|
Post by Mendicant on Aug 24, 2019 17:11:14 GMT
They seemingly are about as relevant as the UN these- days toothless, ineffective, impotent and pretty pointless really. a bit like a 'Nigel Johnson post match interview' - type of an organisation Kofi, the genocide in Rwanda, you must be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by redrob on Aug 24, 2019 17:13:03 GMT
Total waste of time the entire match day experience is shit people will vote with their feet
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 28, 2019 15:26:41 GMT
What do you think is the best thing an individual can do about this situation momo? For fun here are some options... A) get involved with the SC and try to change things B) form an independent supporters’ group which refuses to communicate with club piss-takers but applies pressure in other ways C) do nothing, meekly accept that this is our lot as supporters and just moan about it on the Oatcake D) other (please state) Not that you were asking me, but I would try to identify and speak to a couple of clubs where the supporter voice is genuinely listened to. And see what we might learn. And my first port of call would be Malcolm Clarke. I think his lot are a slightly different beast, but I imagine he has a clue. Of course football clubs are not democracies. In some case they are dictatorships. And in any case, you only have to skim this Board to see how difficult it is to build consensus. Virtually impossible. And of course there is consultation. And then there is consultation. For example, when the current Mrs Str8 wants my opinion, she gives it to me. However, a teeny weeny bit of transparency would be progress. Apologies for butting in, Mr Potter Logic. My attention has been drawn to your request from myself and the FSA. Thanks for predicting I have a clue . I don't know about that but I'm happy to give my input on the important issues raised in this thread. A possible starting point is the EFL requirement on its clubs :- Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. As an aside regulation 20 requires that its customer charter is published on the club website. I can't find the charter on Stoke city's website. To pick up the clem/owdstoke2 debate about whether it has power or is just a channel of communication, I think "discuss" requires much more than just communication, and "significant issues" means that it should be much more than customer service issues ( important though such issues sometimes are). IMHO there is an obligation on the club to consult and discuss with the Council all such significant issues, including changes which affect fans, before they are implemented, and crucially to take into account the views of supporters in their decision-making. There is an obligation on the fans reps to raise issues which are of concern to fans in a clear and assertive way, to insist on a proper response from the club and to report back on the outcome to the supporter base. Before writing this, I tried to look at the Council minutes on the club website, to see, for example, whether the introduction of transaction and postage charges for the sale of tickets mentioned by Pugsley (and on other threads) was discussed in advance with the Council, as well as other significant issues which are of concern to fans. I cannot find the minutes (although I'm sure they used to be there). Even if they are there somewhere, it's not obvious where they are and it's very poor communication. When the Council was set up about 7 years ago, it was in my view a good model which was a "market leader", and indeed the SC section on the website quotes me as saying as much. Sadly, I don't think that is still the case and I may have to ask for that quote to be removed. Many other clubs have "caught up" since then but, more importantly, our Council made changes to its rules and modus operandi, without consultation with the fan base, and, most importantly, at one of its pre-meetings at which no minutes are taken, which is poor practice. The key principles were first that all members get there through a democratic process (not necessarily the same one) and that the football club has no influence or veto on who is elected. The initial structure included different types of "constituency" to try to ensure that all categories of supporter and all parts of the ground were represented. Democratically established supporters clubs, if big enough, also had a seat. Apart from a seat reserved for disabled supporters ( I'm not quite sure why that was exempt) they were all abolished leaving just a single category, on the grounds that this is more "democratic". So long as there is a democratic process within each category, I don't think it is a more 'democratic' to have a singe route (any more than it would be more "democratic" to abolish local Council wards, or Parliamentary constituencies, and have everyone elected together). But whatever view is taken on that, the change should have been the subject of consultation. Also, initially there was a limitation of 3 terms of office (i.e 6 years) for any member, to try to ensure some "churn" and new blood, which has been abolished. I readily accept that there is a very legitimate argument that it should be left to the electorate to decide if members should continue after that period, rather than a rule. But my concern is that the existing members who changed that clearly had a personal interest in the matter and that therefore at the very least it should have been the subject of a consultation, rather than taken at a private, unminuted, meeting. theoptimist states above that the Chair sits in the