|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 9:30:33 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 I agree but surly it is best to get what the supporters want. You would obviously vote for what suits you and in your own situation it would be correct. The idea of voting is to vote for what you want and a few people making that decision for you on important issues is wrong in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 9:41:02 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 but in this case they've done nothing other than take the stance of "Well, i've had emails from people saying they like one idea but no emails from others saying they don't even though they don't know about what we're planning to do in the first place....therefore we'll go with whoever sent the emails" that's equally wrong IMO yes, you won't please everyone all the time but the main problem most seem to have is the complete lack of knowledge that most supporters have in the first place. as has been pointed out, the facebook page is hardly visited by anyone, knot FM isn't something that everyone is even aware of let alone listens to or knows WHEN to listen to so why aren't they doing more to bring matters to the attention of supporters.Ange has already said to Paul that she won't answer things or respond to The Oatcake as it isn't the only form of communication for Stoke fans....well neither is the facebook page or Knot FM but they seem to be the only ones she is interested in despte The Oatcake having far more visitors than either...hell, there's even a "Polls" section here where they actually COULD try to gauge some kind of response but no, let's ignore the Oatcake and see what a few dozen people who can be bothered to post say on bloody facebook. Malcolm said he didn't receive emails from people saying they were unhappy with taking away P+ but considering hardly anyone even knew that was a plan then is that really any surprise and is it the lack of emails about it really any kind of indication of what people think? of course not. i don't think it's the conclusions they come to which is the problem werrington, it's the fact that they supposedly represent the supporters but in reality don't even furnish the supporters with the information they need in order to have an opinion which can then be represented.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 9:44:50 GMT
Pissing off you Platinum ponces is the best thing the club have done in years.
When it was first introduced, I got a free one and I returned it to the club with a full and frank explanation as to why it was totally wrong.
Priority for away tickets should be given to those who invest time and money following the team away from home the most and not to those who have a spare 50 or 30 quid to buy priority for whenever the whim arrives to support their team away from home.
In years gone by I would have been right at the top of any priority scheme based on rewarding attendance and rightly so.
With 2 young boys, I've missed more away games in the last 2 seasons than I have in the last 25 years combined.
I will be lower down the priority pecking order under any fair scheme that rewards those who attend the most than I would ever have been and rightly so.
As for oldstokies situation, that is simply disgusting and the club should really be ashamed of themselves.
Precious metal cards though? Good fucking riddance.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 10:52:12 GMT
Pissing off you Platinum ponces is the best thing the club have done in years. When it was first introduced, I got a free one and I returned it to the club with a full and frank explanation as to why it was totally wrong. Priority for away tickets should be given to those who invest time and money following the team away from home the most and not to those who have a spare 50 or 30 quid to buy priority for whenever the whim arrives to support their team away from home. In years gone by I would have been right at the top of any priority scheme based on rewarding attendance and rightly so. With 2 young boys, I've missed more away games in the last 2 seasons than I have in the last 25 years combined. I will be lower down the priority pecking order under any fair scheme that rewards those who attend the most than I would ever have been and rightly so. As for oldstokies situation, that is simply disgusting and the club should really be ashamed of themselves. Precious metal cards though? Good fucking riddance. You are missing the point mate. I don't mind that it has gone but the manner in which it was removed without asking those that matter. The supporters. I will just buy tickets for every game and sell on those that I can't/don't want to attend to those that can't get tickets in their own right such as non season ticket holders or those that are banned from going. My point being that a representative should take the opinions of those they represent forward and not just their own.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 11:00:06 GMT
