance and potential of the SC. I think some (not all) of the criticisms of the performance of its members are inaccurate and unfair. Ange, as chair, has done a good assertive job on behalf of supporters and is certainly not under the Club's thumb in any way.
Could you get better and more effective representatives ? No doubt. It would be surprising indeed if those of us who have been on it, happen to be the best possible candidates available from the supporter base. The chance to improve it is now coming up - I shall watch with interest how many candidates put themselves forward and what the voter turnout is. Both of those things have been far too low IMHO in the two rounds of elections we have had so far.
I have tried my best, within the time and energy I have available, in this post and others to give a full and honest, but entirely personal, perspective on the issues raised. Forgive me if I do not have the time to post again on it.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 8:02:50 GMT
That's most kind of you to say so, Jeycov. Just to clarify what I said, it wasn't that I might not stand again because of the substantive content of comments posted on here on the issues raised, but rather that there was reference to the fact that it spoke volumes (or words to that effect) that Council members were not engaging in the debate, when I simply don't have the time to keep abreast with everything on here. I also however have sympathy with Richard's (scfcsurrey)comment about a lot of the language used on here and that abuse and stridency is not a substitute for evidence or reasoned argument, whether directed at fellow fans or club officials. It's not my cup of tea and I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned like that, perhaps because of my age or perhaps because one my father's oft-repeated life lessons to me was that if you are in the right you can afford to be civil, and if you are in the wrong, you are a fool to be anything else. Like all other Council members, I can decide not to be on the Council (by not standing again) but I cannot decide to be on the Council. That is for the electorate to determine. All Council members serve 2 year terms of office (and cannot stand for more than 3 terms) and 50% retire each year. Next Saturday's meeting will be my last in my current term of office - as it will be for Ange and half the Council. We each individually will then decide whether to stand again, and for those who do, the electorate will decide their fate (unless there are unopposed candidates - of which there have been too many IMHO in the first two years of elections). For all of us, no doubt, deciding whether to stand again is a question of determining personal priorities. In my case, attending Council meetings (including the informal ones when the Club aren't present) on match days entails considerable disruption to a long-established match day routine which involves car sharing with others and a pre-match lunch with friends and my daughter. I have chaired the ticketing sub-group, which has involved special journeys down from Manchester at my own expense. And dealing with individual casework is in additional to that. It's been worth it, because I think the Council has been worthwhile, and has achieved some positive things. To take one example, although there is an issue about the 4-month payment scheme, the Club gave us almost everything we argued for on the ticketing group, including a price freeze; a more extended payment scheme; reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended not money ( i.e abolition of platinum +, and platinum); and improvements to the online system. This isn't my promised post dealing with the issues raised in this thread - although it has turned out to be longer than I intended ! Gross oversensitivity from you and Ange, Malcolm. I cannot see any personal abuse of council members even where language is at its most robust. The facts remain that at the commencement of this council we were told that this time it would be different, previous bullied, beaten and ultimately discarded versions of it were a thing of the past. They're clearly not and the reasons why can be located in Mark Wolstantons post on the previous page. You were LIED to by Scholes (and for that and many, many more reasons, he is very much fair game for comic book supporter abuse) but the fact that you all sat there whilst he not only diminished but mocked supporters on this forum and told you what to think and what sources you should trust. Whilst those minutes remain public and signed off as an accurate representation of what went on at that meeting, the supporters council is dead. I'll try again, are those minutes an accurate representation of what occurred at that meeting? If so it shows the council to be a weak willed, kowtowing, forelock tugging, obsequious body, incapable of supporter representation. If they are not an accurate representation of what went on, why were they signed off and what does the council intend to do about it? My comments were in fact intended to be more general about the tone of this board, but there are examples of it on this thread. I think that the combination of anonymous user names and the dialogue not being face to face means that many posters say things in ways and use personal abuse which often quite astonishes me,and which I suspect they don't do in "real life", even though I accept that (unfortunately in my view) society as a whole is becoming much less polite. Others will make their own judgements, but even this latest post by yourself, has a tone to it, particularly in the last paragraph, which I personally don't think is helpful to trying to get constructive dialogue between us going. Similarly with the CEO. The SC doesn't run the Club, neither do the posters on this Board. We have to deal with Tony Scholes, persuade him and negotiate with him. You and others can decide whether the kind of language you use about him on this public forum helps that process. My personal view is very much that it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 25, 2014 8:07:12 GMT