press box, and that Council members should have the 'ordinary' fan experience. I don't know if that's true but my view is that it is probably inappropriate for anyone who has any sort of special relationship with the club to represent fans on the Council. This goes beyond press and would also include anyone who has, or has recently had, any sort of ambassadorial role for the club, or has been paid by the club, through either an employment or contractual relationship. This is not just for the valid reason cited by theoptimist but also because they could be rightly perceived to have a conflict of interest. Attention was also drawn to the fact that at the time of the recent Council elections one of the candidates featured in a promotional video on the club website. Whilst I do not for a moment think that this was an attempt by the Club to influence the result of that election, it obviously increased the profile of that candidate and its timing was rather thoughtless. Whilst on the elections, I don't understand why they were (again) held in the holiday period when many fans, particularly those with school age children, were away on holiday. Holding them at either the end of the season or in September would also allow the matchday publicity outlets to be used to promote the election and the work of the Council and increase turnout. To be clear, absolutely none of the above is any way personal. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to give up their time and put their head above the parapet to represent football supporters at either club or national level. I don't personally know many of the Council members but I'm sure they are good people who are doing their best to represent the fans who elect them, and I hope that the club is responding appropriately (difficult to know if you can't find the minutes !). This post has gone on longer than I expected, but I hope I have responded to Str8outhampton's "exam question" !. Thank you to those who have had the patience to read it all
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 15:44:36 GMT
Not that you were asking me, but I would try to identify and speak to a couple of clubs where the supporter voice is genuinely listened to. And see what we might learn. And my first port of call would be Malcolm Clarke. I think his lot are a slightly different beast, but I imagine he has a clue. Of course football clubs are not democracies. In some case they are dictatorships. And in any case, you only have to skim this Board to see how difficult it is to build consensus. Virtually impossible. And of course there is consultation. And then there is consultation. For example, when the current Mrs Str8 wants my opinion, she gives it to me. However, a teeny weeny bit of transparency would be progress. Apologies for butting in, Mr Potter Logic. My attention has been drawn to your request from myself and the FSA. Thanks for predicting I have a clue . I don't know about that but I'm happy to give my input on the important issues raised in this thread. A possible starting point is the EFL requirement on its clubs :- Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. As an aside regulation 20 requires that its customer charter is published on the club website. I can't find the charter on Stoke city's website. To pick up the clem/owdstoke2 debate about whether it has power or is just a channel of communication, I think "discuss" requires much more than just communication, and "significant issues" means that it should be much more than customer service issues ( important though such issues sometimes are). IMHO there is an obligation on the club to consult and discuss with the Council all such significant issues, including changes which affect fans, before they are implemented, and crucially to take into account the views of supporters in their decision-making. There is an obligation on the fans reps to raise issues which are of concern to fans in a clear and assertive way, to insist on a proper response from the club and to report back on the outcome to the supporter base. Before writing this, I tried to look at the Council minutes on the club website, to see, for example, whether the introduction of transaction and postage charges for the sale of tickets mentioned by Pugsley (and on other threads) was discussed in advance with the Council, as well as other significant issues which are of concern to fans. I cannot find the minutes (although I'm sure they used to be there). Even if they are there somewhere, it's not obvious where they are and it's very poor communication. When the Council was set up about 7 years ago, it was in my view a good model which was a "market leader", and indeed the SC section on the website quotes me as saying as much. Sadly, I don't think that is still the case and I may have to ask for that quote to be removed. Many other clubs have "caught up" since then but, more importantly, our Council made changes to its rules and modus operandi, without consultation with the fan base, and, most importantly, at one of its pre-meetings at which no minutes are taken, which is poor practice. The key principles were first that all members get there through a democratic process (not necessarily the same one) and that the football club has no influence or veto on who is elected. The initial structure included different types of "constituency" to try to ensure that all categories of supporter and all parts of the ground were represented. Democratically established supporters clubs, if big enough, also had a seat. Apart from a seat reserved for disabled supporters ( I'm not quite sure why that was