|
Post by skip on Feb 11, 2016 22:31:20 GMT
Stokie jihad Stokie jihad!
|
|
|
Post by parttimelurker on Feb 11, 2016 23:13:34 GMT
I think that the ST prices should stay the same. But throw in the cup matches.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Feb 12, 2016 4:05:04 GMT
It would make much more sense to decrease the players wages.
I wouldn't be overly bothered if the cheapest adult season tickets increased to £20 per game.
The individual match day tickets are far too expensive and as for having different categories and differing prices for the league games, it amounts to discrimination.
The rules should be changed. Allow the home team to charge visitors exactly what they charge for visiting them. Then when all the ManUre fans start complaining ticketing costs would be discussed at a more senior level.
And once we start to see organised protests at televised games, then the money men, SKY, BT, will become involved
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Feb 12, 2016 10:06:38 GMT
I wouldn't be overly bothered if the cheapest adult season tickets increased to £20 per game. And that's why clubs will never give in to the twenty's plenty campaign. Because fans are a pushover. Even though you know that the club is about to get a huge increase of TV media money you'd still be happy if they put the price of tickets up ???? The mind boggles.
|
|
|
Post by scfcmacca on Feb 12, 2016 11:35:28 GMT
If every season ticket was £20 per game and we sold 20,000 each season that's 7.6 mil in season tickets.
It's not even a dent in the arse pocket of the owners, they could easily charge £10 per game.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Feb 12, 2016 17:23:54 GMT
I wouldn't be overly bothered if the cheapest adult season tickets increased to £20 per game. And that's why clubs will never give in to the twenty's plenty campaign. Because fans are a pushover. Even though you know that the club is about to get a huge increase of TV media money you'd still be happy if they put the price of tickets up ???? The mind boggles. As small increase in our season ticket of a £1 per game or whatever it would work out at and NO I WOULD NOT BE OVERLY BOTHERED and a big decrease in the cost of individual match day tickets is also what I posted amongst others but you have only quoted a part of what I posted, Are you a politician?
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Feb 12, 2016 17:31:59 GMT
I wouldn't be overly bothered if the cheapest adult season tickets increased to £20 per game. And that's why clubs will never give in to the twenty's plenty campaign. Because fans are a pushover. Even though you know that the club is about to get a huge increase of TV media money you'd still be happy if they put the price of tickets up ???? The mind boggles. It would make much more sense to decrease the players wages. I wouldn't be overly bothered if the cheapest adult season tickets increased to £20 per game. The individual match day tickets are far too expensive and as for having different categories and differing prices for the league games, it amounts to discrimination. The rules should be changed. Allow the home team to charge visitors exactly what they charge for visiting them. Then when all the ManUre fans start complaining ticketing costs would be discussed at a more senior level. And once we start to see organised protests at televised games, then the money men, SKY, BT, will become involved
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 12, 2016 19:52:10 GMT
Those infamous meeting minutes once more: www.stokecityfc.com/news/article/supporters-council-meeting-minutes-2115727.aspxAlan Clarke said that it would be "financial suicide to keep the prices the same", Andrew Copestick "agreed" with Alan, Roger Bennett "feels that an increase is justified", Joe Haynes says the Club "could warrant a ... price increase", John Slaney agreed with the other's views. Ladies & Gentlemen, these are the people that represent you to the hierarchy of your Football Club!! FFS. Not long after this meeting was held on 22nd November 2014 wasn't it announced that Stoke City were the 30th richest football club in the entire world. Stoke City Supporters Council representing your average Stoke City fan...or not as the case maybe. The club could save the price of a couple of packets of Hob Nobs by abolishing this meaningless talking shop..... Abolishing the Council would be very much the wrong way to go, just at the time when we are pressing nationally for a requirement for clubs to have to have proper fan engagement structures in place. In fact, the Stoke Council is a very good model, because it's entirely democratic ( I know because I wrote it ). Some clubs have fans structures where the club chooses the fans In others they have elections, but the club has a role in choosing who is on the ballot paper. The Stoke Council is only composed of fans who have been elected by supporters in either the general or the specialist seats, and a small number appointed by democratically structured supporters organisations. Nobody appoints themselves to the Council. The disappointing thing for me has been a relative low number of candidates putting themselves forward for some seats, with some unopposed candidates and some unfilled seats, and a low turnout in the elections. But that is most certainly not the fault of the people who have put themselves forward for election. There is an old adage that in a democracy the people get the elected representatives they deserve. If, for whatever reason, some fans think that they are not being properly or competently represented, the answer when the annual elections come round ( which will be soon) is to either stand themselves or find candidates to stand who they think are better and vote for them. Just complaining on a message Board achieves nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 12, 2016 20:13:50 GMT
The club could save the price of a couple of packets of Hob Nobs by abolishing this meaningless talking shop..... Abolishing the Council would be very much the wrong way to go, just at the time when we are pressing nationally for a requirement for clubs to have to have proper fan engagement structures in place. In fact, the Stoke Council is a very good model, because it's entirely democratic ( I know because I wrote it ). Some clubs have fans structures where the club chooses the fans In others they have elections, but the club has a role in choosing who is on the ballot paper. The Stoke Council is only composed of fans who have been elected by supporters in either the general or the specialist seats, and a small number appointed by democratically structured supporters organisations. Nobody appoints themselves to the Council. The disappointing thing for me has been a relative low number of candidates putting themselves forward for some seats, with some unopposed candidates and some unfilled seats, and a low turnout in the elections. But that is most certainly not the fault of the people who have put themselves forward for election. There is an old adage that in a democracy the people get the elected representatives they deserve. If, for whatever reason, some fans think that they are not being properly or competently represented, the answer when the annual elections come round ( which will be soon) is to either stand themselves or find candidates to stand who they think are better and vote for them. Just complaining on a message Board achieves nothing. Much like the supporters council!