That's most kind of you to say so, Jeycov. Just to clarify what I said, it wasn't that I might not stand again because of the substantive content of comments posted on here on the issues raised, but rather that there was reference to the fact that it spoke volumes (or words to that effect) that Council members were not engaging in the debate, when I simply don't have the time to keep abreast with everything on here. I also however have sympathy with Richard's (scfcsurrey)comment about a lot of the language used on here and that abuse and stridency is not a substitute for evidence or reasoned argument, whether directed at fellow fans or club officials. It's not my cup of tea and I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned like that, perhaps because of my age or perhaps because one my father's oft-repeated life lessons to me was that if you are in the right you can afford to be civil, and if you are in the wrong, you are a fool to be anything else. Like all other Council members, I can decide not to be on the Council (by not standing again) but I cannot decide to be on the Council. That is for the electorate to determine. All Council members serve 2 year terms of office (and cannot stand for more than 3 terms) and 50% retire each year. Next Saturday's meeting will be my last in my current term of office - as it will be for Ange and half the Council. We each individually will then decide whether to stand again, and for those who do, the electorate will decide their fate (unless there are unopposed candidates - of which there have been too many IMHO in the first two years of elections). For all of us, no doubt, deciding whether to stand again is a question of determining personal priorities. In my case, attending Council meetings (including the informal ones when the Club aren't present) on match days entails considerable disruption to a long-established match day routine which involves car sharing with others and a pre-match lunch with friends and my daughter. I have chaired the ticketing sub-group, which has involved special journeys down from Manchester at my own expense. And dealing with individual casework is in additional to that. It's been worth it, because I think the Council has been worthwhile, and has achieved some positive things. To take one example, although there is an issue about the 4-month payment scheme, the Club gave us almost everything we argued for on the ticketing group, including a price freeze; a more extended payment scheme; reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended not money ( i.e abolition of platinum +, and platinum); and improvements to the online system. This isn't my promised post dealing with the issues raised in this thread - although it has turned out to be longer than I intended ! On the issue of plat and plat+ membership. Was a vote taken with the fans or was it just decided to bin without asking those who purchased them? How did the sc come to the conclusion this is what most fans wanted? Hi Malcolm/Ange. Could you clarify the above please. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 8:16:57 GMT
That's most kind of you to say so, Jeycov. Just to clarify what I said, it wasn't that I might not stand again because of the substantive content of comments posted on here on the issues raised, but rather that there was reference to the fact that it spoke volumes (or words to that effect) that Council members were not engaging in the debate, when I simply don't have the time to keep abreast with everything on here. I also however have sympathy with Richard's (scfcsurrey)comment about a lot of the language used on here and that abuse and stridency is not a substitute for evidence or reasoned argument, whether directed at fellow fans or club officials. It's not my cup of tea and I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned like that, perhaps because of my age or perhaps because one my father's oft-repeated life lessons to me was that if you are in the right you can afford to be civil, and if you are in the wrong, you are a fool to be anything else. Like all other Council members, I can decide not to be on the Council (by not standing again) but I cannot decide to be on the Council. That is for the electorate to determine. All Council members serve 2 year terms of office (and cannot stand for more than 3 terms) and 50% retire each year. Next Saturday's meeting will be my last in my current term of office - as it will be for Ange and half the Council. We each individually will then decide whether to stand again, and for those who do, the electorate will decide their fate (unless there are unopposed candidates - of which there have been too many IMHO in the first two years of elections). For all of us, no doubt, deciding whether to stand again is a question of determining personal priorities. In my case, attending Council meetings (including the informal ones when the Club aren't present) on match days entails considerable disruption to a long-established match day routine which involves car sharing with others and a pre-match lunch with friends and my daughter. I have chaired the ticketing sub-group, which has involved special journeys down from Manchester at my own expense. And dealing with individual casework is in additional to that. It's been worth it, because I think the Council has been worthwhile, and has achieved some positive things. To take one example, although there is an issue about the 4-month payment scheme, the Club gave us almost everything we argued for on the ticketing group, including a price freeze; a more extended payment scheme; reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended not money ( i.e abolition of platinum +, and platinum); and improvements to the online system. This isn't my promised post dealing with the issues raised in this thread - although it has turned out to be longer than I intended !