exempt) they were all abolished leaving just a single category, on the grounds that this is more "democratic". So long as there is a democratic process within each category, I don't think it is a more 'democratic' to have a singe route (any more than it would be more "democratic" to abolish local Council wards, or Parliamentary constituencies, and have everyone elected together). But whatever view is taken on that, the change should have been the subject of consultation. Also, initially there was a limitation of 3 terms of office (i.e 6 years) for any member, to try to ensure some "churn" and new blood, which has been abolished. I readily accept that there is a very legitimate argument that it should be left to the electorate to decide if members should continue after that period, rather than a rule. But my concern is that the existing members who changed that clearly had a personal interest in the matter and that therefore at the very least it should have been the subject of a consultation, rather than taken at a private, unminuted, meeting. theoptimist states above that the Chair sits in the press box, and that Council members should have the 'ordinary' fan experience. I don't know if that's true but my view is that it is probably inappropriate for anyone who has any sort of special relationship with the club to represent fans on the Council. This goes beyond press and would also include anyone who has, or has recently had, any sort of ambassadorial role for the club, or has been paid by the club, through either an employment or contractual relationship. This is not just for the valid reason cited by theoptimist but also because they could be rightly perceived to have a conflict of interest. Attention was also drawn to the fact that at the time of the recent Council elections one of the candidates featured in a promotional video on the club website. Whilst I do not for a moment think that this was an attempt by the Club to influence the result of that election, it obviously increased the profile of that candidate and its timing was rather thoughtless. Whilst on the elections, I don't understand why they were (again) held in the holiday period when many fans, particularly those with school age children, were away on holiday. Holding them at either the end of the season or in September would also allow the matchday publicity outlets to be used to promote the election and the work of the Council and increase turnout. To be clear, absolutely none of the above is any way personal. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to give up their time and put their head above the parapet to represent football supporters at either club or national level. I don't personally know many of the Council members but I'm sure they are good people who are doing their best to represent the fans who elect them, and I hope that the club is responding appropriately (difficult to know if you can't find the minutes !). This post has gone on longer than I expected, but I hope I have responded to Str8outhampton's "exam question" !. Thank you to those who have had the patience to read it all The work and effort you put in for our club is something else Malcolm.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 28, 2019 15:48:16 GMT
Who was the candidate in the video?
|
|
|
Post by StokieBoy31 on Aug 28, 2019 15:52:24 GMT
The minutes of all the Council meetings were on the website as I read them but like a lot of other info seems to have disappeared since the new website was introduced a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 28, 2019 16:00:54 GMT
The minutes of all the Council meetings were on the website as I read them but like a lot of other info seems to have disappeared since the new website was introduced a couple of weeks ago. Thanks. That no doubt explains it. I knew that I read them in the past and thought it must be just my incompetence that I couldn't find them today.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 28, 2019 16:27:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 28, 2019 16:38:16 GMT
The minutes of all the Council meetings were on the website as I read them but like a lot of other info seems to have disappeared since the new website was introduced a couple of weeks ago. Thanks. That no doubt explains it. I knew that I read them in the past and thought it must be just my incompetence that I couldn't find them today. It is concerning that it has taken you (not on the Supporters' Council) to point this out - and, of course, even you have only been able to point it out to those fans who read the Oatcake, Malcolm. Can I suggest that you raise the problem (of the minutes being no longer accessible on the club site) with the club yourself as it seems the Supporters' Council don't know ( = don't care?) about it. I'd like to know from the club and the SC why the minutes disappeared - whether deliberate or just yet another aspect of the club's hamfisted approach to communication and Social Media. The other points you raise as regards apparent changes to the constitution as regards elections etc. are equally concerning. Do these changes to the constitution of the Council amount to a breach which any outside bodies should be commenting on - such as the EFL or the FSF - or whatever it is calling itself at the moment - I'm old and lose track of such things!
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Aug 28, 2019 16:47:44 GMT
The Council informed the club of the problems with the website on the Council pages and several other pages on the day the new site went “live” They have continued to remind the club since .
