|
Post by OldStokie on May 2, 2014 9:54:19 GMT
Dear Mr Scones.
Before I start, my name behind the username - chosen not to hide my real identity, but because anonymous user names have been the norm since this forum and its predecessors were first mooted - is Mick Norcop; I've lived in Stoke-on-Trent all my life; I've supported Stoke City since I was less than ten years old (I reckon that's well before you were shitting yellow), and I've now clocked up about sixty-five years supporting MY football club. So, when it comes to 'permission to speak', I reckon (supporterwise and considering the bad time WE SUPPORTERS have been through in the past) I should get a free kryptonite card and all accessories including free incontinence pads and Bovril and a tartan blanket to boot.
So I'll start by trying to educate you a little about North Staffordshire and the inhabitants therein, but before I do, I would ask if you are aware of the demographics of the goodly citizens of this great city? Great City? Oh, yes... despite the shit you read and and hear in the media, this Great City was built on greatness, and just as we can boast of producing some of the world's finest artistic and industrial talents, also, regarding basic honesty and decency and hard-working ability, those sentiments can be attributed to the majority of the people who live here, as well as those who have left but whose roots are firmly planted in the clay and coal beneath your feet. (I'm sure Mr Coates will bear me out on that one.) I'll also mention that this area is famous for being one of the last vestiges of old spoken English, and that includes both Shakepearean and Anglo-Saxon, which seems easily to offend you and your ilk. Well, the latter does, so maybe I'll use a phrase of the former to describe how I feel about you and your condescending attitude: you clod of wayward marl. (Better than calling you a 'twat' eh?)
So what have you and your devious, untrusting schemes done for me, eh, you bolting hutch of beastliness; you lump of foul deformity; you canker blossom? (Getting to prefer Anglo-Saxon now are you? I wouldn't blame you. The Bard could be poisonous when he put his mind to it, even if he did come from a posh place.) I'll tell you what you've done, you quintessence of dust... you've managed to end my association with MY football club because you think I might be a crook and maybe sell off my carer's ticket if I'm not well and don't want to go. Yes, that's the real reason why you've changed things so that what used to be a simple thing has become (this last season) a fucking nightmare for me and my family. I can see you and your cohorts now; scheming and chuckling like a bunch of beetle-headed, flap-ear'd knaves when you devised the plot to make sure disabled supporters can't make a 'quick buck', even to the point that my carer can't upgrade the ticket I've PAID FOR to an adult. No cheating there, Mr Scones! Payment in full for one adult! One seat will remain empty, of course, but at least one seat is occupied by a FULL PRICE PAYING SUPPORTER! So? FUCK! YOU! And I really couldn't give a monkey's toss if you're offended. FUCK! YOU! And I do desire that we may be better strangers.
Now grovel, BOY, because these supporters you are dealing with (including Victor Momo and his cankerous gob) are the best in the land when the chips are down, and you don't know how lucky you are to be even associated with them!
OS.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on May 2, 2014 10:32:21 GMT
Dear Mr Scones. Before I start, my name behind the username - chosen not to hide my real identity, but because anonymous user names have been the norm since this forum and its predecessors were first mooted - is Mick Norcop; I've lived in Stoke-on-Trent all my life; I've supported Stoke City since I was less than ten years old (I reckon that's well before you were shitting yellow), and I've now clocked up about sixty-five years supporting MY football club. So, when it comes to 'permission to speak', I reckon (supporterwise and considering the bad time WE SUPPORTERS have been through in the past) I should get a free kryptonite card and all accessories including free incontinence pads and Bovril and a tartan blanket to boot. So I'll start by trying to educate you a little about North Staffordshire and the inhabitants therein, but before I do, I would ask if you are aware of the demographics of the goodly citizens of this great city? Great City? Oh, yes... despite the shit you read and and hear in the media, this Great City was built on greatness, and just as we can boast of producing some of the world's finest artistic and industrial talents, also, regarding basic honesty and decency and hard-working ability, those sentiments can be attributed to the majority of the people who live here, as well as those who have left but whose roots are firmly planted in the clay and coal beneath your feet. (I'm sure Mr Coates will bear me out on that one.) I'll also mention that this area is famous for being one of the last vestiges of old spoken English, and that includes both Shakepearean and Anglo-Saxon, which seems easily to offend you and your ilk. Well, the latter does, so maybe I'll use a phrase of the former to describe how I feel about you and your condescending attitude: you clod of wayward marl. (Better than calling you a 'twat' eh?) So what have you and your devious, untrusting schemes done for me, eh, you bolting hutch of beastliness; you lump of foul deformity; you canker blossom? (Getting to prefer Anglo-Saxon now are you? I wouldn't blame you. The Bard could be poisonous when he put his mind to it, even if he did come from a posh place.) I'll tell you what you've done, you quintessence of dust... you've managed to end my association with MY football club because you think I might be a crook and maybe sell off my carer's ticket if I'm not well and don't want to go. Yes, that's the real reason why you've changed things so that what