Is this actually for certain Malcolm ... Ange seemed to suggest otherwise on her community internet broadcast?
I didn't hear Ange's broadcast, Paul, but unless I've completely lost the plot here, the position is this. The ticketing sub-group recommended that attendance at away games should be the sole priority criterion, even above season ticket status i.e a member who is not season ticket holder (that membership category will remain even after P+ & P have been abolished) who has attended, say, 10 games would be higher up the priority list than a season ticket holder who has only attended, say 5. After a discussion - and even a vote - at the full Council, this was changed so that season ticket holders would be in a higher category, regardless of how many games they have attended. i.e in the example above, the ST holder would be higher. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, and I don't think it's a huge deal, because the large majority of very regular away attenders will be season ticket holders anyway. The group it might adversely affect would be "exiles" who haven't got a season ticket but who do attend a number of aways. Of course, over the last couple of years there has, I think, only been a couple of games which haven't gone on to general sale anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 25, 2014 8:20:33 GMT
Gross oversensitivity from you and Ange, Malcolm. I cannot see any personal abuse of council members even where language is at its most robust. The facts remain that at the commencement of this council we were told that this time it would be different, previous bullied, beaten and ultimately discarded versions of it were a thing of the past. They're clearly not and the reasons why can be located in Mark Wolstantons post on the previous page. You were LIED to by Scholes (and for that and many, many more reasons, he is very much fair game for comic book supporter abuse) but the fact that you all sat there whilst he not only diminished but mocked supporters on this forum and told you what to think and what sources you should trust. Whilst those minutes remain public and signed off as an accurate representation of what went on at that meeting, the supporters council is dead. I'll try again, are those minutes an accurate representation of what occurred at that meeting? If so it shows the council to be a weak willed, kowtowing, forelock tugging, obsequious body, incapable of supporter representation. If they are not an accurate representation of what went on, why were they signed off and what does the council intend to do about it? My comments were in fact intended to be more general about the tone of this board, but there are examples of it on this thread. I think that the combination of anonymous user names and the dialogue not being face to face means that many posters say things in ways and use personal abuse which often quite astonishes me,and which I suspect they don't do in "real life", even though I accept that (unfortunately in my view) society as a whole is becoming much less polite. Others will make their own judgements, but even this latest post by yourself, has a tone to it, particularly in the last paragraph, which I personally don't think is helpful to trying to get constructive dialogue between us going. Similarly with the CEO. The SC doesn't run the Club, neither do the posters on this Board. We have to deal with Tony Scholes, persuade him and negotiate with him. You and others can decide whether the kind of language you use about him on this public forum helps that process. My personal view is very much that it doesn't. Well this would be a very moribund place if it obeyed every law of ‘real life’ Malcolm but the fact that it doesn’t, does not in any way diminish its role or value as a resource in gauging supporter opinion as our Chief Executive has instructed you and the Council to believe. Apologies if my ‘tone’ offends you but I would have thought the Chief Executive lying to your face, precipitating this collapse in credibility of the council may have offended you more but sadly (and clearly) not and that is why with such subservience on one side and such flippant disregard on the other, this thing will NEVER work whilst the club is organised and staffed in the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 8:28:46 GMT
On the issue of plat and plat+ membership. Was a vote taken with the fans or was it just decided to bin without asking those who purchased them? How did the sc come to the conclusion this is what most fans wanted? Hi Malcolm/Ange. Could you clarify the above please. Cheers. With pleasure ! As I stated in my other post, in practice, you can't have a plebiscite on every issue, so you have to make judgements. One advantage in having a relatively large Council is that the range of people, views and representative categories means that, IMHO, you are more likely to get those judgements right. In this case, in the previous round of meetings, the ticketing group recommended that away ticketing priority shouldn't be able to be purchased, but should be base on attendance record. No-one on the Council expressed a contrary view. In terms of individual representations, I have been lobbied by a number of fans to that effect (in some case quite persistently ! ) and I have never had a fan lobby me to keep the present P+ system. So, my best judgement would be that what we asked the club for, and has been granted, is in line with the majority fans view. Of course, if there was ever a fans vote on this, it couldn't just include existing P+ members, because those who are not P+ members are also affected by the present system because they are put in a lower category. I should perhaps add that I am a P+ member myself. I hope that helps, Stafford !