Pissing off you Platinum ponces is the best thing the club have done in years. When it was first introduced, I got a free one and I returned it to the club with a full and frank explanation as to why it was totally wrong. Priority for away tickets should be given to those who invest time and money following the team away from home the most and not to those who have a spare 50 or 30 quid to buy priority for whenever the whim arrives to support their team away from home. In years gone by I would have been right at the top of any priority scheme based on rewarding attendance and rightly so. With 2 young boys, I've missed more away games in the last 2 seasons than I have in the last 25 years combined. I will be lower down the priority pecking order under any fair scheme that rewards those who attend the most than I would ever have been and rightly so. As for oldstokies situation, that is simply disgusting and the club should really be ashamed of themselves. Precious metal cards though? Good fucking riddance. You are missing the point mate. I don't mind that it has gone but the manner in which it was removed without asking those that matter. The supporters. I will just buy tickets for every game and sell on those that I can't/don't want to attend to those that can't get tickets in their own right such as non season ticket holders or those that are banned from going. My point being that a representative should take the opinions of those they represent forward and not just their own. I aren't missing any point. The supporters council have represented me perfectly on this as they have everyone else. Away tickets should be distributed on a fair and equitable basis and I removing the precious metal cards, they have helped the club to take the first steps to getting a fair scheme, that rewards attendance, in place. It won't suit me personally for the next few years but it is right and proper. Well done I say.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 11:05:10 GMT
You are missing the point mate. I don't mind that it has gone but the manner in which it was removed without asking those that matter. The supporters. I will just buy tickets for every game and sell on those that I can't/don't want to attend to those that can't get tickets in their own right such as non season ticket holders or those that are banned from going. My point being that a representative should take the opinions of those they represent forward and not just their own. I aren't missing any point. The supporters council have represented me perfectly on this as they have everyone else. Away tickets should be distributed on a fair and equitable basis and I removing the precious metal cards, they have helped the club to take the first steps to getting a fair scheme, that rewards attendance, in place. It won't suit me personally for the next few years but it is right and proper. Well done I say. you are missing the point though dave, as stafford says, whehter the conclusion that the CLUB has come to (which is what you're referring to) is right or not, it doesn't change the fact the SC are supposed to represent the supporters and their thoughts. they haven't canvassed any opinion on this so they therefore can't be truly representative of those thoughts as they don't even know them. yes, on this one it may just so happen to be right and has been arrived at by luck rather than because of an overwhelming feeling of the fans but what about the next issue that you may not be happy with the conclusion of and the one after that etc.? you can't just say that because the conclusion here is correct that therefore means the way that the SC go about things is therefore fine and dandy and they're doing all they can. i think you have missed the point really....this thread isn't about whether the club's decisions are right or wrong, it's about whether the SC could/should be doing more to actually gauge the opinions of supporters in the first place and actually question the club on the facts/figures used to come to the conclusions they do. from what we've seen on here so far this isn't happening, it seems to be "Has anyone complained about the plan the club want to put into place that no-one even knows about? No, presume everyone must agree then" or "Well, the club have given me those numbers so i presume they must be true and all make perfect sense" or "Well, no-one has said anything on Facebook, yeah we know no-one visits that page but that's irrelevant" if this the way it's going to be then, as stafford says, they may as well literally just not bother with the SC at all.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 11:22:29 GMT
I am not missing any point MMLC.
These people have been ELECTED to represent supporters best interests and were elected because those that voted for them believed that they were the best people to represent their interests.
It is impossible to consult on every matter and in this particular instance, it is clear that they have put the greater good ahead of their own interest.
A fair proportion of these council members are precious metal holders so motioning to do away with it isn't necessarily in their own interests. What more can you ask for in a representative? If only MP's did the same!
The platinum scheme was the biggest load of bullshit since the I'd cards that were foisted on us and they have rightly been scrapped.
Why canvass the opinion of someone like Staffordstokie for example, who is as clearly an "I'm alright jack" type of person as is possible to be? What would be the point in that?
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on May 8, 2014 11:26:24 GMT
If Ang doesn't have the time to use the Oatcake, Wouldn't it make some sort of sense to appoint in the newly elected council for next season, A person responsible for communication between here & any other social platforms to the council ?
Someone who does have enough time to engage with supporters online and gather the necessary info, opinions of as many as possible and report back to Ang/Malcolm who can then represent us with the correct knowledge ??
