|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 8, 2014 19:08:30 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.
Toon
Johnno is right mate, when the Platinum schemes were first announced, there was no mention whatsoever of ANYBODY getting a free membership for the first season they were introduced.
When the club saw the furore on here about it, they quickly back peddled and said that anybody who had been to over 70% of the away games the season before could have the first seasons membership for free.
It was an attempt to placate a lot of angry people, nothing more.
However where I disagree with Dave is, if the likes of Nick Mansfield, Scouse, Monica etc. would prefer to keep the scheme then I think their voices should be heard.
In my opinion the council should have canvassed the people who go away most often before discussing it with the club.
As it is, maybe most regular away attendees would prefer for priority to be based on attendance, I don't know but I think it would have been prudent for the Council to find out first.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 8, 2014 19:11:17 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.
Toon
Johnno is right mate, when the Platinum schemes were first announced, there was no mention whatsoever of ANYBODY getting a free membership for the first season they were introduced.
When the club saw the furore on here about it, they quickly back peddled and said that anybody who had been to over 70% of the away games the season before could have the first seasons membership for free.
It was an attempt to placate a lot of angry people, nothing more.
However where I disagree with Dave is, if the likes of Nick Mansfield, Scouse, Monica etc. would prefer to keep the scheme then I think their voices should be heard.
In my opinion the council should have canvassed the people who go away most often before discussing it with the club.
As it is, maybe most regular away attendees would prefer for priority to be based on attendance, I don't know but I think it would have been prudent for the Council to find out first.
Correct. It is about the sc speaking to the supporters not about if the plat card was good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by toonstokey on May 8, 2014 19:11:32 GMT
Only referring to plat plus here, that's why it was called the 500 club, and we got a letter from the club recognising this achievement. Fifty quid only came in during the second year.
Won at spurs though, whelan get in!
Can't think of many other clubs who would have rewarded loyalty in this way.
You missed a great night at the Brit with fuller and high when the 500 club packs were awarded.
Shame
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 8, 2014 19:17:27 GMT
Only referring to plat plus here, that's why it was called the 500 club, and we got a letter from the club recognising this achievement. Fifty quid only came in during the second year. Won at spurs though, whelan get in! Can't think of many other clubs who would have rewarded loyalty in this way. You missed a great night at the Brit with fuller and high when the 500 club packs were awarded. Shame
There was plenty of Platinum + memberships that were sold to people who weren't regular attendees, the 70% cut off point meant that there were memberships available for people to buy - they weren't all giveaways.
It then became a completely closed shop, you couldn't buy a Platinum + in the following seasons unless you had had one in the first or second seasons.
Ergo people who went away regularly in the following seasons didn't get rewarded for their loyalty and ended up being behind people in the queue who hardly ever went but had paid for Platinum + in the first or second seasons.
Do you think that's fair and that the closed shop should be continued with?
|
|
|
Post by robinreliant on May 8, 2014 19:17:30 GMT
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. A satirist eh ? Have I got news for you Malcolm ! ???? Whilst I honestly appreciate the time and effort that the Chair, Vice Chair and other SC members make on the grassroots supporters behalf, I also think the under-performing SC members are not without criticism. As Malcolm volunteered, there has been (and still may be) SC members who have been elected (unopposed) and never attended an SC meeting ! In my humble opinion, people stand for election for many and varied reasons; fortunately most do it for the greater good, but some have their own agenda, which can be as much about social standing as being charitable; that's the basis for my thinly-veiled comments and I don't accept your assertion that they're "entirely inappropriate"; perhaps we'll have to agree to differ on this subject, without either of us being overly precious ? This thread has had a really positive outcome of proving the worth of a common line of communication, between SC and fans, and hopefully raised the understanding of the difficulties the SC faces in encouraging a change in attitude between club and fans ?
|
|
|
Post by toonstokey on May 8, 2014 19:21:28 GMT
Still a brilliant initiative though, agree with your comments on consultation.
Let's see how the priority arrangements go for next season, and it should work out. Perhaps gold for 15 to 19 games attended, silver for 8 plus and so on.
Will remain curious!