used to be a simple thing has become (this last season) a fucking nightmare for me and my family. I can see you and your cohorts now; scheming and chuckling like a bunch of beetle-headed, flap-ear'd knaves when you devised the plot to make sure disabled supporters can't make a 'quick buck', even to the point that my carer can't upgrade the ticket I've PAID FOR to an adult. No cheating there, Mr Scones! Payment in full for one adult! One seat will remain empty, of course, but at least one seat is occupied by a FULL PRICE PAYING SUPPORTER! So? FUCK! YOU! And I really couldn't give a monkey's toss if you're offended. FUCK! YOU! And I do desire that we may be better strangers. Now grovel, BOY, because these supporters you are dealing with (including Victor Momo and his cankerous gob) are the best in the land when the chips are down, and you don't know how lucky you are to be even associated with them! OS. yeah, you tell him OS, tell the fucking wayward marl I want my plat plus card back as well.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 2, 2014 10:34:59 GMT
This tyrant, whose sole name blisters our tongues, he speaks unskilfully or, if his knowledge be more, it is much darkened in his malice.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 2, 2014 10:39:34 GMT
Mick, is this tirade just "shot across his bow" to show him you are still alive and kicking or have there been further developments since we spoke on Saturday? 10/10 for the tirade by the way - you should have your own spot in the matchday magazine!
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on May 2, 2014 10:44:39 GMT
Double double toil and trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble.
Take that Scholes.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 2, 2014 11:45:17 GMT
Guys, not to quote The Bard... I'm as angry as a fucking sprout in a boiling pot. I go through the nightmare of the last two Pulis seasons (no way can we not involve the Rimmer/PHW aspect, can we ), and then, when Mr Hughes is delivering of high class goods, Mr Scones upsets me so much that I throw a fucking benny. No, John, I will not even venture down the route of placation. To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man. Sometimes I wish I'd been born a sheeple. OS.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 2, 2014 11:48:10 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 I asked this question last week and didn't really get a reply. On who's behalf did the supporters council ask for the plat and plat + memberships to be got rid of? I certainly wasn't asked if I wanted if to stay and I suspect no bugger else was either! It's ok to speak up for a few moaners that didn't like it but what about those that did?
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on May 2, 2014 11:48:43 GMT
Something is rotten in the state of...Tony Scholes' office?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 2, 2014 11:55:54 GMT
'Thou face is not worth sunburning'
Andre V pt 11
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on May 2, 2014 11:55:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 2, 2014 11:57:50 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 I asked this question last week and didn't really get a reply. On who's behalf did the supporters council ask for the plat and plat + memberships to be got rid of? I certainly wasn't asked if I wanted if to stay and I suspect no bugger else was either! It's ok to speak up for a few moaners that didn't like it but what about those that did? Did the Supporters Council ask for the Plat and Plat+ schemes to be got rid of? I know some SC members, like some fans, are against the scheme and, no doubt, some are in favour of it. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Council was the instigator of the change - although I do know that a majority of clubs seem to have a points system of sorts rather than paid levels of membership. Having said that, I haven't asked the SC Members, nor have I gone through the minutes with a fine tooth comb, so if you can point me in the direction of the evidence, I'll be grateful.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 12:00:20 GMT
Dear Mr Norcup,
Thank you for your kind comments. As a gesture of good will I'd like to buy you a Pizza for your afternoon garden party.
Kind regards
Mr Scones.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 2, 2014 12:05:00 GMT
I asked this question last week and didn't really get a reply. On who's behalf did the supporters council ask for the plat and plat + memberships to be got rid of? I certainly wasn't asked if I wanted if to stay and I suspect no bugger else was either! It's ok to speak up for a few moaners that didn't like it but what about those that did? Did the Supporters Council ask for the Plat and Plat+ schemes to be got rid of? I know some SC members, like some fans, are against the scheme and, no doubt, some are in favour of it. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the Council was the instigator of the change - although I do know that a majority of clubs seem to have a points system of sorts rather than paid levels of membership. Having said that, I haven't asked the SC Members, nor have I gone through the minutes with a fine tooth comb, so if you can point me in the direction of the evidence, I'll be grateful. 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 mcf on May 2, 2014 13:46:52 GMT
Can't buy ticketing priority????
fucking bollocks
you can buy fucking premium fucking seats in the midde of the fucking seddon stand though can't you. you can move all over the ground for the fancy fucking seats that cost more money but you can't pay for first dibs on away tickets.
if the club are that fucking rich to turn down money and pay the useless spanners that make these decisions then pray to God that they either fuck off sharpish and that nobody from this council ever has anything to do with running a football club.
