|
Post by keasie1863 on May 1, 2014 7:57:20 GMT
I would like scholes,to explain to me,the difference between hiding behind a keyboard and hiding behind the structure of a company.
|
|
|
Post by robinreliant on May 1, 2014 8:05:43 GMT
Enough of this bickering about TS, doesn't anyone give a monkeys about one of the SC members regularly missing the meetings, and failing to apologise ?
No better than MP's if you ask me !
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2014 8:36:25 GMT
Two things; The chairman is Malcolm Clarke from the SC and it is the SC meeting so why does a club representative have to vet the minutes before they are published. Absolutely nothing about real issues such as rip off ticket prices now that media receipts are closing in on £100m. The monopolising of local radio match broadcasting by SCFC to rob fans, who can't afford the outrageous gate prices, of their final few quid. Sorry three things. A point of information - the chairman of the Supporters Council is not Malcolm Clarke - he is the vice chairman. Angela Smith is the chair. You'd have to ask Angela or Malcolm exactly what happens with the minutes but, I suppose that, as they are written by a club employee, then Tony Scholes has had first sight of them under the arrangements in place up until now. I'd have thought it was logical that at least one person from each side of the meeting (the council and the club) would see the minutes before they were published. In my days as a minute taker, I always cleared them with at least one colleague before they were circulated - better to get a second opinion to weed out any obvious inaccuracies before they were circulated.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 8:40:26 GMT
Two things; The chairman is Malcolm Clarke from the SC and it is the SC meeting so why does a club representative have to vet the minutes before they are published. Absolutely nothing about real issues such as rip off ticket prices now that media receipts are closing in on £100m. The monopolising of local radio match broadcasting by SCFC to rob fans, who can't afford the outrageous gate prices, of their final few quid. Sorry three things. A point of information - the chairman of the Supporters Council is not Malcolm Clarke - he is the vice chairman. Angela Smith is the chair. You'd have to ask Angela or Malcolm exactly what happens with the minutes but, I suppose that, as they are written by a club employee, then Tony Scholes has had first sight of them under the arrangements in place up until now. I'd have thought it was logical that at least one person from each side of the meeting (the council and the club) would see the minutes before they were published. In my days as a minute taker, I always cleared them with at least one colleague before they were circulated - better to get a second opinion to weed out any obvious inaccuracies before they were circulated. I bet in 40 years there wasn't one single amendment that needed to be made was there?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2014 8:52:11 GMT
A point of information - the chairman of the Supporters Council is not Malcolm Clarke - he is the vice chairman. Angela Smith is the chair. You'd have to ask Angela or Malcolm exactly what happens with the minutes but, I suppose that, as they are written by a club employee, then Tony Scholes has had first sight of them under the arrangements in place up until now. I'd have thought it was logical that at least one person from each side of the meeting (the council and the club) would see the minutes before they were published. In my days as a minute taker, I always cleared them with at least one colleague before they were circulated - better to get a second opinion to weed out any obvious inaccuracies before they were circulated. I bet in 40 years there wasn't one single amendment that needed to be made was there? Loads of them. I've always enjoyed writing and have spent a lot of my career writing reports, leaflets, "on the job" interpretations of legislation etc. etc. Personally, I find writing minutes the hardest thing of all if done properly. I actually seem to take in LESS of what is going on in a meeting when I am taking the minutes, than when I am just a member of the meeting. I have the utmost respect for anyone who can consistently write minutes which don't need at least some amendment.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 1, 2014 9:01:07 GMT
I bet in 40 years there wasn't one single amendment that needed to be made was there? Loads of them. I've always enjoyed writing and have spent a lot of my career writing reports, leaflets, "on the job" interpretations of legislation etc. etc. Personally, I find writing minutes the hardest thing of all if done properly. I actually seem to take in LESS of what is going on in a meeting when I am taking the minutes, than when I am just a member of the meeting. I have the utmost respect for anyone who can consistently write minutes which don't need at least some amendment. I've read the odd post of yours forny that's reminded me of reading leaflets or the ingredients on the side of sauce bottles.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2014 9:04:32 GMT
Loads of them. I've always enjoyed writing and have spent a lot of my career writing reports, leaflets, "on the job" interpretations of legislation etc. etc. Personally, I find writing minutes the hardest thing of all if done properly. I actually seem to take in LESS of what is going on in a meeting when I am taking the minutes, than when I am just a member of the meeting. I have the utmost respect for anyone who can consistently write minutes which don't need at least some amendment. I've read the odd post of yours forny that's reminded me of reading leaflets or the ingredients on the side of sauce bottles. Ah the sauce bottles - you've sussed my main source of income, Sheikh!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 9:07:23 GMT
if the "Slanderous" comments were because i called him a "jumped up little prick" then i humbly apologise and unreservedly withdraw my comments......... i am sure that he is actually a jumped up average sized prick (but remember Tony, size isn't important )
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2014 9:59:46 GMT
Hi Ange/Malcolm
I'd be grateful if you would answer a few questions please.