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 28, 2019 16:56:29 GMT
The Council informed the club of the problems with the website on the Council pages and several other pages on the day the new site went “live” They have continued to remind the club since . Ange At the next meeting, can you point out to the club, that even Ticketmaster (whose sole income stream is based on selling people tickets) doesn't charge people to collect tickets from theatre box offices for concerts and shows and as such, could you then ask them how they are able to justify charging their own supporters to do so? Many thanks
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 28, 2019 17:14:33 GMT
The Council informed the club of the problems with the website on the Council pages and several other pages on the day the new site went “live” They have continued to remind the club since . Angela - two observations: First, at the time you notified the club of the problems with their website (especially as regards the Council minutes) did you also notify the fans via, for example, this site? If you did, I apologise, because I missed it. Second, when you notified the club of the website problems did they give you any indication as to: a) why there were problems? b) why it needed you to inform them that there were problems? and c) have the club given you any indication as to why they have not acted on your original reminders? At the very least you should have had a progress report by now. I'd also say that, if I were in your position, I would be making this lack of prompt and constructive response by the club known to the fans. Communication has to be two way. You represent the fans views to the club - but it is surely equally important that you should make the fans aware of the club's response, or lack of it, to the concerns you raised - as early as is reasonable to do so.
|
|
|
Post by theoptimist on Aug 28, 2019 17:25:49 GMT
Not that you were asking me, but I would try to identify and speak to a couple of clubs where the supporter voice is genuinely listened to. And see what we might learn. And my first port of call would be Malcolm Clarke. I think his lot are a slightly different beast, but I imagine he has a clue. Of course football clubs are not democracies. In some case they are dictatorships. And in any case, you only have to skim this Board to see how difficult it is to build consensus. Virtually impossible. And of course there is consultation. And then there is consultation. For example, when the current Mrs Str8 wants my opinion, she gives it to me. However, a teeny weeny bit of transparency would be progress. Apologies for butting in, Mr Potter Logic. My attention has been drawn to your request from myself and the FSA. Thanks for predicting I have a clue . I don't know about that but I'm happy to give my input on the important issues raised in this thread. A possible starting point is the EFL requirement on its clubs :- Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. As an aside regulation 20 requires that its customer charter is published on the club website. I can't find the charter on Stoke city's website. To pick up the clem/owdstoke2 debate about whether it has power or is just a channel of communication, I think "discuss" requires much more than just communication, and "significant issues" means that it should be much more than customer service issues ( important though such issues sometimes are). IMHO there is an obligation on the club to consult and discuss with the Council all such significant issues, including changes which affect fans, before they are implemented, and crucially to take into account the views of supporters in their decision-making. There is an obligation on the fans reps to raise issues which are of concern to fans in a clear and assertive way, to insist on a proper response from the club and to report back on the outcome to the supporter base. Before writing this, I tried to look at the Council minutes on the club website, to see, for example, whether the introduction of transaction and postage charges for the sale of tickets mentioned by Pugsley (and on other threads) was discussed in advance with the Council, as well as other significant issues which are of concern to fans. I cannot find the minutes (although I'm sure they used to be there). Even if they are there somewhere, it's not obvious where they are and it's very poor communication. When the Council was set up about 7 years ago, it was in my view a good model which was a "market leader", and indeed the SC section on the website quotes me as saying as much. Sadly, I don't think that is still the case and I may have to ask for that quote to be removed. Many other clubs have "caught up" since then but, more importantly, our Council made changes to its rules and modus operandi, without consultation with the fan base, and, most importantly, at one of its pre-meetings at which no minutes are taken, which is poor practice. The key principles were first that all members get there through a democratic process (not necessarily the same one) and that the football club has no influence or veto on who is elected. The initial structure included different types of "constituency" to try to ensure that all categories of supporter and all parts of the ground were represented. Democratically established supporters clubs, if big enough, also had a seat. Apart from a seat reserved for disabled supporters ( I'm not quite sure why that was exempt) they were all abolished leaving just a single category, on the grounds that this is more "democratic". So long as there is a democratic process within each category, I don't think it is a more 