there could only be 500 maximum and that number would get less and less and less....all they had to do was stop new members from joining and slowly the list would have got less and less. no need to piss anyone off and the games hardly ever sell out anyway. so all you have done is piss off a few people for fuck all
so you can fuck off now scholes, i'll piss the money up the wall. fuck all that potters foundation, silver, gold, pink fucking bandings as well - the academy produces fuck all anyway.
i've stayed out of it until now but fuck it, I'm officially in The Shakester's and OS's Scholes is a ..... club from now on.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on May 2, 2014 18:12:41 GMT
Lakeland the Council did not instigate the change of memberships. As you stated , some were for them, some against. Personally I did not like the fact that in our season of Cup "glory" supporters could "buy" a higher place in the queue, but that is a fact of life. Money talks
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 2, 2014 18:18:12 GMT
Lakeland the Council did not instigate the change of memberships. As you stated , some were for them, some against. Personally I did not like the fact that in our season of Cup "glory" supporters could "buy" a higher place in the queue, but that is a fact of life. Money talks 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. Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/230025/latest-supporter-council-minutes?page=3#ixzz30aEZX5ckThis is the bit I think is poor. Who in the right mind is going to lobby to keep something that they have no idea is being taken away? As soon as there was a suggestion it was being looked at it should have been put to the vote of ALL fans. The above seems to suggest that the supporters council did ask the club to get rid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 19:54:27 GMT
Something is rotten in the state of...Tony Scholes' office? That'll be the discarded Stuffed Crusts. They would ordinarily have been devoured, but all hell broke loose as it transpired that Pitriopa's agent couldn't use a fax machine.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 3, 2014 8:49:16 GMT
Lakeland the Council did not instigate the change of memberships. 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. You see Ange is it any wonder why the supporters are confused/suspicious about what the Council are up to, when the chair and the vice-chair are giving out completely different versions of what is taking place?
I think the individuals who are putting in the time and effort to represent the fans, should be nothing but commended but really, if you want the supporters to have faith in what it is you're actually doing/achieving, then may I humbly suggest, that you need to seriously work on your communications with the supporters that you represent.
,
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 6, 2014 21:33:41 GMT
Lakeland the Council did not instigate the change of memberships. 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. You see Ange is it any wonder why the supporters are confused/suspicious about what the Council are up to, when the chair and the vice-chair are giving out completely different versions of what is taking place?
I think the individuals who are putting in the time and effort to represent the fans, should be nothing but commended but really, if you want the supporters to have faith in what it is you're actually doing/achieving, then may I humbly suggest, that you need to seriously work on your communications with the supporters that you represent.
,
Actually I don't think these are different versions. The Club said it was undertaking a review of membership schemes, which it is quite entitled to do and it's good practice anyway to review systems periodically. We have made an input into that, including putting forward the principle that it shouldn't be possible to buy your way into the highest priority category for away tickets, as opposed to priority being allocated by purchasing history. The Club used to do it that way, but then introduced Platinum +. It did so by making it free in the first year for those who had attended a significant number of away games which had its intended effect of muting some of the inevitable criticism, but then imposing the £50 charge for everybody in the 2nd year, and also opening up the priority on the basis of money not attendance record. That attracted criticism and some fans have continued to lobby against it ever since. Personally, I stand by what I said to Stafford on this :- 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.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 6, 2014 22:01:59 GMT
Can't buy ticketing priority???? fucking bollocks you can buy fucking premium fucking seats in the midde of the fucking seddon stand though can't you. you can move all over the ground for the fancy fucking seats that cost more money but you can't pay for first dibs on away tickets. if the club are that fucking rich to turn down money and pay the useless spanners that make these decisions then pray to God that they either fuck off sharpish and that nobody from this council ever has anything to do with running a football club. there could only be 500 maximum and that number would get less and less and less....all they had to do was stop new members from joining and slowly the list would have got less and less. no need to piss anyone off and the games hardly ever sell out anyway. so all you have done is piss off a few people for fuck all so you can fuck off now scholes, i'll piss the money up the wall. fuck all that potters foundation, silver, gold, pink fucking bandings as well - the academy produces fuck all anyway. i've stayed out of it until now but fuck it, I'm officially in The Shakester's and OS's Scholes is a ..... club from now on. Despite the stridency and colour of the language, I don't think that analogy works. You pay more for certain seats to watch a football match, because they are deemed to be better seats with a better view. That's very different from paying to buy priority for buying away tickets, rather than basing it on the number of games attended, which is the principle involved. Like all PL clubs, the club is very rich and the money from Platinum + is absolute chicken feed.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 6, 2014 22:08:31 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 ! Personally, I think that's an entirely inappropriate comment. The occupation of our spouses is completely irrelevant, as is the derivation of our surnames. Nobody "stands unopposed" - a candidate stands. If they find themselves unopposed, that's a comment on the level of interest shown by the rest of the fanbase, not them. The attributes which matter are a love of the Club and a willingness to give up considerable amounts of unpaid time to work for the interests of supporters. Of course, members should attend meetings. Sometimes they have to miss meetings for very good reasons. We have had SC members who haven't attended any meetings before they resigned or in some cases not resigned. It's not good but it happens in all sorts of organisations. In this case, a number of members were returned unopposed and where there was an election, the voter turnout was very low, so in my view the electorate itself must take some of the responsibility. As for the suggestion that being a member of the Council improves social standing within the club, I think you have great skills as a satirist.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 6, 2014 22:12:11 GMT
You see Ange is it any wonder why the supporters are confused/suspicious about what the Council are up to, when the chair and the vice-chair are giving out completely different versions of what is taking place?