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Feb 12, 2016 20:19:13 GMT
Oddly enough, I don't think you can just apply the same kind of cap to the other leagues. For them, the proportion of their total income from gate receipts is far higher than it is for Prem teams. You are forgetting the suggestion in line 2 that "shared gate receipts across all 4 divisions is the way forward". Interestingly, when I was a lad (in the 50s and 60s) a percentage of gate receipts WERE shared with the away club and it meant a much more level playing field than we have now. The suggestion of sharing receipts "across the divisions" is radical but would go a big way towards helping the lower league clubs to survive. What's this Pinko talk!?!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 20:42:31 GMT
The club could save the price of a couple of packets of Hob Nobs by abolishing this meaningless talking shop..... Abolishing the Council would be very much the wrong way to go, just at the time when we are pressing nationally for a requirement for clubs to have to have proper fan engagement structures in place. In fact, the Stoke Council is a very good model, because it's entirely democratic ( I know because I wrote it ). Some clubs have fans structures where the club chooses the fans In others they have elections, but the club has a role in choosing who is on the ballot paper. The Stoke Council is only composed of fans who have been elected by supporters in either the general or the specialist seats, and a small number appointed by democratically structured supporters organisations. Nobody appoints themselves to the Council. The disappointing thing for me has been a relative low number of candidates putting themselves forward for some seats, with some unopposed candidates and some unfilled seats, and a low turnout in the elections. But that is most certainly not the fault of the people who have put themselves forward for election. There is an old adage that in a democracy the people get the elected representatives they deserve. If, for whatever reason, some fans think that they are not being properly or competently represented, the answer when the annual elections come round ( which will be soon) is to either stand themselves or find candidates to stand who they think are better and vote for them. Just complaining on a message Board achieves nothing. Give me a few examples of what it's achieved then Malcolm? Genuinely I haven't got a clue?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 12, 2016 21:02:47 GMT
Still can't get my head round this. There was literally no financial justification for raising the prices. Baffling that some members of this 'supporters council' were seemingly unaware of how much money from tv rights the club makes The last time I was moved/bored enough to look at the Supporter Council minutes Clarke was still an active member much to the eternal shame of the group. I stopped checking on the members list when I saw Ilford Dave had been incorporated - after he failed to get enough votes to be elected on in the first place. A bloke who runs a Twitter account taking the piss out of Stoke supporters by the way. See The Oatcake Meltdown and reconcile yourself with the fact that the SC are happy to have him representing you. Mind you last time I checked he was agitating over the major issue of the music being too loud for his sensitive ears. I suppose every individual and group finds its natural level. If you look at the set of minutes to which you refer, Mark, when David Richards refers to the loudness of the tannoy (Dec 15 - the last set on the website), Alan Clarke is neither present nor sent his apologies, and the same was true for the previous set. I believe he came off the council last summer. But in any case, it wouldn't be to the shame of the group that he was still on, would it ? - if it's to the shame of anybody it could only be to the shame of the electorate who put him there. Once elected, the only way someone can come off is if they resign; don't stand again at the end of their 2-year term, or do stand but are not be elected. David Richards wasn't "incorporated", he was elected unopposed, having stood unsuccessfully in a contested election 2 years previously. Again, it's not a question of the SC being "happy" for him or anyone else to represent you, it's a question of who stands, and who the electorate elects - either explicitly or by default if candidates are returned unopposed. I disagree very strongly with the comments Alan Clarke made about price increases and, when I was on the Council I sometimes disagreed with him ( and other members) on other things. That happens in any elected organisation. But the other members of the Council have no control on who else is elected, or what they say when they get there. The list of Council members on the club website hasn't been updated since the last election - because it still includes some members whose departure is recorded in the minutes. The photographs are even worse, because they've still got mine up there and it's nearly two years since I left the Council.