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 8, 2014 19:35:18 GMT
?I see the whole Platinum Ponce issue as a bit like 1970s racist sit coms. You don't need a plebiscite to get rid, eventually common decency and fairness make keeping it untenable. The truth is, it didn't make the club that much money, it stunk with unpopularity and even a dolt like Scholes realised that after three series of Love thy Neighbour he had to make the Young Ones. The supporters council's influence appears to me to non existent.
|
|
|
Post by toonstokey on May 8, 2014 19:44:33 GMT
How do you know it stunk with unpopularity with the 500 club? I doubt it somehow. The 500 who were awarded based upon fairness through attendance history.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 8, 2014 19:51:20 GMT
How do you know it stunk with unpopularity with the 500 club? I doubt it somehow. The 500 who were awarded based upon fairness through attendance history. You mean the 'buy off'. Well yet again he who dances with the devil.... I wish to withdraw my remarks anyway as I love Windsor Davies in 'It ain't half hot mum' so the whole analogy is now sullied. Make it officers and Punkawallahs as it should be eh?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 8, 2014 19:54:41 GMT
How do you know it stunk with unpopularity with the 500 club? I doubt it somehow. The 500 who were awarded based upon fairness through attendance history. You are either a wind up merchant, suffering from severe memory loss or just plain stupid. Of the initial 500 Plat+ cards that were allocated, only 270 odd were given free to those who had attended the requisite percentage of away games the season before and even then it was done to placate people who, at the time, were raging.
|
|
|
Post by toonstokey on May 8, 2014 20:22:36 GMT
None of the above but one of the 270 who wasn't raging but was chuffed at the gesture. Didn't see many raging at the award evening at the time of the 270 being awarded, guess we were dancing with the devil.
|
|
|
Post by miggo on May 9, 2014 9:15:42 GMT
Just to get back on topic, the last 4/5 pages of debating plat/plat+ shows that this was an important issue that some have an opinion on and the fact the council did not consult the fans they claim represent is causing friction.
If the SC are to continue representing with any credibility they must work on engaging the supporter base or they could end up doing more harm than good.
I'm not sure if this will be possible as malcolm and Ang have both stated they do not have the time to do more, maybe when elections run they could look for some one specifically who has the time and technical know how to be able to engage the general supporter base or maybe look to someone to work as an Admin for their existing facebook/twitter accounts I don't know how realistic this is.
The council have a thankless task and are never going to please everyone and I applaud the fact that they give up their own time to do what they do but without speaking to the supporter base is anything they do worth the time as they will continually be under scrutiny, open to critisism and treated with suspicion.
Part of me also agrees that the club will do what they want regardless like the removal of the 4 month option on St's but that is then up to the council to outline their objective regarding this, do they allow the club to make decisions and then feedback the supporters views either positive or negative or do they work hand in hand with the club to try and resolve issues that supporters have raised.
Sent from my C6603 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on May 9, 2014 17:33:58 GMT
What exactly have the Supporters Council done? Aired a few suggestion but very little has been positively received by the club. I have suggested that the away supporters be moved away from the tunnel on numerous occasions but the Chair hasn't put it too the club and not even considered doing so. The issue of Season Ticket payment options should have been bought up months before the club made the decision, as it is there is zero input from supporters and I wonder if the Supporters Council has been created by the club to appease the FA. Wonder if its dissolution would make any difference?