I think the individuals who are putting in the time and effort to represent the fans, should be nothing but commended but really, if you want the supporters to have faith in what it is you're actually doing/achieving, then may I humbly suggest, that you need to seriously work on your communications with the supporters that you represent.
,
Actually I don't think these are different versions. The Club said it was undertaking a review of membership schemes, which it is quite entitled to do and it's good practice anyway to review systems periodically. We have made an input into that, including putting forward the principle that it shouldn't be possible to buy your way into the highest priority category for away tickets, as opposed to priority being allocated by purchasing history. The Club used to do it that way, but then introduced Platinum +. It did so by making it free in the first year for those who had attended a significant number of away games which had its intended effect of muting some of the inevitable criticism, but then imposing the £50 charge for everybody in the 2nd year, and also opening up the priority on the basis of money not attendance record. That attracted criticism and some fans have continued to lobby against it ever since. Personally, I stand by what I said to Stafford on this :- 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. Sorry but the supporters council is there to represent the supporters not speak for them. Obviously the council should make some decisions but important issues like the plat+, season tickets etc should be put to the supporters so they can be given the opportunity to have their say. Nobody is going to lobby to keep something that they didn't know was on the cards for being removed. This is not a dig at the council but just my opinion on it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 6, 2014 22:36:31 GMT
You see Ange is it any wonder why the supporters are confused/suspicious about what the Council are up to, when the chair and the vice-chair are giving out completely different versions of what is taking place?
I think the individuals who are putting in the time and effort to represent the fans, should be nothing but commended but really, if you want the supporters to have faith in what it is you're actually doing/achieving, then may I humbly suggest, that you need to seriously work on your communications with the supporters that you represent.
,
Actually I don't think these are different versions. The Club said it was undertaking a review of membership schemes, which it is quite entitled to do and it's good practice anyway to review systems periodically. We have made an input into that, including putting forward the principle that it shouldn't be possible to buy your way into the highest priority category for away tickets, as opposed to priority being allocated by purchasing history. The Club used to do it that way, but then introduced Platinum +. It did so by making it free in the first year for those who had attended a significant number of away games which had its intended effect of muting some of the inevitable criticism, but then imposing the £50 charge for everybody in the 2nd year, and also opening up the priority on the basis of money not attendance record. That attracted criticism and some fans have continued to lobby against it ever since. Personally, I stand by what I said to Stafford on this :- 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.
Malcolm I thoroughly applaud the fact that you're actually prepared to put the time in to engage the supporters on this thread - it's very much appreciated.
However I can't for the life of me see how you expect the supporters to feel that the communication from the Council is 100% on point.
Ange said "the Council did not instigate the change of memberships"
You yourself (even in attempt to support the above) have just said "the ticketing group recommended that away ticketing priority shouldn't be able to be purchased, but should be based on attendance record."
Surely you can see that supporters might be a little confused here?