'democratic' to have a singe route (any more than it would be more "democratic" to abolish local Council wards, or Parliamentary constituencies, and have everyone elected together). But whatever view is taken on that, the change should have been the subject of consultation. Also, initially there was a limitation of 3 terms of office (i.e 6 years) for any member, to try to ensure some "churn" and new blood, which has been abolished. I readily accept that there is a very legitimate argument that it should be left to the electorate to decide if members should continue after that period, rather than a rule. But my concern is that the existing members who changed that clearly had a personal interest in the matter and that therefore at the very least it should have been the subject of a consultation, rather than taken at a private, unminuted, meeting. theoptimist states above that the Chair sits in the press box, and that Council members should have the 'ordinary' fan experience. I don't know if that's true but my view is that it is probably inappropriate for anyone who has any sort of special relationship with the club to represent fans on the Council. This goes beyond press and would also include anyone who has, or has recently had, any sort of ambassadorial role for the club, or has been paid by the club, through either an employment or contractual relationship. This is not just for the valid reason cited by theoptimist but also because they could be rightly perceived to have a conflict of interest. Attention was also drawn to the fact that at the time of the recent Council elections one of the candidates featured in a promotional video on the club website. Whilst I do not for a moment think that this was an attempt by the Club to influence the result of that election, it obviously increased the profile of that candidate and its timing was rather thoughtless. Whilst on the elections, I don't understand why they were (again) held in the holiday period when many fans, particularly those with school age children, were away on holiday. Holding them at either the end of the season or in September would also allow the matchday publicity outlets to be used to promote the election and the work of the Council and increase turnout. To be clear, absolutely none of the above is any way personal. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to give up their time and put their head above the parapet to represent football supporters at either club or national level. I don't personally know many of the Council members but I'm sure they are good people who are doing their best to represent the fans who elect them, and I hope that the club is responding appropriately (difficult to know if you can't find the minutes !). This post has gone on longer than I expected, but I hope I have responded to Str8outhampton's "exam question" !. Thank you to those who have had the patience to read it all Wise words and valuable input as always Malcolm.
Let's see responses to ALL the above from our representatives.
I'd like to ask about the voting numbers, as has been mentioned before. Ange had said they didn't like the idea of releasing these as unelected candidates may find out how few voted for them. I don't think thats a valid democratic answer, but as a minimum howabout publishing the turnout numbers? Surely there is nothing to hide there?
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Aug 28, 2019 17:36:53 GMT
Paul, we will of course address this matter and everything else concerning the additional costs,
Lakeland, the club notified fans of the problems with the site, including ours. The club pass on the information to the providers who work through the issues in priority order. Your observations are noted, thanks.
Theoptimist, I am not sure why you think anyone is being hidden, but we will discuss the voting numbers with the club again as you request.
As a season ticket holder of 50+ years ( still a season ticket holder BTW) I want the best for all of us. The communication between the club and the fans is not as good as it could be and we will continue to try to rectify it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 17:41:30 GMT
Paul, we will of course address this matter and everything else concerning the additional costs, Lakeland, the club notified fans of the problems with the site, including ours. The club pass on the information to the providers who work through the issues in priority order. Your observations are noted, thanks. Theoptimist, I am not sure why you think anyone is being hidden, but we will discuss the voting numbers with the club again as you request. As a season ticket holder of 50+ years ( still a season ticket holder BTW) I want the best for all of us. The communication between the club and the fans is not as good as it could be and we will continue to try to rectify it. I would like to make one point on communication. I have noticed since having to sign up to Leicester TV to watch the Leicester friendly (what was that about?!) that Leicester have an excellent communication system with their fans as I am still getting all their emails. I get updated on the team news, match reports, injury updates, important things going on at the club. All I get from our club is adverts for hospitality and sales at the shop. I just thought I would point it out. It is a very minor observation but in the context of discussing communication and fans I thought it interesting. I feel like our club just want more money from me but Leicester actually keep me well informed of all the goings on. Their adverts are within the emails as well so it's not that they don't do it but there is more than just an advert.