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 8:38:42 GMT
My comments were in fact intended to be more general about the tone of this board, but there are examples of it on this thread. I think that the combination of anonymous user names and the dialogue not being face to face means that many posters say things in ways and use personal abuse which often quite astonishes me,and which I suspect they don't do in "real life", even though I accept that (unfortunately in my view) society as a whole is becoming much less polite. Others will make their own judgements, but even this latest post by yourself, has a tone to it, particularly in the last paragraph, which I personally don't think is helpful to trying to get constructive dialogue between us going. Similarly with the CEO. The SC doesn't run the Club, neither do the posters on this Board. We have to deal with Tony Scholes, persuade him and negotiate with him. You and others can decide whether the kind of language you use about him on this public forum helps that process. My personal view is very much that it doesn't. Well this would be a very moribund place if it obeyed every law of ‘real life’ Malcolm but the fact that it doesn’t, does not in any way diminish its role or value as a resource in gauging supporter opinion as our Chief Executive has instructed you and the Council to believe. Apologies if my ‘tone’ offends you but I would have thought the Chief Executive lying to your face, precipitating this collapse in credibility of the council may have offended you more but sadly (and clearly) not and that is why with such subservience on one side and such flippant disregard on the other, this thing will NEVER work whilst the club is organised and staffed in the way it is. I'm not sure that we're going to get too much father with this but for the record I'm not particularly offended, but I don't think it helps constructive dialogue, either on here or in the SC. In that respect, I agree with Richard. I am not aware that the CEO has told any lies, but in any case, I am most certainly not subservient to him ( or anyone else in football for that matter) on this issue or anything else. I think it's just that you and I seem to have have a very different style of doing business.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 25, 2014 8:40:10 GMT
Hi Malcolm/Ange. Could you clarify the above please. Cheers. With pleasure ! As I stated in my other post, in practice, you can't have a plebiscite on every issue, so you have to make judgements. One advantage in having a relatively large Council is that the range of people, views and representative categories means that, IMHO, you are more likely to get those judgements right. In this case, in the previous round of meetings, the ticketing group recommended that away ticketing priority shouldn't be able to be purchased, but should be base on attendance record. No-one on the Council expressed a contrary view. In terms of individual representations, I have been lobbied by a number of fans to that effect (in some case quite persistently ! ) and I have never had a fan lobby me to keep the present P+ system. So, my best judgement would be that what we asked the club for, and has been granted, is in line with the majority fans view. Of course, if there was ever a fans vote on this, it couldn't just include existing P+ members, because those who are not P+ members are also affected by the present system because they are put in a lower category. I should perhaps add that I am a P+ member myself. I hope that helps, Stafford ! With respect, why would a plat+ or plat member lobby you to keep something that it was never indicated would be taken away? Surly if it was on the cards to remove it then ALL fans should have been given a vote on it? It's no biggy either way for me as there are always ways around it but I can't see how it is right that a few people can make big decisions for all fans without consulting them. If you are representing the fans then surly they should be consulted? This is no attack on the SC as I believe you all have a thankless task but it is a bit of a concern for me. Thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 8:51:14 GMT
With pleasure ! As I stated in my other post, in practice, you can't have a plebiscite on every issue, so you have to make judgements. One advantage in having a relatively large Council is that the range of people, views and representative categories means that, IMHO, you are more likely to get those judgements right. In this case, in the previous round of meetings, the ticketing group recommended that away ticketing priority shouldn't be able to be purchased, but should be base on attendance record. No-one on the Council expressed a contrary view. In terms of individual representations, I have been lobbied by a number of fans to that effect (in some case quite persistently ! ) and I have never had a fan lobby me to keep the present P+ system. So, my best judgement would be that what we asked the club for, and has been granted, is in line with the majority fans view. Of course, if there was ever a fans vote on this, it couldn't just include existing P+ members, because those who are not P+ members are also affected by the present system because they are put in a lower category. I should perhaps add that I am a P+ member myself. I hope that helps, Stafford ! With respect, why would a plat+ or plat member lobby you to keep something that it was never indicated would be taken away? Surly if it was on the cards to remove it then ALL fans should have been given a vote on it? It's no biggy either way for me as there are always ways around it but I can't see how it is right that a few people can make big decisions for all fans without consulting them. If you are representing the fans then surly they should be consulted? This is no attack on the SC as I believe you all have a thankless task but it is a bit of a concern for me. Thanks for the reply. I understand what you're saying Stafford, but I think it's completely impracticable to have a supporters vote on every issue. You are in fact the first person that I'm aware of who has in any way questioned this - rather the reaction which I'm aware of has been positive. At the end of the day, if you and other fans don't feel that you have been properly represented on this or any other issue, you can respond through the on-line ballot box in a few weeks time.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 25, 2014 8:55:50 GMT