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 11:27:38 GMT
I am not missing any point MMLC. These people have been ELECTED to represent supporters best interests and were elected because those that voted for them believed that they were the best people to represent their interests. It is impossible to consult on every matter and in this particular instance, it is clear that they have put the greater good ahead of their own interest. A fair proportion of these council members are precious metal holders so motioning to do away with it isn't necessarily in their own interests. What more can you ask for in a representative? If only MP's did the same! The platinum scheme was the biggest load of bullshit since the I'd cards that were foisted on us and they have rightly been scrapped. Why canvass the opinion of someone like Staffordstokie for example, who is as clearly an "I'm alright jack" type of person as is possible to be? What would be the point in that? Because they are there to represent me, you and everyone else. If they had taken a vote and it came back 20,000 in favour and 10,000 against then it should have stayed because it is what the supporters wanted and vice versa. It is the fair and democratic way. It matters nothing if we agree with the result or not. There is a way around any system but it is how decisions are being made that is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by werrington on May 8, 2014 11:30:10 GMT
The club know who have attended away games and who have not
The allocation should be on an attendance basis ie 15+ games followed by say 10+ games
First come first served is not the way to do it as every other club and England employ a similar scheme to reward those who travel
Chelsea away etc etc should get priority over the one off brigade who want to go to Derby etc etc
Caps is the way it should be done
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 11:34:52 GMT
The club know who have attended away games and who have not The allocation should be on an attendance basis ie 15+ games followed by say 10+ games First come first served is not the way to do it as every other club and England employ a similar scheme to reward those who travel Chelsea away etc etc should get priority over the one off brigade who want to go to Derby etc etc Caps is the way it should be done Again I agree to a point but what about those that can't attend every away game for whatever reason. Should they be penalised for not having loads of cash, working or having kids? Maybe a game in Derby is all some can afford in the season. All I am saying is that everyone has different circumstances and any system isn't going to please all. I think it should be season ticket holders 1st and then general sale.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 11:38:33 GMT
I am not missing any point MMLC. These people have been ELECTED to represent supporters best interests and were elected because those that voted for them believed that they were the best people to represent their interests. It is impossible to consult on every matter and in this particular instance, it is clear that they have put the greater good ahead of their own interest. A fair proportion of these council members are precious metal holders so motioning to do away with it isn't necessarily in their own interests. What more can you ask for in a representative? If only MP's did the same! The platinum scheme was the biggest load of bullshit since the I'd cards that were foisted on us and they have rightly been scrapped. Why canvass the opinion of someone like Staffordstokie for example, who is as clearly an "I'm alright jack" type of person as is possible to be? What would be the point in that? because he's a fan just as much as you are whether you agree with his opnions or not maybe??? if it's a case (as you're suggesting) that they're elected so don't have to canvass our opinions because they must know best as they were elected by fans, then why do we even have the minutes posted here? why is there a facebook page in the first place? why are there broadcasts on Knot FM? Malcolm and Ange have stated themselves (without you needing to make their excuses for them) that they DO want, need and welcome supporters input so understandably all people are asking is why are important matters not even publicised to fans so they are able to give their input in the first place? you are focussing solely on this one issue and that ISN'T what it's about; it's the principle of how ANY body should act and work if they are claiming to represent certain groups of people. for Ange to state that people regularly lobby her on certain things but no-one lobbied her on this so she can therefore presume everyone's fine with it and it represents the view of the majority of fans when the majority of fans didn't even know about it in the first place is absolutely ludicrous! yes, on this issue it may turn out she was right but are you honestly saying that it is acceptable to base such a presumption on that basis for future issues? you say that stafford is an "I'm alright jack" kind of person despite your post saying that because YOU think it's right then therefore there's no issue whatsoever...if they HAD decided to keep the P+ and base away tickets on that i suppose you'd take the same stance yeah i.e. they've been elected so it's fine and they represent us all? no, i'm guessing you wouldn't be happy then which ironically makes you far more of an "i'm alright Jack" than stafford is who is actually unhappy with the principle of people representing my, yours and everyone else's view on a matter that we haven't even been told about in the first place. it surely isn't too much to ask that body that are apparently representing me to at least divulge the matters that they're representing me on is it?
|
|
|
Post by werrington on May 8, 2014 11:51:39 GMT
The club know who have attended away games and who have not The allocation should be on an attendance basis ie 15+ games followed by say 10+ games First come first served is not the way to do it as every other club and England employ a similar scheme to reward those who travel Chelsea away etc etc should get priority over the one off brigade who want to go to Derby etc etc Caps is the way it should be done Again I agree to a point but what about those that can't attend every away game for whatever reason. Should they be penalised for not having loads of cash, working or having kids? Maybe a game in Derby is all some can afford in the season. All I am saying is that everyone has different circumstances and any system isn't going to please all. I think it should be season ticket holders 1st and then general sale. Season ticket holders first is equivalent to general sale Stafford Virtually every club in the premiership and the national side operate a caps system to reward those who go away from home I follow England when I can and have no issue with being down the pecking order so if england had a huge game I would expect not to get a ticket until the regulars had got first dabs It's fair and people know where they stand
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 12:00:34 GMT
MMLC - I am not saying Staffords opinions or worth less. I'm just giving you an example.
The council should canvass opinion to get an idea of what is essentially "for the greater good" but it is impossible to do it on every matter.
What they should now be doing, in my opinion, is canvassing supporters and indeed other clubs, to see how its done fairly.
West Ham, Chelsea, Manure, England and Liverpool all have long standing schemes that seem to work so we should be finding out how we can adopt similar, improve it and make it even more fair and equitable than what they have.
Stafford - you aren't being punished for not being able to afford to go. As with WBA tickets, you will get your chance to buy one but those who have invested the most in time and money get priority and that is how it should be.
Whether you do or not, you come across as wanting a scheme that suits you and even if you don't get it, you will abuse the one that is put in place to suit yourself.