mobile.stokecityfc.com/news/article/supporters-council-meeting-minutes-26th-apr-1520287.aspx
1. Would you please detail what plans you are discussing with regard to away ticket priority next season. I know in the minutes it says that it has been discussed but it doesn't say what (specifically) has been discussed. I know that Ange has gone into a bit more detail on her Knot FM broadcast but obviously most of the people reading this thread won't have listned to her show last Sunday.
2.
Has the Supporters Council looked into the validity of the statement or simply taken it at face value?
All the clubs that are running 4 month schemes are also running 12 month schemes, it wasn't an 'either/or' option.
Furthermore, the following charges are taken from the small print of the agreement between V12 and Stoke City supporters for the 12 month scheme currently in operation.
i) Refunded direct debit £30 ii) Default notice charge £50 iii) Collections administration £15, payable each month your account is overdue.
So if you miss a direct debit payment on the twelve month plan that Stoke City adopted, then you're still going to get absolutely hammered anyway - ergo I don't really understand Mr. Scholes' suggestion that the club didn't go for the four month plan specifically because the resulting charges would be too high if a supporter missed a payment.
Can you clarify this please?
3.
Can you please be specific about how this was achieved?
Is it being suggested that if all, or some of the 35% who wouldn't have ordinarily passed the credit check, default on their payments, then SCFC are going to pay V12 the money that they are owed directly?
If this is so, how do SCFC then intend on getting the missing money back from the individual(s) concerned, as they're not a licensed credit broker are they?
4.
Can you please be specific about how supporters were contacted and what sort of solutions were arrived at?
5.
Are the maths correct here?
Many thanks.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2014 10:08:20 GMT
Regarding your point 5 Paul. Obviously it depends on how many fans there were over the 5,000 figure. But if we take the figure as 5,000 then the figure (as you suggest) would appear to be out by a factor of 4x - in other words the figure will be closer to 2% than 1/2%
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2014 10:10:20 GMT
Regarding your point 5 Paul. Obviously it depends on how many fans there were over the 5,000 figure. But if we take the figure as 5,000 then the figure (as you suggest) would appear to be out by a factor of 4x - in other words the figure will be closer to 2% than 1/2%
Oh I know mate.
I was highlighting, maybe a bit too subtly, how Mr. Scholes won't think twice when it comes to an opportunity to massage those figures!
If you look at my point 3. he's talking about 95% of the people who applied for credit but when he wants to bring the figure down however, he starts talking about the percentage of the number of people in total who bought a season ticket, regardless of if they applied for credit or not.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2014 10:15:37 GMT
Regarding your point 5 Paul. Obviously it depends on how many fans there were over the 5,000 figure. But if we take the figure as 5,000 then the figure (as you suggest) would appear to be out by a factor of 4x - in other words the figure will be closer to 2% than 1/2%
Oh I know mate.
I was highlighting, maybe a bit too subtly, how Mr. Scholes won't think twice when it comes to an opportunity to massage those figures!