|
|
|
Post by theoptimist on Aug 28, 2019 17:43:19 GMT
Theoptimist, I am not sure why you think anyone is being hidden, but we will discuss the voting numbers with the club again as you request. Ange, what I am alluding to is that I suspect the turnout is extremely low - reflecting the lack of belief in the whole process and the clubs engagement by the supporterbase. Of course I may be wrong, but all I can do is speculate in the absence of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by houstonmike on Aug 28, 2019 17:44:11 GMT
Thanks. That no doubt explains it. I knew that I read them in the past and thought it must be just my incompetence that I couldn't find them today. It is concerning that it has taken you (not on the Supporters' Council) to point this out - and, of course, even you have only been able to point it out to those fans who read the Oatcake, Malcolm. Can I suggest that you raise the problem (of the minutes being no longer accessible on the club site) with the club yourself as it seems the Supporters' Council don't know ( = don't care?) about it. I'd like to know from the club and the SC why the minutes disappeared - whether deliberate or just yet another aspect of the club's hamfisted approach to communication and Social Media. The other points you raise as regards apparent changes to the constitution as regards elections etc. are equally concerning. Do these changes to the constitution of the Council amount to a breach which any outside bodies should be commenting on - such as the EFL or the FSF - or whatever it is calling itself at the moment - I'm old and lose track of such things! There's an earlier post on this Board regarding FSF commenting on the 2017(?) SCFC Council changes. Council responded promptly and vigorously in writing to the FSF's points and heard nothing in reply (to my knowledge). On subject of candidates for Council elections raised on this same thread. Candidates are sought from "...all fans..." and "....all backgrounds....". Where you sit in the Stadium, where you live, how many games you attend, whether you've been a season ticket holder and for how long aren't criteria used to qualify or disqualify candidates. The general supporter population does that through reading the candidate's bios and voting in a democratic election. I wouldn't expect someone paid by the Club to stand for election. Council is composed of a group who sit in different areas of the Stadium and can speak to the fan experience either through their own knowledge or by drawing on input from other fans through social media.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 28, 2019 17:47:44 GMT
It is concerning that it has taken you (not on the Supporters' Council) to point this out - and, of course, even you have only been able to point it out to those fans who read the Oatcake, Malcolm. Can I suggest that you raise the problem (of the minutes being no longer accessible on the club site) with the club yourself as it seems the Supporters' Council don't know ( = don't care?) about it. I'd like to know from the club and the SC why the minutes disappeared - whether deliberate or just yet another aspect of the club's hamfisted approach to communication and Social Media. The other points you raise as regards apparent changes to the constitution as regards elections etc. are equally concerning. Do these changes to the constitution of the Council amount to a breach which any outside bodies should be commenting on - such as the EFL or the FSF - or whatever it is calling itself at the moment - I'm old and lose track of such things! There's an earlier post on this Board regarding FSF commenting on the 2017(?) SCFC Council changes. Council responded promptly and vigorously in writing to the FSF's points and heard nothing in reply (to my knowledge). On subject of candidates for Council elections raised on this same thread. Candidates are sought from "...all fans..." and "....all backgrounds....". Where you sit in the Stadium, where you live, how many games you attend, whether you've been a season ticket holder and for how long aren't criteria used to qualify or disqualify candidates. The general supporter population does that through reading the candidate's bios and voting in a democratic election. I wouldn't expect someone paid by the Club to stand for election. Council is composed of a group who sit in different areas of the Stadium and can speak to the fan experience either through their own knowledge or by drawing on input from other fans through social media. To clarify, Mike - I'm assuming you are a Council member? I have no agenda - just not sure if you are. EDIT: Speaking purely personally, I'd always assumed that the idea was to have representation from all parts of the stadium. That seems a worthy objective as the matchday experience may vary according to where you sit, who your stewards are and which concourse/toilets/bars etc. you use before games and at half time.