That is a far worse attitude to have than any council attitude of not canvassing opinion on every matter.
I'm alright jack!
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 12:05:37 GMT
MMLC - I am not saying Staffords opinions or worth less. I'm just giving you an example. The council should canvass opinion to get an idea of what is essentially "for the greater good" but it is impossible to do it on every matter. What they should now be doing, in my opinion, is canvassing supporters and indeed other clubs, to see how its done fairly. West Ham, Chelsea, Manure, England and Liverpool all have long standing schemes that seem to work so we should be finding out how we can adopt similar, improve it and make it even more fair and equitable than what they have. Stafford - you aren't being punished for not being able to afford to go. As with WBA tickets, you will get your chance to buy one but those who have invested the most in time and money get priority and that is how it should be. Whether you do or not, you come across as wanting a scheme that suits you and even if you don't get it, you will abuse the one that is put in place to suit yourself. That is a far worse attitude to have than any council attitude of not canvassing opinion on every matter. I'm alright jack! You just have to do what you have to do to get tickets. If that means buying every game and selling them on so be it. The issue is that for such an important change all fans should have had an input.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 12:27:32 GMT
MMLC - I am not saying Staffords opinions or worth less. I'm just giving you an example. The council should canvass opinion to get an idea of what is essentially "for the greater good" but it is impossible to do it on every matter. What they should now be doing, in my opinion, is canvassing supporters and indeed other clubs, to see how its done fairly. West Ham, Chelsea, Manure, England and Liverpool all have long standing schemes that seem to work so we should be finding out how we can adopt similar, improve it and make it even more fair and equitable than what they have. Stafford - you aren't being punished for not being able to afford to go. As with WBA tickets, you will get your chance to buy one but those who have invested the most in time and money get priority and that is how it should be. Whether you do or not, you come across as wanting a scheme that suits you and even if you don't get it, you will abuse the one that is put in place to suit yourself. That is a far worse attitude to have than any council attitude of not canvassing opinion on every matter. I'm alright jack! You just have to do what you have to do to get tickets. If that means buying every game and selling them on so be it. The issue is that for such an important change all fans should have had an input. What's important to you isn't to others. It is impossible to canvass on everything. The club will do what they want to do regardless of the council and if they wanted to keep the precious metal scheme, they would have done. The council can only try to influence the thinking of the club and to make sure the general good of supporters is considered. They are there to be taking up the issues like those of oldstokie. The plat issue is nothing in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 12:30:36 GMT
You just have to do what you have to do to get tickets. If that means buying every game and selling them on so be it. The issue is that for such an important change all fans should have had an input. What's important to you isn't to others. It is impossible to canvass on everything. The club will do what they want to do regardless of the council and if they wanted to keep the precious metal scheme, they would have done. The council can only try to influence the thinking of the club and to make sure the general good of supporters is considered. They are there to be taking up the issues like those of oldstokie. The plat issue is nothing in comparison. Utter bollox! It is important to canvas ALL supporters on big matters and this was one. Old stokies is of course another.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 8, 2014 13:08:25 GMT
You just have to do what you have to do to get tickets. If that means buying every game and selling them on so be it. The issue is that for such an important change all fans should have had an input. What's important to you isn't to others. It is impossible to canvass on everything. The club will do what they want to do regardless of the council and if they wanted to keep the precious metal scheme, they would have done. The council can only try to influence the thinking of the club and to make sure the general good of supporters is considered. They are there to be taking up the issues like those of oldstokie. The plat issue is nothing in comparison.
Dave from the very first day that the Platinum nonsense was announced, I was (very vocally) against the schemes. The idea that you could possibly buy yourself to the front of the queue was something I found utterly abhorrent - the only way that such a thing got off the ground in the first place, was because it was devised and introduced by a non football person (Andy Billingham) who didn't really understand just what a can of worms he was opening.
The only reason the free memberships were offered in the first place, was to try and quell the tide of ill feeling that was generated on here by the initial announcement - the memberships weren't going to be free at first for the season the scheme was introduced.
I applauded your decision to return yours at the time.
Sadly once the genie was out of the bottle so to speak, it was always going to be very difficult to put it back in again, with plenty of people more than happy to queue jump if they could pay to do so. It would be these people who would always appose the schemes being scrapped, in effect Billingham had created a bit of monster that was always going to become a problem later down the road.
However I digress ...
Millsy asked you a very fair question, that you haven't answered, that being- if the Council had decided that they wanted to keep the schemes and not revert to away ticket priority being based attendance, would you be so quick to defend their right not to discuss important matters with the fan base in the first instance?