|
|
|
Post by scfcsc on May 9, 2014 18:10:06 GMT
We read threads on the Oatcake on a daily basis and ensure that the club is aware of the points made on this forum. If you want to ensure that an item is considered by the club, please e mail it to chair@scfcsc.co.uk
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 9, 2014 18:16:36 GMT
Not a lot of point if the supporters are not going to be consulted on big issues.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 9, 2014 19:49:52 GMT
What exactly have the Supporters Council done? Aired a few suggestion but very little has been positively received by the club. I have suggested that the away supporters be moved away from the tunnel on numerous occasions but the Chair hasn't put it too the club and not even considered doing so. The issue of Season Ticket payment options should have been bought up months before the club made the decision, as it is there is zero input from supporters and I wonder if the Supporters Council has been created by the club to appease the FA. Wonder if its dissolution would make any difference? It most certainly hasn't been created by the Club to appeaser the FA, who have no view on these things. I think it was created because its predecessor, the Fans Forum, had fallen into disrepair, to put in kindly, and there was (and I think still is) a genuine desire by the Club to hear the views of supporters. I wrote the constitution, which was accepted by the Club with very few changes. It is distinctive in that, unlike at many clubs, it is entirely democratic in nature, with no 'selection' involvement by the Club. I simply don't think it's true that little has been positively received by the Club - I gave the example of ticketing issues on another thread which has been quoted on here somewhere, and there are others. Of course, there have been problems, issues and failings, on all sides. From my point of view, one of them has been the number of uncontested elections and the very low turnout by the voters. But IMHO that doesn't mean that it's not worth doing. You, the fans, will have a chance to stand and to vote at the next round of elections in a few weeks time. It is a body without any formal power which is trying to assist, inform, influence and persuade the Club. That requires a particular style of doing business. Reasoned debate and discussion on here and elsewhere as a contribution to that is excellent. But I don't mind saying quite openly that, in my personal view, personalised (and sometimes foul mouthed) abuse directed at the Club CEO in particular, and even attacks on the elected Council members does not help that process.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 9, 2014 20:01:32 GMT
Just to get back on topic, the last 4/5 pages of debating plat/plat+ shows that this was an important issue that some have an opinion on and the fact the council did not consult the fans they claim represent is causing friction. If the SC are to continue representing with any credibility they must work on engaging the supporter base or they could end up doing more harm than good. I'm not sure if this will be possible as malcolm and Ang have both stated they do not have the time to do more, maybe when elections run they could look for some one specifically who has the time and technical know how to be able to engage the general supporter base or maybe look to someone to work as an Admin for their existing facebook/twitter accounts I don't know how realistic this is. The council have a thankless task and are never going to please everyone and I applaud the fact that they give up their own time to do what they do but without speaking to the supporter base is anything they do worth the time as they will continually be under scrutiny, open to critisism and treated with suspicion. Part of me also agrees that the club will do what they want regardless like the removal of the 4 month option on St's but that is then up to the council to outline their objective regarding this, do they allow the club to make decisions and then feedback the supporters views either positive or negative or do they work hand in hand with the club to try and resolve issues that supporters have raised. Sent from my C6603 using proboards I don't think it is true to say the Council members do not speak to the supporter base. Some no doubt do it in different ways and more effectively than others - that's the way of the world, but I know that many council members do try to do so, in their own stands and by other methods, including Twitter etc. I certainly do, and the views obtained are not always consistent with some of the views which are strongly expressed on here. The council was deliberately established with a relatively large membership to increase the chances of getting a full cross-section of views and input. There have been failings on all sides, no doubt about that, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing - if you can find people to do it. My biggest fear about the tone and content of some of the debate is that many supporters who might be able to do a good job, will (understandably) take the view that they wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on May 9, 2014 20:19:56 GMT
Just to get back on topic, the last 4/5 pages of debating plat/plat+ shows that this was an important issue that some have an opinion on and the fact the council did not consult the fans they claim represent is causing friction. If the SC are to continue representing with any credibility they must work on engaging the supporter base or they could end up doing more harm than good. I'm not sure if this will be possible as malcolm and Ang have both stated they do not have the time to do more, maybe when elections run they could look for some one specifically who has the time and technical know how to be able to engage the general supporter base or maybe look to someone to work as an Admin for their existing facebook/twitter accounts I don't know how realistic this is. The council have a thankless task and are never going to please everyone and I applaud the fact that they give up their own time to do what they do but without speaking to the supporter base is anything they do worth the time as they will continually be under scrutiny, open