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Aug 28, 2019 17:52:28 GMT
Not that you were asking me, but I would try to identify and speak to a couple of clubs where the supporter voice is genuinely listened to. And see what we might learn. And my first port of call would be Malcolm Clarke. I think his lot are a slightly different beast, but I imagine he has a clue. Of course football clubs are not democracies. In some case they are dictatorships. And in any case, you only have to skim this Board to see how difficult it is to build consensus. Virtually impossible. And of course there is consultation. And then there is consultation. For example, when the current Mrs Str8 wants my opinion, she gives it to me. However, a teeny weeny bit of transparency would be progress. Apologies for butting in, Mr Potter Logic. My attention has been drawn to your request from myself and the FSA. Thanks for predicting I have a clue . I don't know about that but I'm happy to give my input on the important issues raised in this thread. A possible starting point is the EFL requirement on its clubs :- Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. As an aside regulation 20 requires that its customer charter is published on the club website. I can't find the charter on Stoke city's website. To pick up the clem/owdstoke2 debate about whether it has power or is just a channel of communication, I think "discuss" requires much more than just communication, and "significant issues" means that it should be much more than customer service issues ( important though such issues sometimes are). IMHO there is an obligation on the club to consult and discuss with the Council all such significant issues, including changes which affect fans, before they are implemented, and crucially to take into account the views of supporters in their decision-making. There is an obligation on the fans reps to raise issues which are of concern to fans in a clear and assertive way, to insist on a proper response from the club and to report back on the outcome to the supporter base. Before writing this, I tried to look at the Council minutes on the club website, to see, for example, whether the introduction of transaction and postage charges for the sale of tickets mentioned by Pugsley (and on other threads) was discussed in advance with the Council, as well as other significant issues which are of concern to fans. I cannot find the minutes (although I'm sure they used to be there). Even if they are there somewhere, it's not obvious where they are and it's very poor communication. When the Council was set up about 7 years ago, it was in my view a good model which was a "market leader", and indeed the SC section on the website quotes me as saying as much. Sadly, I don't think that is still the case and I may have to ask for that quote to be removed. Many other clubs have "caught up" since then but, more importantly, our Council made changes to its rules and modus operandi, without consultation with the fan base, and, most importantly, at one of its pre-meetings at which no minutes are taken, which is poor practice. The key principles were first that all members get there through a democratic process (not necessarily the same one) and that the football club has no influence or veto on who is elected. The initial structure included different types of "constituency" to try to ensure that all categories of supporter and all parts of the ground were represented. Democratically established supporters clubs, if big enough, also had a seat. Apart from a seat reserved for disabled supporters ( I'm not quite sure why that was exempt) they were all abolished leaving just a single category, on the grounds that this is more "democratic". So long as there is a democratic process within each category, I don't think it is a more 'democratic' to have a singe route (any more than it would be more "democratic" to abolish local Council wards, or Parliamentary constituencies, and have everyone elected together). But whatever view is taken on that, the change should have been the subject of consultation. Also, initially there was a limitation of 3 terms of office (i.e 6 years) for any member, to try to ensure some "churn" and new blood, which has been abolished. I readily accept that there is a very legitimate argument that it should be left to the electorate to decide if members should continue after that period, rather than a rule. But my concern is that the existing members who changed that clearly had a personal interest in the matter and that therefore at the very least it should have been the subject of a consultation, rather than taken at a private, unminuted, meeting. theoptimist states above that the Chair sits in the press box, and that Council members should have the 'ordinary' fan experience. I don't know if that's true but my view is that it is probably inappropriate for anyone who has any sort of special relationship with the club to represent fans on the Council. This goes beyond press and would also include anyone who has, or has recently had, any sort of ambassadorial role for the club, or has been paid by the club, through either an employment or contractual relationship. This is not just for the valid reason cited by theoptimist but also because they could be rightly perceived to have a conflict of interest. Attention was also drawn to the fact that at the time of the recent Council elections one of the candidates featured in a promotional video on the club website. Whilst I do not for a moment think that this was an attempt by the Club to influence the result of that election, it obviously increased the profile of that candidate and its timing was rather thoughtless. Whilst on the elections, I don't understand why they were (again) held in the holiday period when many fans, particularly those with school age children, were away on holiday. Holding them at either the end of the season or in September would also allow the matchday publicity outlets to be used to promote the election and the work of the Council and increase turnout. To be clear, absolutely none of the above is any way personal. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to give up their time and put their head above the parapet to represent football supporters at either club or national level. I don't personally know many of the Council members but I'm sure they are good people who are doing their best to represent the fans who elect them, and I hope that the club is responding appropriately (difficult to know if you can't find the minutes !). This post has gone on longer than I expected, but I hope I have responded to Str8outhampton's "exam question" !. Thank you to those who have had the patience to read it all Thanks Malcolm. You put us (well me, at any rate) to shame. The real issue is that a club can discharge its obligations by communicating, discussing, listening and even consulting. And then deciding to ignore the fans' views. Frustrating. But then accountability in the wider world appears to be little more than window dressing, so not remotely surprising.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Aug 28, 2019 17:53:14 GMT
Theoptimist, Point taken, we will address you point with CEO and management. Estokie86, thanks for that info, again we will see what the club says and if we can get them to replicate this.