Why couldn't Ange have simply said what you've just said, in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by miggo on May 6, 2014 22:53:46 GMT
Actually I don't think these are different versions. The Club said it was undertaking a review of membership schemes, which it is quite entitled to do and it's good practice anyway to review systems periodically. We have made an input into that, including putting forward the principle that it shouldn't be possible to buy your way into the highest priority category for away tickets, as opposed to priority being allocated by purchasing history. The Club used to do it that way, but then introduced Platinum +. It did so by making it free in the first year for those who had attended a significant number of away games which had its intended effect of muting some of the inevitable criticism, but then imposing the £50 charge for everybody in the 2nd year, and also opening up the priority on the basis of money not attendance record. That attracted criticism and some fans have continued to lobby against it ever since. Personally, I stand by what I said to Stafford on this :- 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. Sorry but the supporters council is there to represent the supporters not speak for them. Obviously the council should make some decisions but important issues like the plat+, season tickets etc should be put to the supporters so they can be given the opportunity to have their say. Nobody is going to lobby to keep something that they didn't know was on the cards for being removed. This is not a dig at the council but just my opinion on it. Ang/Malcolm, I'd like to know how the SC gains it's opinions to bring up topics on behalf of the fans. This is not a bashing at the councils expense by any means but, personally I didn't know one existed until I had an issue and someone on here suggested I speak to you. Despite several good outlets to promote or ask for fans opinions such as the oatcake, the sentinel, twitter, Facebook, the official site etc I have never seen you actively seek out fans opinions, are you highly visible before and after the games to be approached ? I can't say that I've ever seen anyone. Just as a measure of what can be done the bear pit Britannia page has over 22,000 followers and talks general bollocks most of the time but he's out there bringing team news, injury news, transfer gossip, live match updates which is pretty handy at times, when I'm at work for example and you want some news pretty quick it's quite reliable for that sort of info you just have to ignore the rest of rubbish on there and every stokie I know is aware of that site whether they follow it or not very much like this site. The supporters council FB page on the other hand has just over 1,000 followers and it's very rarely used or promoted or updated to ask us the fans our opinion. Not sure on the twitter numbers as I don't use it. I just think in this day and age where you can subscribe to social media sites and get alerts straight to your finger tips in a matter of seconds why aren't the council using these types of tools and running opinion polls, asking for feedback etc to attract as much feedback as possible from the majority of fans or certainly a greater selection than you are getting now. I've read both Of you say that members often go un opposed but is that merely a case of elections not being promoted and/or like I was, is a large selection of our supporter base completely unaware such a thing existed ? As many have suggested people won't raise concerns like the removal of plat/plat+ if they have no idea it's going to happen, it's the ST fiasco all over again. You suggest you have been lobbied by fans for certain aspects but what kind of a percentage regularly ask you to raise points vs number of season ticket holders we have, I'd guess its very low ?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 6, 2014 22:58:06 GMT
Actually I don't think these are different versions. The Club said it was undertaking a review of membership schemes, which it is quite entitled to do and it's good practice anyway to review systems periodically. We have made an input into that, including putting forward the principle that it shouldn't be possible to buy your way into the highest priority category for away tickets, as opposed to priority being allocated by purchasing history. The Club used to do it that way, but then introduced Platinum +. It did so by making it free in the first year for those who had attended a significant number of away games which had its intended effect of muting some of the inevitable criticism, but then imposing the £50 charge for everybody in the 2nd year, and also opening up the priority on the basis of money not attendance record. That attracted criticism and some fans have continued to lobby against it ever since. Personally, I stand by what I said to Stafford on this :- 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.
Malcolm I thoroughly applaud the fact that you're actually prepared to put the time in to engage the supporters on this thread - it's very much appreciated.
However I can't for the life of me see how you expect the supporters to feel that the communication from the Council is 100% on point.
Ange said "the Council did not instigate the change of memberships"
You yourself (even in attempt to support the above) have just said "the ticketing group recommended that away ticketing priority shouldn't be able to be purchased, but should be based on attendance record."
Surely you can see that supporters might be a little confused here?
Why couldn't Ange have simply said what you've just said, in the first place?
Well Paul if you feel confused, I suppose, by definition, the communication can't be clear enough, and to that extent you must be right. I think this is getting a bit semantic. The club initiated a review of membership into which we made an input. In a sense therefore both the Club and the Council could be said to have instigated the change. But I think the important thing is whether the outcome is right, rather than who instigated the change. Personally, I think on the P+ issue it is.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 6, 2014 23:09:20 GMT
Sorry but the supporters council is there to represent the supporters not speak for them. Obviously the council should make some decisions but important issues like the plat+, season tickets etc should be put to the supporters so they can be given the opportunity to have their say. Nobody is going to lobby to keep something that they didn't know was on the cards for being removed. This is not a dig at the council but just my opinion on it. Ang/Malcolm, I'd like to know how the SC gains it's opinions to bring up topics on behalf of the fans. This is not a bashing at the councils expense by any means but, personally I didn't know one existed until I had an issue and someone on here suggested I speak to you. Despite several good outlets to promote or ask for fans opinions such as the oatcake, the sentinel, twitter, Facebook, the official site etc I have never seen you actively seek out fans opinions, are you highly visible before and after the games to be approached ? I can't say that I've ever seen anyone. Just as a measure of what can be done the bear pit Britannia page has over 22,000 followers and talks general bollocks most of the time but he's out there bringing team news, injury news, transfer gossip, live match updates which is pretty handy at times, when I'm at work for example and you want some news pretty quick it's quite reliable for that sort of info you just have to ignore the rest of rubbish on there and every stokie I know is aware of that site whether they follow it or not very much like this site. The supporters council FB page on the other hand has just over 1,000 followers and it's very rarely used or promoted or updated to ask us the fans our opinion. Not sure on the twitter numbers as I don't use it. I just think in this day and age where you can subscribe to social media sites and get alerts straight to your finger tips in a matter of seconds why aren't the council using these types of tools and running opinion polls, asking for feedback etc to attract as much feedback as possible from the majority of fans or certainly a greater selection than you are getting now. I've read both Of you say that members often go un opposed but is that merely a case of elections not being promoted and/or like I was, is a large selection of our supporter base completely unaware such a thing existed ? As many have suggested people won't raise concerns like the removal of plat/plat+ if they have no idea it's going to happen, it's the ST fiasco all over again. You suggest you have been lobbied by fans for certain aspects but what kind of a percentage regularly ask you to raise points vs number of season ticket holders we have, I'd guess its very low ?