Well this would be a very moribund place if it obeyed every law of ‘real life’ Malcolm but the fact that it doesn’t, does not in any way diminish its role or value as a resource in gauging supporter opinion as our Chief Executive has instructed you and the Council to believe. Apologies if my ‘tone’ offends you but I would have thought the Chief Executive lying to your face, precipitating this collapse in credibility of the council may have offended you more but sadly (and clearly) not and that is why with such subservience on one side and such flippant disregard on the other, this thing will NEVER work whilst the club is organised and staffed in the way it is. I am not aware that the CEO has told any lies.... I should perhaps add that I am a P+ member myself. When you dance with the devil, then the piper must be paid....
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 25, 2014 9:03:57 GMT
Is this actually for certain Malcolm ... Ange seemed to suggest otherwise on her community internet broadcast?
I didn't hear Ange's broadcast, Paul, but unless I've completely lost the plot here, the position is this. The ticketing sub-group recommended that attendance at away games should be the sole priority criterion, even above season ticket status i.e a member who is not season ticket holder (that membership category will remain even after P+ & P have been abolished) who has attended, say, 10 games would be higher up the priority list than a season ticket holder who has only attended, say 5. After a discussion - and even a vote - at the full Council, this was changed so that season ticket holders would be in a higher category, regardless of how many games they have attended. i.e in the example above, the ST holder would be higher. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, and I don't think it's a huge deal, because the large majority of very regular away attenders will be season ticket holders anyway. The group it might adversely affect would be "exiles" who haven't got a season ticket but who do attend a number of aways. Of course, over the last couple of years there has, I think, only been a couple of games which haven't gone on to general sale anyway.
So in effect all season ticket holders have the same priority regardless of the number of away games they've been to?
Which is what Ange was suggesting it will be.
To all intents and purposes then a season ticket holder who has been to every away game that season has no more priority than a season ticket holder who hasn't been to any, say for tickets for a match where we draw Vale away in the cup?
With respect, that doesn't really match your original comment that ...
"reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended"
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 25, 2014 9:04:58 GMT
With respect, why would a plat+ or plat member lobby you to keep something that it was never indicated would be taken away? Surly if it was on the cards to remove it then ALL fans should have been given a vote on it? It's no biggy either way for me as there are always ways around it but I can't see how it is right that a few people can make big decisions for all fans without consulting them. If you are representing the fans then surly they should be consulted? This is no attack on the SC as I believe you all have a thankless task but it is a bit of a concern for me. Thanks for the reply. I understand what you're saying Stafford, but I think it's completely impracticable to have a supporters vote on every issue. You are in fact the first person that I'm aware of who has in any way questioned this - rather the reaction which I'm aware of has been positive. At the end of the day, if you and other fans don't feel that you have been properly represented on this or any other issue, you can respond through the on-line ballot box in a few weeks time. It's not this issue that gives me concerns but more the fact that big decisions are being made without consultation of the very people you represent. I did have the plat card and it served me well but not really bothered its gone. Just buy tickets to every game and sell on those not attending so no real problem. I understand that issues should be discussed and decided within the SC but some things are too big for just a few people to decide on in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 9:16:33 GMT
I didn't hear Ange's broadcast, Paul, but unless I've completely lost the plot here, the position is this. The ticketing sub-group recommended that attendance at away games should be the sole priority criterion, even above season ticket status i.e a member who is not season ticket holder (that membership category will remain even after P+ & P have been abolished) who has attended, say, 10 games would be higher up the priority list than a season ticket holder who has only attended, say 5. After a discussion - and even a vote - at the full Council, this was changed so that season ticket holders would be in a higher category, regardless of how many games they have attended. i.e in the example above, the ST holder would be higher. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, and I don't think it's a huge deal, because the large majority of very regular away attenders will be season ticket holders anyway. The group it might adversely affect would be "exiles" who haven't got a season ticket but who do attend a number of aways. Of course, over the last couple of years there has, I think, only been a couple of games which haven't gone on to general sale anyway.