Please Dave, I really need you to answer this question.
The point Millsy and Stafford are (in my opinion, rightfully) making, is not about the Platinum schemes per se but rather about the Council's lack of dialogue with the supporter base.
I'm delighted that the Platinum schemes have been removed but that doesn't mean that I can't also be concerned at the Council's lack of communication with the supporters both leading up to and following their meetings with the club - I think it is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed, if the Council is going to go forward with any credibility.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 13:54:09 GMT
What's important to you isn't to others. It is impossible to canvass on everything. The club will do what they want to do regardless of the council and if they wanted to keep the precious metal scheme, they would have done. The council can only try to influence the thinking of the club and to make sure the general good of supporters is considered. They are there to be taking up the issues like those of oldstokie. The plat issue is nothing in comparison.
Dave from the very first day that the Platinum nonsense was announced, I was (very vocally) against the schemes. The idea that you could possibly buy yourself to the front of the queue was something I found utterly abhorrent - the only way that such a thing got off the ground in the first place, was because it was devised and introduced by a non football person (Andy Billingham) who didn't really understand just what a can of worms he was opening.
The only reason the free memberships were offered in the first place, was to try and quell the tide of ill feeling that was generated on here by the initial announcement - the memberships weren't going to be free at first for the season the scheme was introduced.
I applauded your decision to return yours at the time.
Sadly once the genie was out of the bottle so to speak, it was always going to be very difficult to put it back in again, with plenty of people more than happy to queue jump if they could pay to do so. It would be these people who would always appose the schemes being scrapped, in effect Billingham had created a bit of monster that was always going to become a problem later down the road.
However I digress ...
Millsy asked you a very fair question, that you haven't answered, that being- if the Council had decided that they wanted to keep the schemes and not revert to away ticket priority being based attendance, would you be so quick to defend their right not to discuss important matters with the fan base in the first instance?
Please Dave, I really need you to answer this question.
The point Millsy and Stafford are (in my opinion, rightfully) making, is not about the Platinum schemes per se but rather about the Council's lack of dialogue with the supporter base.
I'm delighted that the Platinum schemes have been removed but that doesn't mean that I can't also be concerned at the Council's lack of communication with the supporters both leading up to and following their meetings with the club - I think it is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed, if the Council is going to go forward with any credibility.
Its a very good question Paul and one I will try to answer. My view of the council is that they have little or no influence over the club. If the club wanted to impose a scheme even more abhorant than the precious metals one then they would do with or without the backing of the council. See the withdrawal of the 4 month payment plan as an example. In such circumstances, with or without consultation with other supporters, I would expect any so called supporters council to challenge the club about a scheme that essentially rewards cash rather than attendance. If they didn't, I would call them a bunch of self serving cunts. As it happens, it this instance they have seemingly reacted favourably to the removal of a scheme that was unfair and for me they should be applauded on this matter. Common decency tells anyone with a brain that the precious metals scheme was wrong. Consultation to remove it is unnecessary as a result. As it is my belief that on such matters the council have little influence and the club will do what it wants. What the council should be addressing, with consultation or without, are the everyday matters that affect the lives of ordinary Stokies. Matters such as those of oldstokie, of ridiculous matchday prices that turn away those who can't attend every home fixture and such as the removal of 4 month payment plans that genuinely affect many Stokies that live hand to mouth trying to support their families and the love of their club. Consultation on a matter that is so obviously the right decision is unnecessary when there are many other worthwhile battles for them to fight. I hope now that the council can help the club implement an away ticket policy that is fair and equitable and rewards those that attend the most often.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 14:28:57 GMT
Dave from the very first day that the Platinum nonsense was announced, I was (very vocally) against the schemes. The idea that you could possibly buy yourself to the front of the queue was something I found utterly abhorrent - the only way that such a thing got off the ground in the first place, was because it was devised and introduced by a non football person (Andy Billingham) who didn't really understand just what a can of worms he was opening.
The only reason the free memberships were offered in the first place, was to try and quell the tide of ill feeling that was generated on here by the initial announcement - the memberships weren't going to be free at first for the season the scheme was introduced.
I applauded your decision to return yours at the time.
Sadly once the genie was out of the bottle so to speak, it was always going to be very difficult to put it back in again, with plenty of people more than happy to queue jump if they could pay to do so. It would be these people who would always appose the schemes being scrapped, in effect Billingham had created a bit of monster that was always going to become a problem later down the road.
However I digress ...
Millsy asked you a very fair question, that you haven't answered, that being- if the Council had decided that they wanted to keep the schemes and not revert to away ticket priority being based attendance, would you be so quick to defend their right not to discuss important matters with the fan base in the first instance?