Great post.
Somebody started a thread on the Oatcake last week about the appalling situation (and it very much is an appalling situation) we currently have with service at the beverage outlets at the Brit in the Boothen and Novus stands, they were suggesting that we should start a campaign amongst ourselves to draw the clubs' attention to the fiasco.
It was suggested to the poster that maybe he should contact the Supporter's Council and it quickly became apparent that he didn't even know the Supporters Council existed.
If people on the Council are prepared to spend their time attending meetings with the club, it will be such a shame if it ultimately amounts to nothing but time wasted because the Council don't regularly engage the supporters that they represent in both dialogue leading up to those meetings and in reporting the outcomes of those meetings both promptly, accurately and in detail, on those platforms that are most regularly accessed by the affected public.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 6, 2014 23:28:25 GMT
Malcolm I thoroughly applaud the fact that you're actually prepared to put the time in to engage the supporters on this thread - it's very much appreciated.
However I can't for the life of me see how you expect the supporters to feel that the communication from the Council is 100% on point.
Ange said "the Council did not instigate the change of memberships"
You yourself (even in attempt to support the above) have just said "the ticketing group recommended that away ticketing priority shouldn't be able to be purchased, but should be based on attendance record."
Surely you can see that supporters might be a little confused here?
Why couldn't Ange have simply said what you've just said, in the first place?
Well Paul if you feel confused, I suppose, by definition, the communication can't be clear enough, and to that extent you must be right. I think this is getting a bit semantic. The club initiated a review of membership into which we made an input. In a sense therefore both the Club and the Council could be said to have instigated the change. But I think the important thing is whether the outcome is right, rather than who instigated the change. Personally, I think on the P+ issue it is.
I think the outcome is right too Malcolm, no question, however I would suggest that the semantics began with Ange's original reply - you yourself seem quite happy to stand by the Council's position, whereas Ange appeared to want to distance her/itself from it.
I think the Council most certainly need to address it's ability to communicate with the supporters that it represents.
Below is a copy of an email exchange between myself and Ange last week:
02/05/2014 To: chair@scfcsc.co.uk
Hi Ange I'm sure you've probably seen this but just following your protocol request to mail stuff to you directly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. "After looking into other clubs 4 month schemes, it was found that their schemes were running as high as 174% APR and Tony Scholes felt that this was immoral. The bank, V12 raise their APR so that should supporters default on a payment a higher rate would cover the loss." 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. "SCFC made an agreement to take the risk of the payment should a supporter default thus lowering the APR to 9.9%. Consequently the approval rate for the credit checks sat at a 95% pass rate which compares higher than other clubs as some are rated at a 60% pass rate. "
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. "The 5% of supporters that were not approved, the Club tried to work with them to try and find a solution for and most cases have been helped." Can you please be specific about how supporters were contacted and what sort of solutions were arrived at?
5. "Of the people who applied for the 12 month option (of which there are over 5,000), only 107 supporters have not been able to find a solution which is less than ½%. "
Are the maths correct here?
Many thanks.
Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ange you may find the following threads helpful too: With regard to the away allocation points priority: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/230060/idea-away-loyalty-scheme With regard to catering service at the Brit: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/230041/problem-served-brit Best of luck at the meeting tomorrow. Thanks again. Paul
Hi Paul
Firstly, as I am sure you realise to copy everything that is said at a meeting would mean pages of minutes!
With regard to your comments,
Point 1. I always consider and if necessary look in depth at points raised. So yes we have looked at the validity of the statement.
Point 2. I will pass on your comments to finance director Martin Goodman, who is , I am sure you will agree in the best position to answer this. I also feel that point 3 can only be answered correctly by a specialist in the field and I am not such a person, but again I feel Martin can answer this.