|
|
|
Post by no1972 on Feb 12, 2016 21:10:23 GMT
I honestly wouldn't renew if they put up the prices. I'm actually thinking of not renewing next year anyway, but that would definitely confirm it. Any reason why you are thinking of not renewing.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 12, 2016 21:19:31 GMT
Abolishing the Council would be very much the wrong way to go, just at the time when we are pressing nationally for a requirement for clubs to have to have proper fan engagement structures in place. In fact, the Stoke Council is a very good model, because it's entirely democratic ( I know because I wrote it ). Some clubs have fans structures where the club chooses the fans In others they have elections, but the club has a role in choosing who is on the ballot paper. The Stoke Council is only composed of fans who have been elected by supporters in either the general or the specialist seats, and a small number appointed by democratically structured supporters organisations. Nobody appoints themselves to the Council. The disappointing thing for me has been a relative low number of candidates putting themselves forward for some seats, with some unopposed candidates and some unfilled seats, and a low turnout in the elections. But that is most certainly not the fault of the people who have put themselves forward for election. There is an old adage that in a democracy the people get the elected representatives they deserve. If, for whatever reason, some fans think that they are not being properly or competently represented, the answer when the annual elections come round ( which will be soon) is to either stand themselves or find candidates to stand who they think are better and vote for them. Just complaining on a message Board achieves nothing. Give me a few examples of what it's achieved then. Malcolm? Genuinely I haven't got a clue? I haven't been on it for a couple of years, but when I was, to take just one example, we devised a new system for away ticket priority which the club largely accepted, abolishing the old platinum plus etc system. I think the council did some things well, others not so well. Had I been on the Council at the infamous pricing discussion, you can rest assured I would have strongly disagreed with my namesake, as some Council members did. But my point is not particularly to defend the performance of the Council, but to say that it's only as strong and effective as the quality of its members, and ultimately, that's down to the electorate - i.e all of us. Getting rid of it and leaving nowhere where issues can be raised with the club isn't the answer in my view.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Feb 12, 2016 21:25:15 GMT
The club could save the price of a couple of packets of Hob Nobs by abolishing this meaningless talking shop..... Abolishing the Council would be very much the wrong way to go, just at the time when we are pressing nationally for a requirement for clubs to have to have proper fan engagement structures in place. In fact, the Stoke Council is a very good model, because it's entirely democratic ( I know because I wrote it ). Some clubs have fans structures where the club chooses the fans In others they have elections, but the club has a role in choosing who is on the ballot paper. The Stoke Council is only composed of fans who have been elected by supporters in either the general or the specialist seats, and a small number appointed by democratically structured supporters organisations. Nobody appoints themselves to the Council. The disappointing thing for me has been a relative low number of candidates putting themselves forward for some seats, with some unopposed candidates and some unfilled seats, and a low turnout in the elections. But that is most certainly not the fault of the people who have put themselves forward for election. There is an old adage that in a democracy the people get the elected representatives they deserve. If, for whatever reason, some fans think that they are not being properly or competently represented, the answer when the annual elections come round ( which will be soon) is to either stand themselves or find candidates to stand who they think are better and vote for them. Just complaining on a message Board achieves nothing. Malcolm, I don't think there is anything to argue with there - you make excellent points. You mention those appointed as a part of 'supporters organisations'. Surely the biggest organisation is this message board. Therefore, should there not be 2 or 3 representatives from the Oatcake. We've had plenty of online polls and it can't be beyond our combined ingenuity to democratically elect some folk to represent us.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 12, 2016 21:26:07 GMT
You only have to read this forum to see dozen's of people begging the club to increase ticket prices. It's pathetic. Thankfully Mr.Coates is a sensible man & ignores the bellends. Dozens? I haven't seen one tbhn When you say dozens do you mean two?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 12, 2016 21:45:23 GMT
Abolishing the Council would be very much the wrong way to go, just at the time when we are pressing nationally for a requirement for clubs to have to have proper fan engagement structures in place. In fact, the Stoke Council is a very good model, because it's entirely democratic ( I know because I wrote it ). Some clubs have fans structures where the club chooses the fans In others they have elections, but the club has a role in choosing who is on the ballot paper. The Stoke Council is only composed of fans who have been elected by supporters in either the general or the specialist seats, and a small number appointed by democratically structured supporters organisations. Nobody appoints themselves to the Council. The disappointing thing for me has been a relative low number of candidates putting themselves forward for some seats, with some unopposed candidates and some unfilled seats, and a low turnout in the elections. But that is most certainly not the fault of the people who have put themselves forward for election. There is an old adage that in a democracy the people get the elected representatives they