I wonder if that was what he said in the meeting (in which case the 1/2% figure should have been challenged at the time) or whether it is the minutes that are wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2014 10:19:02 GMT
Oh I know mate.
I was highlighting, maybe a bit too subtly, how Mr. Scholes won't think twice when it comes to an opportunity to massage those figures!
I wonder if that was what he said in the meeting (in which case the 1/2% figure should have been challenged at the time) or whether it is the minutes that are wrong?
I guess the whole tone of my post above John, is how much did the Council challenge/query the things that Scholes said at the time, or were they just accepted at face value?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on May 1, 2014 10:24:37 GMT
The 1/2 % will no doubt be in relation to season ticket sales rather than 12 month applicants. Which would indicate 21,400 season tickets sold, thus 1/2% of fans wanting a season ticket haven't been able to get 1.
Edit: should have finished reading before posting
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 10:34:34 GMT
The 1/2 % will no doubt be in relation to season ticket sales rather than 12 month applicants. Which would indicate 21,400 season tickets sold, thus 1/2% of fans wanting a season ticket haven't been able to get 1. Edit: should have finished reading before posting good point and works out mathematically but still shows that these minutes need to be worded and set out in a far more "User friendly" manner. as Paul points out, if we were given actual figures rather than just being treated like little kids who only apparently need to hear certain things and just believe them because we're told then it would make things far more pallatable. as it is, the minutes (and the apparent lack of the SC's intention to question anything that TS tells them) seem to be constructed in a way to ensure that the club are seen to be doing everything possible for the fans without actually clarifying what they are doing. they're supposed to be actual minutes of everything that was said, not just a bit of info here and there; it seems more like SCFC propaganda than anything else and i think that it's the SC's job to specifically question TS on his figures and if necessary haul him up on them to get accurate details and report those facts and figures (and what those calculations have been based on) back to us. this just looks like "Don't worry your pretty little heads about it, we've done the maths so just believe us ok " as Paul points out, no-one seems to have asked specifically WHAT they have done to come to solutions with individuals (which is surely pertinent and valid information for everyone to know should they find themselves in the same position) or questioned him on the charges that are applied to the scheme we will be using. i don't really see the point in the whole thing if it's simply an exercise of "Ask TS some questions, let him answer, believe what he says implicitly then come back to the fans with some of the info he gave" kinda defeats the point of the whole thing, he may as well just give a statement to the PR dept. and publish it on the OS.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 1, 2014 10:36:24 GMT
Hi Ange/Malcolm
I'd be grateful if you would answer a few questions please.
mobile.stokecityfc.com/news/article/supporters-council-meeting-minutes-26th-apr-1520287.aspx
1. Would you please detail what plans you are discussing with regard to away ticket priority next season. I know in the minutes it says that it has been discussed but it doesn't say what (specifically) has been discussed. I know that Ange has gone into a bit more detail on her Knot FM broadcast but obviously most of the people reading this thread won't have listed to her show last Sunday.
2.
Has the Supporters Council looked into the validity of the statement or simply taken it at face value?
All the clubs that are running 4 month schemes are also running 12 month schemes, it wasn't an 'either/or' option.
Furthermore, the following charges are taken from the small print of the agreement between V12 and Stoke City supporters for the 12 month scheme currently in operation.
i) Refunded direct debit £30 ii) Default notice charge £50 iii) Collections administration £15, payable each month your account is overdue.
So if you miss a direct debit payment on the twelve month plan that Stoke City adopted, then you're still going to get absolutely hammered anyway - ergo I don't really understand Mr. Scholes' suggestion that the club didn't go for the four month plan specifically because the resulting charges would be too high if a supporter missed a payment.
Can you clarify this please?
3.
Can you please be specific about how this was achieved?
Is it being suggested that if all, or some of the 35% who wouldn't have ordinarily passed the credit check, default on their payments, then SCFC are going to pay V12 the money that they are owed directly?
If this is so, how do SCFC then intend on getting the missing money back from the individual(s) concerned, as they're not a licensed credit broker are they?