to critisism and treated with suspicion. Part of me also agrees that the club will do what they want regardless like the removal of the 4 month option on St's but that is then up to the council to outline their objective regarding this, do they allow the club to make decisions and then feedback the supporters views either positive or negative or do they work hand in hand with the club to try and resolve issues that supporters have raised. Sent from my C6603 using proboards My biggest fear about the tone and content of some of the debate is that many supporters who might be able to do a good job, will (understandably) take the view that they wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. That would be a small price to pay for the undeniable fact that via this message board of late, the Supporters Council has received more attention and interest than it has in all of its history to date. The messages may not always be to taste or complimentary but at least it has been lifted from the complete obscurity it was wallowing in. If the message that is coming across is critical surely the answer is not to be defensive or upset about it but to take it on board and change it?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 9, 2014 20:36:47 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? I agree with this. As I have said in another post, because there wasn't a full plebiscite/referendum of all supporters on this issue, doesn't mean that Council members were not trying to guage the opinion of supporters on this issue. Such a referendum could in any case only be run by the Club not the Council - because they hold the database, and it would have to include all supporters, not just those in P+ because it affects all supporters. If some fans are in the top group, others are by definition, pushed lower down, and therefore affected. My personal opinion is that such a referendum was neither practicable or necessary. The council comprises quite a large cross section of supporters from different locations and categories and not a single Council member questioned our sub-group recommendation that away ticket priority should be based on ticket purchasing history not willingess/ability to buy your way into the top priority category. I'm surprised that's even contentious (if it is). That's the way the club used to do it, until someone who is now leaving the club introduced a new membership system without any consultation with supporters. This may sound semantic, but we didn't actually recommend the abolition of P+ as such. What we recommended was the above principle about away ticket allocation. The club could still have kept such a membership category with other benefits, gala evenings or whatever. We were only looking at ticket allocation principles. For the record, I am a P+ member, and can afford to buy it, so if, next season, god forbid, because of illness, or some other as yet unforseen reason, I have to reduce my current near 100% away attendance record, I could lose my place in the top category. So my recommendation certainly wasn't based on any self-interest.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 9, 2014 20:43:35 GMT
My biggest fear about the tone and content of some of the debate is that many supporters who might be able to do a good job, will (understandably) take the view that they wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. That would be a small price to pay for the undeniable fact that via this message board of late, the Supporters Council has received more attention and interest than it has in all of its history to date. The messages may not always be to taste or complimentary but at least it has been lifted from the complete obscurity it was wallowing in. If the message that is coming across is critical surely the answer is not to be defensive or upset about it but to take it on board and change it? I agree that it is giving the Council some much-needed attention,Mark, but I don't agree that it would be a small price to pay. My concerns are more about the tone and language of (some) posters rather than substantive content on the issues. When people are doing their best, for no reward, even if that is not as good as it could be or that others could do it, it's only human nature for those without thick skins to get upset, and likely that others will say they just don't want to go there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 21:40:56 GMT
We read threads on the Oatcake on a daily basis and ensure that the club is aware of the points made on this forum. If you want to ensure that an item is considered by the club, please e mail it to chair@scfcsc.co.uk Certainly did a great job in bringing up the predicament my daughter found herself in. Sort it myself.
|
|
|
Post by butler64 on May 9, 2014 22:08:59 GMT
I am not on the Supporters Council nor do I personally know any of the representatives, but Malcolm does raise a very valid point on here. Being on any Council/Board or Committee in an unpaid voluntary capacity is a thankless task as it is and I can see that some members are going to get upset about some of the tone and langauage of some of the messages.
I personally think that having a body of this type is very useful. Of course not everyone will agree with the way in which it operates or the decisions that are made. However, anyone has the opportunity to stand for election to it and if individuals want to make a difference then why not go ahead and stand for election?
It is extremely easy to be critical and negative of any body or committee type function but it is far more difficult to actually make a positive difference and volunteer your own time. I know that there is absolutely no way that I would have time to be an active member, but having seen some of the comments on this board I'd certainly think twice about volunteering to be a member even if I did have the time to devote to it.
What this particular thread has demonstrated are that there are a lot of passionate individuals that care about their club and it has raised the profile of the Council. That can only be a good thing. I am sure that if the Council was disbanded due to a lack of willing volunteers that there would be a lot of posters that would also complain about that.