Please Dave, I really need you to answer this question.
The point Millsy and Stafford are (in my opinion, rightfully) making, is not about the Platinum schemes per se but rather about the Council's lack of dialogue with the supporter base.
I'm delighted that the Platinum schemes have been removed but that doesn't mean that I can't also be concerned at the Council's lack of communication with the supporters both leading up to and following their meetings with the club - I think it is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed, if the Council is going to go forward with any credibility.
Its a very good question Paul and one I will try to answer. My view of the council is that they have little or no influence over the club. If the club wanted to impose a scheme even more abhorant than the precious metals one then they would do with or without the backing of the council. See the withdrawal of the 4 month payment plan as an example. In such circumstances, with or without consultation with other supporters, I would expect any so called supporters council to challenge the club about a scheme that essentially rewards cash rather than attendance. If they didn't, I would call them a bunch of self serving cunts. As it happens, it this instance they have seemingly reacted favourably to the removal of a scheme that was unfair and for me they should be applauded on this matter. Common decency tells anyone with a brain that the precious metals scheme was wrong. Consultation to remove it is unnecessary as a result. As it is my belief that on such matters the council have little influence and the club will do what it wants. What the council should be addressing, with consultation or without, are the everyday matters that affect the lives of ordinary Stokies. Matters such as those of oldstokie, of ridiculous matchday prices that turn away those who can't attend every home fixture and such as the removal of 4 month payment plans that genuinely affect many Stokies that live hand to mouth trying to support their families and the love of their club. Consultation on a matter that is so obviously the right decision is unnecessary when there are many other worthwhile battles for them to fight. I hope now that the council can help the club implement an away ticket policy that is fair and equitable and rewards those that attend the most often. which is exactly what i said earlier dave....you're simply focussing on this one issue rather than the principle of what is being discussed on this thread i.e. are the SC actually really able to represent the supporters despite the supporters not being given details on what it is they are deciding upon? you seem to agree that they should focus on matters like the removal of the 4 month payment plan but why is that anymore of a valid issue to discuss than the abolition of P+? from what i've read so far it seems to be simply that you agree with that but don't agree with the removal of the 4 month payment plan.basically i agree with getting rid of P+ so we don't need to canvass anymore opinion, i don't agree with the 4 month payment plan being removed so they should concentrate on that...and youhave the nerve to say stafford is taking the "I'm alright jack" attitude??? staggering! you've basically just said that you agree with getting rid of P+ because YOU agree with it and YOU have decided it's the only fair way....you've also decided that the abolition of the 4 month payment plan is wrong. now, whilst that's fine and you have the right to that opinion, you can't arbitrarily decide what the SC should and shouldn't consult us on purely based on what YOU think is right or worng. as it happens i agree with the abolition of P+ also but that doesn't mean i'm not arsed that no-one was even asked about it and the SC therefore have every right to decide that everyone is happy with it going..the simple fact is that you agree on this matter so you focus solely on that (even though that isn't what we were actually discussing, it was being used as an example to demonstrate the fact that fans AREN'T being consulted by the SC) and decide all is good in the world of the SC and club relationship. can you not take a look at the bigger picture? there could be many people out there that DON'T agree with the removal of P+ and whether you like it or not,they have just as much right as you to voice that opinion and have someone to represent that opinion rather than just ignore it. in your posts you have done nothing other than display your own "I'm alright Jack" attitude to the whole thing i.e "I agree with it all so what's everyone else's problem and why should they consult people that disagree with me as they're just wrong". that's the polar opposite of what the SC should actually be about!