4.
Can you please be specific about how supporters were contacted and what sort of solutions were arrived at?
5.
Are the maths correct here?
Many thanks.
Paul
A job running the Co-op bank awaits you, sir
|
|
|
Post by stokie1130 on May 1, 2014 13:08:20 GMT
Just wondering if there would be a way for all us fan to put in a surgeston to the club about the problems of getting served for food and drink before the game a during half time inside the ground. You all know what im on about everone just pushing forwad in a big mob with no queing or anything. After going to both man u and cardiff away, it seems they have a solution to this problem, something so simple as having some railing to sort out a que and a stuward at the end telling u when its ur turn, simples , you get served in no time and no one gets miffed off by people pushing in. Surely this could be done in a few days and costs fook all, any ideas of how this could be put forward to the club? Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/230041/problem-served-brit?page=1&scrollTo=4283162#ixzz30T7vPvk3
|
|
|
Post by ST5-POTTER on May 1, 2014 13:32:31 GMT
I thought everything mentioned on the other "SC Minutes" thread was to be brought up?
Cannot see any mention as to why the decision not to communicate the non renewal of the 4 monthly plan was not mentioned until it was renewal time?
Another note,, re: PA System. To be tested over the summer, quite rightly note Julia's comments that we were told previously it could only be tested when the ground was full (utter cobblers) I've said it before and I'll say it again this system is years old now how much more testing can they do. It's a shit system it needs replacing. Bite the bullet and stump up the cash Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on May 1, 2014 15:15:56 GMT
On the subject of the PA, could the music be turned down or even better off altogether so that you can hold a conversation without shouting?
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on May 1, 2014 16:54:48 GMT
Question to the SC: "Anthony Emmerson recapped that work for the 2014/2015 season is still currently under review and the best fit model will be decided shortly. An internal model had been put forward and the research into this was on-going. An announcement will be made by the end of May 2014" This implies to me that there is very little and next to no involvement/input from the SC on this matter and it's very much a case of "We set the rules, you either like it or lump it". Is this true? Correct assumption.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 17:09:13 GMT
Thats Odd, I thought Fornside spent a much more enjoyable time putting his fingers up other peoples bottoms than writing minutes. Its great when you can re-write history GD
|
|
|
Post by scfcsc on May 1, 2014 18:39:34 GMT
Thanks for your comments, good and bad. The chair of the council is Angela Smith. Any issues or points which you feel need clarification can be sent to chair@scfcsc.co.uk this ensures that they are addressed at meetings. Apologies if the tense of the minutes is grammatically incorrect at times, but we rushed to get them online , not an excuse, but it is the reason.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2014 18:41:23 GMT
Thats Odd, I thought Fornside spent a much more enjoyable time putting his fingers up other peoples bottoms than writing minutes. Its great when you can re-write history GD Come off it Dave - I used to wash my hands first - and well you know it!
|
|
|
Post by Miles Offside on May 1, 2014 19:37:14 GMT
There's a line in there which implies the changing of the name of the stadium could be under active consideration. Is that correct?
If so, will supporters get a chance to vote on any proposed change? Or will the owners/new sponsors simply be informing us of any change?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 20:06:07 GMT
Is it being suggested that if all, or some of the 35% who wouldn't have ordinarily passed the credit check, default on their payments, then SCFC are going to pay V12 the money that they are owed directly?
If this is so, how do SCFC then intend on getting the missing money back from the individual(s) concerned, as they're not a licensed credit broker are they? Wouldn't the club just switch off the ST card, if you fell behind with your DD?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 1, 2014 20:25:08 GMT
Is it being suggested that if all, or some of the 35% who wouldn't have ordinarily passed the credit check, default on their payments, then SCFC are going to pay V12 the money that they are owed directly?
If this is so, how do SCFC then intend on getting the missing money back from the individual(s) concerned, as they're not a licensed credit broker are they? Wouldn't the club just switch off the ST card, if you fell behind with your DD?