So in effect all season ticket holders have the same priority regardless of the number of away games they've been to?
Which is what Ange was suggesting it will be.
To all intents and purposes then a season ticket holder who has been to every away game that season has no more priority than a season ticket holder who hasn't been to any, say for tickets for a match where we draw Vale away in the cup?
With respect, that doesn't really match your original comment that ...
"reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended"
Absolutely not, Paul !! Where the ticket office think that demand is likely to exceed supply, they will prioritise within season ticket holders e.g instead of the first tranche being P+ members, it would be ST holders with 10 away attendances in the previous season (or whatever). I didn't hear Ange's broadcast, but there must be some misunderstanding here, somewhere along the line. We discovered at the Council meeting that it is a supsrisingly difficult concept to express clearly. The meeting itself got into some confusion over this.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Apr 25, 2014 9:19:07 GMT
9 pages later...... I didn't mean to unleash such a huge can of worms.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 25, 2014 9:22:37 GMT
So in effect all season ticket holders have the same priority regardless of the number of away games they've been to?
Which is what Ange was suggesting it will be.
To all intents and purposes then a season ticket holder who has been to every away game that season has no more priority than a season ticket holder who hasn't been to any, say for tickets for a match where we draw Vale away in the cup?
With respect, that doesn't really match your original comment that ...
"reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended"
Absolutely not, Paul !! Where the ticket office think that demand is likely to exceed supply, they will prioritise within season ticket holders e.g instead of the first tranche being P+ members, it would be ST holders with 10 away attendances in the previous season (or whatever). I didn't hear Ange's broadcast, but there must be some misunderstanding here, somewhere along the line. We discovered at the Council meeting that it is a supsrisingly difficult concept to express clearly. The meeting itself got into some confusion over this.
That's good to hear Malcolm - thanks.
However there is definitely some misunderstanding somewhere, as members of the SC are sending out mixed messages.
On Ange's broadcast (and as a result of what she was saying) there was a number of us messaging in (via the Oatcake) suggesting that there has to be some sort of priority based on attendance - it's only fair at the end of the day.
To be fair to Ange she did say that she would pass on our thoughts to the club.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Apr 25, 2014 9:22:46 GMT
9 pages later...... I didn't mean to unleash such a huge can of worms. It's good that the debate is open. As long as the mud slinging doesn't happen it is a very useful thread.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 25, 2014 9:53:18 GMT
The Chair and I have discussed this this week and agreed that we think there is a merit in us ( i.e the supporters) producing a summary of the main items discussed and the conclusions reached in non-minute form, for early release, a bit like a news release.
Malcolm I think this should be absolutely essential going forwards.
A lot of people (especially ones fearing they would fail the credit check) were waiting to hear back from the Council on here, to see if the four month plan was being reinstated or something similar being made available as a result of the last Council meeting before the Hull game.
Ange made several comments on the Oatcake leading up to that meeting ...
My personal view is that most fans will be eligible to be accepted by the scheme. I also think that if they are not, Stoke will try to assist them
We will be passing on all your comments and suggestions to the club on Monday morning. We realise that time is important in this matter. Thanks for your comments
That's good news Ange, let's hope the situation can be resolved, thanks for your efforts here.
Pleasure, let's hope we can arrange a "back up" of some sorts!
There wasn't any feedback from the supporters Council in the week leading up to the meeting but fair play to the SC maybe the club hadn't been particularly forthcoming prior to the meeting.