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 16:25:56 GMT
Its a very good question Paul and one I will try to answer. My view of the council is that they have little or no influence over the club. If the club wanted to impose a scheme even more abhorant than the precious metals one then they would do with or without the backing of the council. See the withdrawal of the 4 month payment plan as an example. In such circumstances, with or without consultation with other supporters, I would expect any so called supporters council to challenge the club about a scheme that essentially rewards cash rather than attendance. If they didn't, I would call them a bunch of self serving cunts. As it happens, it this instance they have seemingly reacted favourably to the removal of a scheme that was unfair and for me they should be applauded on this matter. Common decency tells anyone with a brain that the precious metals scheme was wrong. Consultation to remove it is unnecessary as a result. As it is my belief that on such matters the council have little influence and the club will do what it wants. What the council should be addressing, with consultation or without, are the everyday matters that affect the lives of ordinary Stokies. Matters such as those of oldstokie, of ridiculous matchday prices that turn away those who can't attend every home fixture and such as the removal of 4 month payment plans that genuinely affect many Stokies that live hand to mouth trying to support their families and the love of their club. Consultation on a matter that is so obviously the right decision is unnecessary when there are many other worthwhile battles for them to fight. I hope now that the council can help the club implement an away ticket policy that is fair and equitable and rewards those that attend the most often. which is exactly what i said earlier dave....you're simply focussing on this one issue rather than the principle of what is being discussed on this thread i.e. are the SC actually really able to represent the supporters despite the supporters not being given details on what it is they are deciding upon? you seem to agree that they should focus on matters like the removal of the 4 month payment plan but why is that anymore of a valid issue to discuss than the abolition of P+? from what i've read so far it seems to be simply that you agree with that but don't agree with the removal of the 4 month payment plan.basically i agree with getting rid of P+ so we don't need to canvass anymore opinion, i don't agree with the 4 month payment plan being removed so they should concentrate on that...and youhave the nerve to say stafford is taking the "I'm alright jack" attitude??? staggering! you've basically just said that you agree with getting rid of P+ because YOU agree with it and YOU have decided it's the only fair way....you've also decided that the abolition of the 4 month payment plan is wrong. now, whilst that's fine and you have the right to that opinion, you can't arbitrarily decide what the SC should and shouldn't consult us on purely based on what YOU think is right or worng. as it happens i agree with the abolition of P+ also but that doesn't mean i'm not arsed that no-one was even asked about it and the SC therefore have every right to decide that everyone is happy with it going..the simple fact is that you agree on this matter so you focus solely on that (even though that isn't what we were actually discussing, it was being used as an example to demonstrate the fact that fans AREN'T being consulted by the SC) and decide all is good in the world of the SC and club relationship. can you not take a look at the bigger picture? there could be many people out there that DON'T agree with the removal of P+ and whether you like it or not,they have just as much right as you to voice that opinion and have someone to represent that opinion rather than just ignore it. in your posts you have done nothing other than display your own "I'm alright Jack" attitude to the whole thing i.e "I agree with it all so what's everyone else's problem and why should they consult people that disagree with me as they're just wrong". that's the polar opposite of what the SC should actually be about! I believe in fighting the battles you can win. It is impossible to consult on every single matter. Instead of a supporters council the club might as well set up a conference call where we can all dial in, listen and challenge as we see fit. As it happens I haven't decided to focus on anything. I haven't read the whole thread and have been posting whilst playing golf hence the odd grammatical error. I just believe that the precious metals scheme was floored from the start and was wrong and that is coming from someone who qualified for a free one and returned it to the club with a full and frank explanation as to why. My view of the council is that it is a totally pointless organisation that the club pay lipservice to. They will do what they like and no amount of objections from supporters, supporters councils or otherwise will change their mind. I pay little attention to the council, don't lose sleep over not getting tickets like I used to and generally do what I can to use the systems in place as best suits me and my pals because without your pals, attending football is shit anyway. If it bothers you that much, go on the council yourself and do something about it. EDIT - Neither the removal of the 4 month payment plan or the plight of disabled supporters affect me in the slightest either. I aren't disabled, know no-one that is and can afford to pay for my season ticket in full before any deadline that is imposed.
|
|
|
Post by rednwhitecardie on May 8, 2014 16:43:26 GMT
I may be wrong But (I) bought into platinum (having been gifted a + the first time for going away more than some others) because I had to try and guarantee a ticket at "big" away games that some people wanted to attend but hadn't been away for ages but it is part of my life As it turns out we have not got as bigger away support as some think we have - very rarely taking the max 3k anywhere
So a free for all I don't necessarily agree with - unless the club take the maximum allocation every week and don't sell out
|
|
|
Post by toonstokey on May 8, 2014 18:06:08 GMT
Put quite simply, How can you be represented if you haven't been consulted for your view? A working party form a recommendation in isolation which then impacts 500 fans.? Let's not forget why the club awarded 500 fans plat plus membership in the first place, it was for attendance history at away games in the championship days when we would get 14000 on a sat in the Brit and take 400 to Norwich.
This point was raised with the council before the last meeting, but their working party haven't consulted the 500 plat plus members before making their recommendation.