I would like to point out that the supporters council (via myself) have asked the club to do what they can for those who , for whatever reasons can't pass the credit checks. You may well be one of these for all I know but please be aware that whatever you or other supporters feel, the club cannot be seen to flout legal legislation. Suffice to say that I believe that the club continue to try to help those unfortunate people who do not slot into the criteria mentioned. (this covers your point 3 too)
Point 4. I cannot give specifics as this would mean discussing personal details I do not have the authority to do so. I am neither an employee of v12 or the club. All I can give you is my belief and you must decide to take that as a true reflection or otherwise .
Point 5 is correct .5% of the club's season ticket and attendance records.
I have mentioned via the Oatcake that I look at threads often, but feel that to answer every point on the message board is somewhat counter productive, particularly when abuse and insults drift into discussions.
Thanks for taking the trouble to contact me and for your support.
Regards
Angela
Hi Angela Thanks very much for your email and for taking the time to respond to some of the questions I've asked. However, as has been said by others before, you're hardly communicating with the fan base at all by answering the points raised in private emails and indeed by doing so, you do the credibility of the Supporters Council no favours. Why could you not respond to the questions on the forum where they were posted, where there is the potential for thousands of supporters to access your responses? You have an excellent platform to communicate with the fan base and the fan base obviously wants to communicate. By not doing so, I think supporters will continue to be suspicious of the Council - surely the more public transparency, the better. With respect, I'd suggest that by privately answering the points I've raised publicly, you then virtually render you response pointless. I wont respond to any of your answers below because I really do feel uncomfortable engaging in a private dialogue with you. Nevertheless I do appreciate the time you have taken to respond to me personally. Thanks Paul
Hi Paul
I do not agree with your comments on credibility I'm afraid. I address comments on the forum and if you so wish you can pass on my comments, nothing I say is a guarded secret . It is a matter of time on occasions and I am sure that may be misconstrued by some.
I cannot understand why you would send me an e mail if you feel uncomfortable with engaging in a "private dialogue" as you put it, but that is your right. Some times it's a case of damned if you do.... in my position.
I have already passed on your comments to the Finance Director.
Regards
Angela
Hi Angela As you have said ... you are sure that by doing so, it may be misconstrued by some - exactly my point about credibility. As I said in my original email, the only reason I emailed you, was to follow the protocol that you had asked for on the Oatcake, if you hadn't have asked to be emailed, then I wouldn't have done so. I don't think you're damned if you do or damned if you don't - the platform is there, the supporters want to communicate publicly with the Supporters Council in a public environment, at the end of the day, it is up to the Supporters Council to decide if they want to communicate in that public environment. They are right up there with the most popular threads on the Oatcake, you can tell that by the number of views that they receive, sadly there is very little input from the Council on them. I'm certain that if the points raised are addressed so that everybody can see the replies to them, then supporters will begin to have a lot more faith in the Council. Best Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks for your comments. Sadly, I can't spend all my time answering Oatcake threads. I suppose it is the nature of people to think the worst at times.
The Oatcake isn't the only public environment available, but I do take your point.
Regards
Angela
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 9:02:43 GMT
Well Paul if you feel confused, I suppose, by definition, the communication can't be clear enough, and to that extent you must be right. I think this is getting a bit semantic. The club initiated a review of membership into which we made an input. In a sense therefore both the Club and the Council could be said to have instigated the change. But I think the important thing is whether the outcome is right, rather than who instigated the change. Personally, I think on the P+ issue it is.
I think the outcome is right too Malcolm, no question, however I would suggest that the semantics began with Ange's original reply - you yourself seem quite happy to stand by the Council's position, whereas Ange appeared to want to distance her/itself from it.
I think the Council most certainly need to address it's ability to communicate with the supporters that it represents.
Below is a copy of an email exchange between myself and Ange last week:
02/05/2014 To: chair@scfcsc.co.uk
Hi Ange I'm sure you've probably seen this but just following your protocol request to mail stuff to you directly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. "After looking into other clubs 4 month schemes, it was found that their schemes were running as high as 174% APR and Tony Scholes felt that this was immoral. The bank, V12 raise their APR so that should supporters default on a payment a higher rate would cover the loss." 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. "SCFC made an agreement to take the risk of the payment should a supporter default thus lowering the APR to 9.9%. Consequently the approval rate for the credit checks sat at a 95% pass rate which compares higher than other clubs as some are rated at a 60% pass rate. "
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. "The 5% of supporters that were not approved, the Club tried to work with them to try and find a solution for and most cases have been helped." Can you please be specific about how supporters were contacted and what sort of solutions were arrived at?
5. "Of the people who applied for the 12 month option (of which there are over 5,000), only 107 supporters have not been able to find a solution which is less than ½%. "
Are the maths correct here?
Many thanks.
Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ange you may find the following threads helpful too: With regard to the away allocation points priority: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/230060/idea-away-loyalty-scheme With regard to catering service at the Brit: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/230041/problem-served-brit Best of luck at the meeting tomorrow. Thanks again. Paul
Hi Paul
Firstly, as I am sure you realise to copy everything that is said at a meeting would mean pages of minutes!
