|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 10, 2014 12:13:22 GMT
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. Interesting. I hadn't spotted that. How anyone claiming to represent Stoke City supporters can claim to be in favour of rewarding cash over attendance is beyond me. I would love to hear the logic as to why they were in favour of it. |
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 10, 2014 12:17:24 GMT
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. I really do get it. I am not discussing any failure to consult the likes of you and me. I am discussing the concept of the precious metals scheme and how any right and fair minded supporter could be in favour of it, let alone one who sits on a council perporting to represent the interests of Stoke City supporters. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 10, 2014 12:26:52 GMT
Because of what the chair of the Council had said earlier in the thread Dave ...
Interesting. I hadn't spotted that. How anyone claiming to represent Stoke City supporters can claim to be in favour of rewarding cash over attendance is beyond me. I would love to hear the logic as to why they were in favour of it.
Yeah I agree with you on that Dave.
However you agree then that the vice-chair and the chair of the Council are giving out conflicting information here?
|
|
|
|
Post by fegghayze on May 10, 2014 13:52:41 GMT
Are you are saying that if a council member doesn't agree with your views on the memberships they shouldn't be on the council because of it? Feel sorry for the poor sods, thankless task enough without the ridicule they are getting on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by lexie on May 10, 2014 18:06:25 GMT
Well said fegghayze
|
|
|
|
Post by robinreliant on May 10, 2014 20:04:46 GMT
To quote Nev (off The Call Centre : BBC3) SWSWSWN
Some will
Some won't
So what ?
Next !
I think there are some posters being precious on both sides of this debate over memberships.
What worries me is that certain SC members are expressing their own views, under the guise of the majority of the supporters' view, without any formal balloting of the supporters.
When we (the supporters) query this, we are accused of knocking the SC rather than them accepting the facts that no consultation has occurred.
As a previous poster stated : how can anyone defend the removal of a scheme, when nobody's been asked about its removal ?
|
|
|
|
Post by potterglen on May 10, 2014 20:45:12 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? Hear hear. |
|
|
|
Post by miggo on May 11, 2014 12:30:28 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. Malcolm in response to your point about speaking to the supporter base what are you doing about reaching or gathering a higher percentage of feedback? Each individual member of the SC speaking to those that sit near them, the opinion of their friends or their individual twitter accounts is surely not seen as the view of the majority of supporters? So much more could be done so easily to attract the wider opinion it really could but from the sounds of it the SC are not interested and are happy with the status qou, other than to keep suggesting people stand against members of the SC that they are not happy with. I have given some consideration to standing for the SC this year if not for any other reasons than to try and improve the point I am trying to make, but at this point I would struggle to commit the time with working a 50hr week and having 2 young kids. I haven't completely ruled it out I just want you to know that I get how difficult it must be for you to find the time but I really do think that this should be something at the top of your agenda for next season. I fully Trust the council to raise individual topics that have been raised to them from one or two supporters that have encountered problems that the club may not be aware of but when it comes to big issues that effect all supporters such as the ones that have been discussed on this thread then the majority of fans MUST be heard. Sent from my C6603 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on May 12, 2014 10:33:54 GMT
[/quote]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.
[/quote]
Rubbish.
It could be argued it's very different or very similar depending on your point of view.
The bottom line is that you are paying extra monies for some kind of privelege whether it be better seats or first dibs on tickets.
The money from premium seats is chicken feed in comparison to the sky money.
The club asked for advice on away ticketing and the supporters council did not give a fuck for those had shelled out for this privelege for a number of years.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on May 12, 2014 11:15:16 GMT
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. [/quote] Rubbish. It could be argued it's very different or very similar depending on your point of view. The bottom line is that you are paying extra monies for some kind of privelege whether it be better seats or first dibs on tickets. The money from premium seats is chicken feed in comparison to the sky money. The club asked for advice on away ticketing and the supporters council did not give a fuck for those had shelled out for this privelege for a number of years.[/quote] And rightly so! :-) ;-)
Those who subscribed to that wholly repugnant scheme have no care for anyone other than their own self interest so why should the council display anything different to them?
Treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself and all that.
:-)Fuck knows what has happened to the quote option on this thread so I highlighted my response in bold text. The Premium Seat situation is absolutely nothing like the Precious metals scheme whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 12, 2014 11:21:47 GMT
I've met with the new guy from Customer Services this morning - Anthony Emmerson. I did ask him if he'd got a gas mask and a tin hat. He seems a nice young man, and because he's from Hartlepools and still supports them, he doesn't come here as a big-time-Charlie. He's a proper football lad just like ourselves. So give him a chance.
OS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 12, 2014 11:24:40 GMT
I've met with the new guy from Customer Services this morning - Anthony Emmerson. I did ask him if he'd got a gas mask and a tin hat. He seems a nice young man, and because he's from Hartlepools and still supports them, he doesn't come here as a big-time-Charlie. He's a proper football lad just like ourselves. So give him a chance. OS. You little tease, Mick. Are your season tickets sorted?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2014 11:48:59 GMT
I've met with the new guy from Customer Services this morning - Anthony Emmerson. I did ask him if he'd got a gas mask and a tin hat. He seems a nice young man, and because he's from Hartlepools and still supports them, he doesn't come here as a big-time-Charlie. He's a proper football lad just like ourselves. So give him a chance. OS. You little tease, Mick. Are your season tickets sorted? Yes, see Ted's thread (sorry for stealing your thunder OS) |
|
|
|
Post by mcf on May 12, 2014 12:37:43 GMT
everyone buys things out of self interest you fucking plum...otherwise why the fuck would they buy it?
for a fucking laugh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on May 13, 2014 8:05:37 GMT
I've met with the new guy from Customer Services this morning - Anthony Emmerson. I did ask him if he'd got a gas mask and a tin hat. He seems a nice young man, and because he's from Hartlepools and still supports them, he doesn't come here as a big-time-Charlie. He's a proper football lad just like ourselves. So give him a chance. OS. My FSF colleagues who dealt with him at his previous club, Middlesborough, give him a good reference  |
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 13, 2014 9:08:29 GMT
I've met with the new guy from Customer Services this morning - Anthony Emmerson. I did ask him if he'd got a gas mask and a tin hat. He seems a nice young man, and because he's from Hartlepools and still supports them, he doesn't come here as a big-time-Charlie. He's a proper football lad just like ourselves. So give him a chance. OS. My FSF colleagues who dealt with him at his previous club, Middlesborough, give him a good reference I hope he's a good judge at dick-measuring contests. If I was him, I'd have made sure it was set in stone that all precious metals were outside his remit. |
|