Don't have a problem with the outcome in principle, but would have liked to have been asked for my view as one of the 500.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 18:16:45 GMT
Put quite simply, How can you be represented if you haven't been consulted for your view? A working party form a recommendation in isolation which then impacts 500 fans.? Let's not forget why the club awarded 500 fans plat plus membership in the first place, it was for attendance history at away games in the championship days when we would get 14000 on a sat in the Brit and take 400 to Norwich. This point was raised with the council before the last meeting, but their working party haven't consulted the 500 plat plus members before making their recommendation. Don't have a problem with the outcome in principle, but would have liked to have been asked for my view as one of the 500. Did people who attended every game the following season get one for nowt? Did they fuck? Did those that got a free one, then didn't go to the same number of games have their right to one withdrawn? Did they bollocks. It was a shit scheme designed to fleece supporters of more money by preying on fear of "missing a game". It was wank then and its still wank now. Consultation should only have been with the 500 or so queue jumpers as well instead of a whole supporter base? Get real. Do the government consult us on any policy matter before implementing them? Afterall, they are representing a whole country.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 18:17:16 GMT
Put quite simply, How can you be represented if you haven't been consulted for your view? A working party form a recommendation in isolation which then impacts 500 fans.? Let's not forget why the club awarded 500 fans plat plus membership in the first place, it was for attendance history at away games in the championship days when we would get 14000 on a sat in the Brit and take 400 to Norwich. This point was raised with the council before the last meeting, but their working party haven't consulted the 500 plat plus members before making their recommendation. Don't have a problem with the outcome in principle, but would have liked to have been asked for my view as one of the 500. Did people who attended every game the following season get one for nowt? Did they fuck? Did those that got a free one, then didn't go to the same number of games have their right to one withdrawn? Did they bollocks. It was a shit scheme designed to fleece supporters of more money by preying on fear of "missing a game". It was wank then and its still wank now. Consultation should only have been with the 500 or so queue jumpers as well instead of a whole supporter base? Get real. Do the government consult us on any policy matter before implementing them? Afterall, they are representing a whole country. EDIT - to correct you on one other thing, the precious metal scheme was introduced after our first season in the Premier league and replaced the perfectly fair amd equitable system of the previous season which gave priority to those that attended the most away fixtures.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 8, 2014 18:18:39 GMT
How can they represent all supporters?
1) Not all supporters give a shit. 2) Not all supporters will know of certain issues. 3) Not all supporters will agree, look at this place!
|
|
|
Post by toonstokey on May 8, 2014 18:30:50 GMT
I wouldn't class the 500 as queue jumpers. You can't jump the queue if you weren't awarded the privellege in the first place.
You calling folk like Monica, nick Mansfield and scouse queue jumpers as plat plus members?
The scheme was well meant to guarantee ticket availability for this group, given our new johnny come lately following in the prem.
The novelty has now worn off for them.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 18:43:05 GMT
I wouldn't class the 500 as queue jumpers. You can't jump the queue if you weren't awarded the privellege in the first place. You calling folk like Monica, nick Mansfield and scouse queue jumpers as plat plus members? The scheme was well meant to guarantee ticket availability for this group, given our new johnny come lately following in the prem. The novelty has now worn off for them. No it wasn't. You are wrong. The scheme was neither well intentioned nor awarded. Did Monica, Scouse, Mabel etc get given one every year? Did they fuck. They had to pay for it. I was "awarded a free one" and returned it immediately to the club with a full and frank explanation as to why it was wrong. We filled every away end in that first Premier League season and the club thought they could profiteer by implementing the precious metal scheme. People had missed out on tickets and by paying 50 or 30 quid, you could effectively guarantee yourself a ticket for any game you wanted to attend, even if it was one per season. Under the rules before the precious metals scheme, the Monicas, Mabels, Scouses of this world didn't need to BUY a card to guarantee them an away ticket. They qualified for them by virtue of the fact that they went to every game. The precious metals scheme was essentially paying to queue jump.
|
|
|
Post by toonstokey on May 8, 2014 18:54:02 GMT
Ermmm, if the club had of wanted to cash in, they wouldn't have capped membership at 500. Brilliant gesture by the club, and great evening at the Brit when they invited us in to recognise our support. Other clubs such as leeds don't cap membership and you have to pay in regardless to an away scheme.
I assumed positive intent by stoke here, not adverse motives. If I want to pay, then my choice.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 19:02:01 GMT
Ermmm, if the club had of wanted to cash in, they wouldn't have capped membership at 500. Brilliant gesture by the club, and great evening at the Brit when they invited us in to recognise our support. Other clubs such as leeds don't cap membership and you have to pay in regardless to an away scheme. I assumed positive intent by stoke here, not adverse motives. If I want to pay, then my choice. It wasn't capped at 500 at all. There were 500 50 quid memberships available (Plat+) and an infinite number of 30 quid (Plat) memberships available. It was a money making scam because the club misjudged just how many people would pay ridiculous prices to watch us lose at the likes of Manure, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City et al.
|
|