With regard to your comments,
Point 1. I always consider and if necessary look in depth at points raised. So yes we have looked at the validity of the statement.
Point 2. I will pass on your comments to finance director Martin Goodman, who is , I am sure you will agree in the best position to answer this. I also feel that point 3 can only be answered correctly by a specialist in the field and I am not such a person, but again I feel Martin can answer this.
I would like to point out that the supporters council (via myself) have asked the club to do what they can for those who , for whatever reasons can't pass the credit checks. You may well be one of these for all I know but please be aware that whatever you or other supporters feel, the club cannot be seen to flout legal legislation. Suffice to say that I believe that the club continue to try to help those unfortunate people who do not slot into the criteria mentioned. (this covers your point 3 too)
Point 4. I cannot give specifics as this would mean discussing personal details I do not have the authority to do so. I am neither an employee of v12 or the club. All I can give you is my belief and you must decide to take that as a true reflection or otherwise .
Point 5 is correct .5% of the club's season ticket and attendance records.
I have mentioned via the Oatcake that I look at threads often, but feel that to answer every point on the message board is somewhat counter productive, particularly when abuse and insults drift into discussions.
Thanks for taking the trouble to contact me and for your support.
Regards
Angela
Hi Angela Thanks very much for your email and for taking the time to respond to some of the questions I've asked. However, as has been said by others before, you're hardly communicating with the fan base at all by answering the points raised in private emails and indeed by doing so, you do the credibility of the Supporters Council no favours. Why could you not respond to the questions on the forum where they were posted, where there is the potential for thousands of supporters to access your responses? You have an excellent platform to communicate with the fan base and the fan base obviously wants to communicate. By not doing so, I think supporters will continue to be suspicious of the Council - surely the more public transparency, the better. With respect, I'd suggest that by privately answering the points I've raised publicly, you then virtually render you response pointless. I wont respond to any of your answers below because I really do feel uncomfortable engaging in a private dialogue with you. Nevertheless I do appreciate the time you have taken to respond to me personally. Thanks Paul
Hi Paul
I do not agree with your comments on credibility I'm afraid. I address comments on the forum and if you so wish you can pass on my comments, nothing I say is a guarded secret . It is a matter of time on occasions and I am sure that may be misconstrued by some.
I cannot understand why you would send me an e mail if you feel uncomfortable with engaging in a "private dialogue" as you put it, but that is your right. Some times it's a case of damned if you do.... in my position.
I have already passed on your comments to the Finance Director.
Regards
Angela
Hi Angela As you have said ... you are sure that by doing so, it may be misconstrued by some - exactly my point about credibility. As I said in my original email, the only reason I emailed you, was to follow the protocol that you had asked for on the Oatcake, if you hadn't have asked to be emailed, then I wouldn't have done so. I don't think you're damned if you do or damned if you don't - the platform is there, the supporters want to communicate publicly with the Supporters Council in a public environment, at the end of the day, it is up to the Supporters Council to decide if they want to communicate in that public environment. They are right up there with the most popular threads on the Oatcake, you can tell that by the number of views that they receive, sadly there is very little input from the Council on them. I'm certain that if the points raised are addressed so that everybody can see the replies to them, then supporters will begin to have a lot more faith in the Council. Best Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks for your comments. Sadly, I can't spend all my time answering Oatcake threads. I suppose it is the nature of people to think the worst at times.
The Oatcake isn't the only public environment available, but I do take your point.
Regards
Angela
well done Paul. shame that your polite and valid points seem to have been met with: "Dear Paul, Fudge, fudge fudge, ignore, pass the buck, fudge Yours sincerely....." so Ange says the SC had nothing to do with the decision, Malcolm says they did, Malcolm says they want to engage supporters however they can, Ange says they don't because she doesn't have enough time for the Oatcake but does for the FB page and Knot FM which far fewer people bother with and then when you email her (which SHE asked people to do) she says she doesn't know why you bothered emailing her. and Malcolm genuinely wonders why people get confused????
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 8:53:25 GMT
If the supporters council is not going to represent the opinion of ALL supporters then it is just a waste of everyone's time. Issues such as season tickets, memberships and away tickets etc are very important issues and should not be decided in a small room without the input/votes of ALL supporters. If they are not going to do this then they may as well fold now in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on May 8, 2014 9:15:51 GMT
If the supporters council is not going to represent the opinion of ALL supporters then it is just a waste of everyone's time. Issues such as season tickets, memberships and away tickets etc are very important issues and should not be decided in a small room without the input/votes of ALL supporters. If they are not going to do this then they may as well fold now in my opinion. But supporters would just vote for what best suits them and not what is correct mate Ie away ticket allocation
|
|