Hence why I asked the question, so we get specifics.
I don't think it's even been explained how the 35% who would have ordinarily failed the credit check are 'underwritten' by the club.
|
|
|
Post by robinreliant on May 2, 2014 6:19:21 GMT
Enough of this bickering about TS, doesn't anyone give a monkeys about one of the SC members regularly missing the meetings, and failing to apologise ? No better than MP's if you ask me ! I guess not then ? With the election looming, for the (soon to be vacant)seats on the SC, perhaps I can encourage several of the thread posters to stand ? I'd do it myself, but lack the attributes of being married to the chief executive of the local authority, having a foreign surname, standing unopposed, failing to attend SC meetings without sending apologies, or wanting to do it solely to improve my social standing within the club !
|
|
|
Post by johnsmithsupper on May 2, 2014 8:56:37 GMT
Hi Ange/Malcolm
I'd be grateful if you would answer a few questions please.
mobile.stokecityfc.com/news/article/supporters-council-meeting-minutes-26th-apr-1520287.aspx
1. Would you please detail what plans you are discussing with regard to away ticket priority next season. I know in the minutes it says that it has been discussed but it doesn't say what (specifically) has been discussed. I know that Ange has gone into a bit more detail on her Knot FM broadcast but obviously most of the people reading this thread won't have listned to her show last Sunday.
2.
Has the Supporters Council looked into the validity of the statement or simply taken it at face value?
All the clubs that are running 4 month schemes are also running 12 month schemes, it wasn't an 'either/or' option.
Furthermore, the following charges are taken from the small print of the agreement between V12 and Stoke City supporters for the 12 month scheme currently in operation.
i) Refunded direct debit £30 ii) Default notice charge £50 iii) Collections administration £15, payable each month your account is overdue.
So if you miss a direct debit payment on the twelve month plan that Stoke City adopted, then you're still going to get absolutely hammered anyway - ergo I don't really understand Mr. Scholes' suggestion that the club didn't go for the four month plan specifically because the resulting charges would be too high if a supporter missed a payment.
Can you clarify this please?
3.
Can you please be specific about how this was achieved?
Is it being suggested that if all, or some of the 35% who wouldn't have ordinarily passed the credit check, default on their payments, then SCFC are going to pay V12 the money that they are owed directly?
If this is so, how do SCFC then intend on getting the missing money back from the individual(s) concerned, as they're not a licensed credit broker are they?
4.
Can you please be specific about how supporters were contacted and what sort of solutions were arrived at?
5.
Are the maths correct here?
Many thanks.
Paul
In answer to point 1, well they should ;-)
|
|
|
Post by mcf on May 2, 2014 9:08:53 GMT
Yes, I want to know if the SC were responsible for encouraging the club to get rid of the platinum plus scheme.
happy to send me letters and emails to sign up for it and and over the money but then don't tell me its going until i try and renew it.
fucking useless, fucking ignorant, fucking wank
that should be the motto off the pitch
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on May 2, 2014 9:21:45 GMT
Two things; The chairman is Malcolm Clarke from the SC and it is the SC meeting so why does a club representative have to vet the minutes before they are published. Absolutely nothing about real issues such as rip off ticket prices now that media receipts are closing in on £100m. The monopolising of local radio match broadcasting by SCFC to rob fans, who can't afford the outrageous gate prices, of their final few quid. Sorry three things. A point of information - the chairman of the Supporters Council is not Malcolm Clarke - he is the vice chairman. Angela Smith is the chair. You'd have to ask Angela or Malcolm exactly what happens with the minutes but, I suppose that, as they are written by a club employee, then Tony Scholes has had first sight of them under the arrangements in place up until now. I'd have thought it was logical that at least one person from each side of the meeting (the council and the club) would see the minutes before they were published. In my days as a minute taker, I always cleared them with at least one colleague before they were circulated - better to get a second opinion to weed out any obvious inaccuracies before they were circulated. Brilliant, sit on my knee Lakeland and take a minute, take 5, it won't take longer than that!!!
|
|