deserve. If, for whatever reason, some fans think that they are not being properly or competently represented, the answer when the annual elections come round ( which will be soon) is to either stand themselves or find candidates to stand who they think are better and vote for them. Just complaining on a message Board achieves nothing. Malcolm, I don't think there is anything to argue with there - you make excellent points. You mention those appointed as a part of 'supporters organisations'. Surely the biggest organisation is this message board. Therefore, should there not be 2 or 3 representatives from the Oatcake. We've had plenty of online polls and it can't be beyond our combined ingenuity to democratically elect some folk to represent us. Well it's an interesting thought. The requirement at present is that the supporters organisations must be democratic. I suppose the question is how do make a message Board democratic i.e how would you elect the representatives including ensuring that people can't cast multiple votes etc etc and how would you hold them to account for what they do ? Personally, I'm in favour of looking at innovative ways of recognising the role and potential of social media, but it has be translated into workable democratic rules. The other approach of course would be for those who might stand for such a position to stand anyway in the existing general seats.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Feb 12, 2016 22:53:51 GMT
Malcolm, I don't think there is anything to argue with there - you make excellent points. You mention those appointed as a part of 'supporters organisations'. Surely the biggest organisation is this message board. Therefore, should there not be 2 or 3 representatives from the Oatcake. We've had plenty of online polls and it can't be beyond our combined ingenuity to democratically elect some folk to represent us. Well it's an interesting thought. The requirement at present is that the supporters organisations must be democratic. I suppose the question is how do make a message Board democratic i.e how would you elect the representatives including ensuring that people can't cast multiple votes etc etc and how would you hold them to account for what they do ? Personally, I'm in favour of looking at innovative ways of recognising the role and potential of social media, but it has be translated into workable democratic rules. The other approach of course would be for those who might stand for such a position to stand anyway in the existing general seats. You have a point, but if they went for one of the general seats, they wouldn't really be a part of this message board. The trouble with any IT voting system is ensuring fairness, but I think Admin see everyone's IP addresses and although this isn't foolproof it would discourage multiple voting. If the club sought democracy, then they could, of course, ask Admin to simply put contentious issues on here as a poll and see what folk think.
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Feb 12, 2016 23:51:23 GMT
I honestly wouldn't renew if they put up the prices. I'm actually thinking of not renewing next year anyway, but that would definitely confirm it. Any reason why you are thinking of not renewing. Losing the motivation and becoming very disillusioned with the industry that is football. I'm sure I still probably will, but I am finding it harder to justify the cost.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Feb 13, 2016 0:58:21 GMT
Any reason why you are thinking of not renewing. Losing the motivation and becoming very disillusioned with the industry that is football. I'm sure I still probably will, but I am finding it harder to justify the cost. Wouldn't you have to change your name?
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Feb 13, 2016 8:44:32 GMT
Losing the motivation and becoming very disillusioned with the industry that is football. I'm sure I still probably will, but I am finding it harder to justify the cost. Wouldn't you have to change your name? Nah.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Feb 13, 2016 9:17:12 GMT
I don't think those supporters really appreciate how much money gate receipts generate as a percentage of overall income. A universal cap of £10 at all football matches in England and shared gate receipts across all four divisions is the way forward. But don't forget under FFP, I believe ticket revenues can be used to increase wages, TV money cannot so even a £1 million here and there could be important
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 13, 2016 10:30:35 GMT
Well it's an interesting thought. The requirement at present is that the supporters organisations must be democratic. I suppose the question is how do make a message Board democratic i.e how would you elect the representatives including ensuring that people can't cast multiple votes etc etc and how would you hold them to account for what they do ? Personally, I'm in favour of looking at innovative ways of recognising the role and potential of social media, but it has be translated into workable democratic rules. The other approach of course would be for those who might stand for such a position to stand anyway in the existing general seats. You have a point, but if they went for one of the general seats, they wouldn't really be a part of this message board. The trouble with any IT voting system is ensuring fairness, but I think Admin see everyone's IP addresses and although this isn't foolproof it would discourage multiple voting. If the club sought democracy, then they could, of course, ask Admin to simply put contentious issues on here as a poll and see what folk think. They could indeed which could be very helpful in guaging opinion although there are also other message boards and you would have to avoid the mistake of assuming that a poll on here ( or any other single place) is necessarily representative. Its not a random sample of fans on here and some steer clear of here because they dont like the vibe.
|
|
|
Post by mozzer on Feb 13, 2016 11:52:51 GMT
This is my argument. Our defence, sorry- our whole team need to up their game when Ryan isn't in the squad. WTF...are you on the right thread
|
|