However where it became disappointing was when there wasn't any feedback from the Council AFTER the meeting either.
On the Monday after the meeting I asked:
Pleasure, let's hope we can arrange a "back up" of some sorts!
Hi Ange, did the Supporters Council have any joy with the meeting on Saturday?
Cheers
Yet still complete radio silence from the Council.
I was surprised that you didn't think that there were people who were relying on the information you had promised to provide, yet it never materialised, indeed the meeting wasn't ever mentioned by the SC again on the Oatcake until this new thread (about the minutes) materialised.
In fact there wasn't any mention anywhere until in the club match day programme just three days before the early bird window closed.
It appeared that you didn't have any good news to tell, so rather than break the bad news, you just left people with no news.
Can you see why some supporters were/are disappointed with the Council's (complete lack of very important) communication here?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Apr 25, 2014 10:08:05 GMT
Malcolm & co. You have a "thankless" task...so I should like to say "thank you" to all of you for doing the best you can for the supporters of this football club. Keep up the good work and try not to take the criticism personally. I am sure that your critics have some valid points, many well made, others less so, but t is clear that you have taken these issues on board and we should now give you the opportunity to work on them.There is no excuse for any personal abuse from anyone on here! I am particularly pleased that you intend to take up the disability issues and it would be a great result if you could get the "Marmalade One" back on side
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 10:18:17 GMT
The Chair and I have discussed this this week and agreed that we think there is a merit in us ( i.e the supporters) producing a summary of the main items discussed and the conclusions reached in non-minute form, for early release, a bit like a news release.
Malcolm I think this should be absolutely essential going forwards.
A lot of people (especially ones fearing they would fail the credit check) were waiting to hear back from the Council on here, to see if the four month plan was being reinstated or something similar being made available as a result of the last Council meeting before the Hull game.
Ange made several comments on the Oatcake leading up to that meeting ...
My personal view is that most fans will be eligible to be accepted by the scheme. I also think that if they are not, Stoke will try to assist them
That's good news Ange, let's hope the situation can be resolved, thanks for your efforts here.
Pleasure, let's hope we can arrange a "back up" of some sorts!
There wasn't any feedback from the supporters Council in the week leading up to the meeting but fair play to the SC maybe the club hadn't been particularly forthcoming prior to the meeting.
However where it became disappointing was when there wasn't any feedback from the Council AFTER the meeting either.
On the Monday after the meeting I asked:
Hi Ange, did the Supporters Council have any joy with the meeting on Saturday?
Cheers
Yet still complete radio silence from the Council.
I was surprised that you didn't think that there were people who were relying on the information you had promised to provide, yet it never materialised, indeed the meeting wasn't ever mentioned by the SC again on the Oatcake until this new thread (about the minutes) materialised.
In fact there wasn't any mention anywhere until in the club match day programme just three days before the early bird window closed.
It appeared that you didn't have any good news to tell, so rather than break the bad news, you just left people with no news.
Can you see why some supporters were/are disappointed with the Council's (complete lack of very important) communication here?
Thanks
Yes I can see that, Paul. There are clearly some major communication issues around here. Looking positively for a moment, I suppose the good thing is that there is now considerable interest in the SC, which wasn't the case when it was first set up, when it appeared that no-one cared what we were doing. Personally, I am at a slight disadvantage in that I had to miss the informal Council meeting (without the Club being there) last week so I don't know what was said about this there. I sometimes also go a long time without looking at this Board.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Apr 25, 2014 10:19:59 GMT
Malcolm & co. You have a "thankless" task...so I should like to say "thank you" to all of you for doing the best you can for the supporters of this football club. Keep up the good work and try not to take the criticism personally. I am sure that your critics have some valid points, many well made, others less so, but t is clear that you have taken these issues on board and we should now give you the opportunity to work on them.There is no excuse for any personal abuse from anyone on here! I am particularly pleased that you intend to take up the disability issues and it would be a great result if you could get the "Marmalade One" back on side Thank you - those comments are appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Apr 25, 2014 10:33:17 GMT
Sorry, but aren't these forums with the club just a waste of time? The club never seems to give us any updates.