Cheers
GB
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 22:22:33 GMT
I am not on the Supporters Council nor do I personally know any of the representatives, but Malcolm does raise a very valid point on here. Being on any Council/Board or Committee in an unpaid voluntary capacity is a thankless task as it is and I can see that some members are going to get upset about some of the tone and langauage of some of the messages. I personally think that having a body of this type is very useful. Of course not everyone will agree with the way in which it operates or the decisions that are made. However, anyone has the opportunity to stand for election to it and if individuals want to make a difference then why not go ahead and stand for election? It is extremely easy to be critical and negative of any body or committee type function but it is far more difficult to actually make a positive difference and volunteer your own time. I know that there is absolutely no way that I would have time to be an active member, but having seen some of the comments on this board I'd certainly think twice about volunteering to be a member even if I did have the time to devote to it. What this particular thread has demonstrated are that there are a lot of passionate individuals that care about their club and it has raised the profile of the Council. That can only be a good thing. I am sure that if the Council was disbanded due to a lack of willing volunteers that there would be a lot of posters that would also complain about that. Cheers GB They'd have no grounds to complain if there were no willing volunteers, by definition they will not have volunteered themselves, you'd have to assume. I wouldn't do it if I had all of the time in the world, because I suspect that the club are interested in getting the SC's approval for things that the club wants to do; then paying lip-service to the things that the SC raise, that aren't on the club's own agenda. I haven't picked it up, or may have missed it through reading this thread; but do the SC feel that being on that committee is a 'thankless task' only in terms of what supporters (for example on here) are saying, or also in terms of the way that the club views them, and what they represent?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 9, 2014 22:24:25 GMT
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. A satirist eh ? Have I got news for you Malcolm ! ???? Whilst I honestly appreciate the time and effort that the Chair, Vice Chair and other SC members make on the grassroots supporters behalf, I also think the under-performing SC members are not without criticism. As Malcolm volunteered, there has been (and still may be) SC members who have been elected (unopposed) and never attended an SC meeting ! In my humble opinion, people stand for election for many and varied reasons; fortunately most do it for the greater good, but some have their own agenda, which can be as much about social standing as being charitable; that's the basis for my thinly-veiled comments and I don't accept your assertion that they're "entirely inappropriate"; perhaps we'll have to agree to differ on this subject, without either of us being overly precious ? This thread has had a really positive outcome of proving the worth of a common line of communication, between SC and fans, and hopefully raised the understanding of the difficulties the SC faces in encouraging a change in attitude between club and fans ? What I meant was inappropriate, Robin, was you bringing the occupation of an individual's spouse, and the foreign derivation of her surname, into it. I think, as a matter of important principle, that those things are irrelevant. Any supporter is entitled to stand for the council and should be judged on their own merits and performance, not those factors. Also, I don't see how there can ever be any implied criticism of any candidate for the fact they turn out to be unopposed - something over which they have no control whatsoever. As a result of someone being on the Council, no doubt some Club officials will form views on them - probably some good some not so good and those views may not be the same. I'm not sure that the expression "social standing within the Club" has any real meaning. Certainly, as these threads amply demonstrate, it's unlikely to increase your standing among supporters, rather the reverse I would think.