I'd rather send a formal letter to everyone at the club (including DC and PC) or get some sort of petition going demanding more communication.
Then if they don't listen start making waves on the official media sites (facebook page for instance) and basically moan until they take notice.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 25, 2014 10:44:04 GMT
Yes I can see that, Paul. There are clearly some major communication issues around here. Looking positively for a moment, I suppose the good thing is that there is now considerable interest in the SC, which wasn't the case when it was first set up, when it appeared that no-one cared what we were doing. Personally, I am at a slight disadvantage in that I had to miss the informal Council meeting (without the Club being there) last week so I don't know what was said about this there. I sometimes also go a long time without looking at this Board.
Oh absolutely Malcolm and it has proven that there is a platform there (the Oatcake) and a supporter base there ready to engage in debate.
I think for the SC to have any chance of success, then going forwards dialogue and swift dialogue at that, is the key.
I appreciate that you can't always act on the wishes of whoever shouts the loudest but of course it's always better than acting without really having much of a mandate at all.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 25, 2014 20:02:51 GMT
So in effect all season ticket holders have the same priority regardless of the number of away games they've been to?
Which is what Ange was suggesting it will be.
To all intents and purposes then a season ticket holder who has been to every away game that season has no more priority than a season ticket holder who hasn't been to any, say for tickets for a match where we draw Vale away in the cup?
With respect, that doesn't really match your original comment that ...
"reversion to away tickets being allocated solely on matches attended"
Absolutely not, Paul !! Where the ticket office think that demand is likely to exceed supply, they will prioritise within season ticket holders e.g instead of the first tranche being P+ members, it would be ST holders with 10 away attendances in the previous season (or whatever). I didn't hear Ange's broadcast, but there must be some misunderstanding here, somewhere along the line. We discovered at the Council meeting that it is a supsrisingly difficult concept to express clearly. The meeting itself got into some confusion over this.
Hi Malcolm
You've only got to look at the debacle with the WBA tickets today, where people have queued for hours in the rain or for hours on line, only to come away empty handed, to see how absolutely essential it is for a fair (and that's the important bit) priority system to be in place for next season.
There are examples of people who haven't been away all season who now have a ticket for West Brom, yet there are people who have been to the majority of away games this season who haven't.
This surely cannot be right can it?
Well I aren't happy no, because I've been to 13 away games this season, does that make my dick bigger? I'd say it does, and after queuing at the ground today was told I won't be going West Brom. Think I have every right to moan. Now we have Stokies at each other throats because there isn't a fair and equitable system in place. THIS HAS TO CHANGE. Really Malcolm in 2014 we shouldn't have people queuing for hours in the rain with no hope of getting a ticket. In my humble opinion the system should be based on a points system and work something like this. 1. As a season ticket holder you get (say) 380 points automatically dumped onto your account at the start of a season (the equivalent to 20 points for each home game you're going to attend) - a supporter who attends home games without a season ticket will get 20 points put onto their account for every home ticket that they purchase. 2. All supporters get additional points added to their account for home cup tickets that they purchase - say 20 points. 3. All supporters get additional points allocated for away tickets that they purchase, say 100 points for Newcastle on a mid-week game, 50 points for a London or North East game on a Saturday, and then less points for away games closer to home and depending if it's at the weekend or not. Then when away tickets go on sale, the club will announce that during the first three or four days of sale you will need to have 'X' amount (the highest amount) of points on your account in order to purchase a ticket, then for the next three or four days, you will need to have 'Y' amount (the second highest amount) of points on your account and so on and so on, until all the tickets are sold, or they eventually get to general sale. This way you avoid people queuing in person or on the phone unnecessarily and avoid supporters ending up at each other throats because the shutters came down on the ticket office when they were moments away from reaching the front of the queue. Also you actively ENCOURAGE people to travel to the away games that are more difficult to get to because you REWARD them directly for doing so! Of course all of the above is open to massive discussion and the figures I've quoted are just me pulling figures out of the air to demonstrate an example as I think on the fly on a Friday evening but I'm sure you get the fundamental POINT I'm making. And of course it's nothing like as complicated as it sounds, we already a use very similar software to award points for purchases that we make as customers of SCFC anyway. Cheers Paul
|
|