|
|
|
Post by butler64 on May 9, 2014 22:30:30 GMT
I am not on the Supporters Council nor do I personally know any of the representatives, but Malcolm does raise a very valid point on here. Being on any Council/Board or Committee in an unpaid voluntary capacity is a thankless task as it is and I can see that some members are going to get upset about some of the tone and langauage of some of the messages. I personally think that having a body of this type is very useful. Of course not everyone will agree with the way in which it operates or the decisions that are made. However, anyone has the opportunity to stand for election to it and if individuals want to make a difference then why not go ahead and stand for election? It is extremely easy to be critical and negative of any body or committee type function but it is far more difficult to actually make a positive difference and volunteer your own time. I know that there is absolutely no way that I would have time to be an active member, but having seen some of the comments on this board I'd certainly think twice about volunteering to be a member even if I did have the time to devote to it. What this particular thread has demonstrated are that there are a lot of passionate individuals that care about their club and it has raised the profile of the Council. That can only be a good thing. I am sure that if the Council was disbanded due to a lack of willing volunteers that there would be a lot of posters that would also complain about that. Cheers GB They'd have no grounds to complain if there were no willing volunteers, by definition they will not have volunteered themselves, you'd have to assume. I wouldn't do it if I had all of the time in the world, because I suspect that the club are interested in getting the SC's approval for things that the club wants to do; then paying lip-service to the things that the SC raise, that aren't on the club's own agenda. I haven't picked it up, or may have missed it through reading this thread; but do the SC feel that being on that committee is a 'thankless task' only in terms of what supporters (for example on here) are saying, or also in terms of the way that the club views them, and what they represent? Hi CBL The "thankless task" reference is my wording. I don't think I have ever seen a Supporters Council member say this on this Board. I was trying to express an opinion that I could well understand if they felt like this based on the tone and content of some messages. It's also a perception that I have based on my experience of being on various other voluntary Committees. Cheers GB
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 10, 2014 9:40:55 GMT
The council comprises quite a large cross section of supporters from different locations and categories and not a single Council member questioned our sub-group recommendation that away ticket priority should be based on ticket purchasing history not willingess/ability to buy your way into the top priority category.
So not one single Council member was in favour of the schemes then Malcolm?
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 10, 2014 11:47:05 GMT
And a positive note about the SC, and Malcolm in particular (and I suspect the Squirrel Eater from The Lakes may have had something to do with it), although, personally I wouldn't take the call because I'm a reet bolshie bastard when somebody has ruffled my feathers, my lad eventually returned a phone call from the club to apologise for the treatment dished out to me. I now have a meeting at the club for 10am on Monday to receive both a verbal and written apology for what has gone on this season regarding my situation as a disabled supporter.
So thanks to all concerned.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 10, 2014 11:49:13 GMT
The council comprises quite a large cross section of supporters from different locations and categories and not a single Council member questioned our sub-group recommendation that away ticket priority should be based on ticket purchasing history not willingess/ability to buy your way into the top priority category.
So not one single Council member was in favour of the schemes then Malcolm?
Why would they be Paul? It is an assunption on my part but I would say that those on the SC absolutely love the club and would have the interests of any fair minded Stokie at heart. Given they are most likely of this nature, why would any fair minded Stokie be in favour of a scheme that rewards cash rather than attendance? Even if they are members of the scheme themselves, as Malcolm Clarke admits to being, they would surely appreciate just what an abhorrant and unair scheme it was/is.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 10, 2014 12:04:43 GMT
So not one single Council member was in favour of the schemes then Malcolm?
Why would they be Paul? It is an assunption on my part but I would say that those on the SC absolutely love the club and would have the interests of any fair minded Stokie at heart. Given they are most likely of this nature, why would any fair minded Stokie be in favour of a scheme that rewards cash rather than attendance? Even if they are members of the scheme themselves, as Malcolm Clarke admits to being, they would surely appreciate just what an abhorrant and unair scheme it was/is.
Because of what the chair of the Council had said earlier in the thread Dave ...
Lakeland the Council did not instigate the change of memberships. As you stated , some were for them, some against.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on May 10, 2014 12:11:33 GMT
So not one single Council member was in favour of the schemes then Malcolm?
Why would they be Paul? It is an assunption on my part but I would say that those on the SC absolutely love the club and would have the interests of any fair minded Stokie at heart. Given they are most likely of this nature, why would any fair minded Stokie be in favour of a scheme that rewards cash rather than attendance? Even if they are members of the scheme themselves, as Malcolm Clarke admits to being, they would surely appreciate just what an abhorrant and unair scheme it was/is. You really don't get it or you just don't want to. It is not about if they got the decision right or wrong it is about 10-15 people making a decision on such a big issue on behalf of 25,000 supporters. I accept the fact that maybe not all supporters could be contacted but the club must have an email address for 80-90% of supporters then you have the other platforms like here, twitter and Facebook. They could have got a wider opinion before making a judgment. It is not just this issue either. What about season ticket prices, payment methods and any other MAJOR decision involving all supporters. I am not trying to slate the sc because obviously it can be a good thing, I just think they should consult all the supporters that they are there to represent.
|
|