|
|
|
Post by houstonmike on Aug 28, 2019 18:07:14 GMT
There's an earlier post on this Board regarding FSF commenting on the 2017(?) SCFC Council changes. Council responded promptly and vigorously in writing to the FSF's points and heard nothing in reply (to my knowledge). On subject of candidates for Council elections raised on this same thread. Candidates are sought from "...all fans..." and "....all backgrounds....". Where you sit in the Stadium, where you live, how many games you attend, whether you've been a season ticket holder and for how long aren't criteria used to qualify or disqualify candidates. The general supporter population does that through reading the candidate's bios and voting in a democratic election. I wouldn't expect someone paid by the Club to stand for election. Council is composed of a group who sit in different areas of the Stadium and can speak to the fan experience either through their own knowledge or by drawing on input from other fans through social media. To clarify, Mike - I'm assuming you are a Council member? I have no agenda - just not sure if you are. EDIT: Speaking purely personally, I'd always assumed that the idea was to have representation from all parts of the stadium. That seems a worthy objective as the matchday experience may vary according to where you sit, who your stewards are and which concourse/toilets/bars etc. you use before games and at half time. Sorry mate, yes I am. Just elected for 2nd term. I get your point on representation. As I said, Council tries to represent everyone to best of their ability and lean on others' experiences through social media etc. if needed. For example, I'm at a dozen or more live games per year based on living in the U.S., the rest through live stream or (as was case last night) a non-working radio broadcast. I always have an opinion on match-day experience but others on Council see it more week-by-week than I do. On the other hand, I see directly the quality (or otherwise) of the streaming and can comment accordingly. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Aug 28, 2019 18:08:34 GMT
Theoptimist, Point taken, we will address you point with CEO and management. Estokie86, thanks for that info, again we will see what the club says and if we can get them to replicate this. As an aside regulation 20 requires that its customer charter is published on the club website. I can't find the charter on Stoke city's website. Read more: oatcakefanzine.proboards.com/thread/289871/next-supporters-council#ixzz5xv7kummkI find this the most concerning, if it is down to IT issues on the new website then it needs to be prioritised. It seems SCFC are in breach of regulation 20, thus exposing themselves to EFL action...which may or may not take place in about 30 years time Seriously, ange1, this does need some remedial action by the club Thanks LP
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Aug 28, 2019 18:32:11 GMT
Stoke City FC is a privately owned company and it’s certainly in their best interests to listen to their customers. The supporters council, which is democratically elected is one way that the club can get that feedback. They all serve on a voluntary basis, receive minimal perks (if any) and we would hope they are acting in good faith and in the best interests of the supporters. As far as I know, all the SC members pay for their own season tickets and the work Angela does for Knot FM etc. is voluntary. They are not a trade union engaged in collective bargaining; therefore their power is relatively limited. All they can do is press the club to make changes related to the fans’ match day experience. There’s not much they can do if the club chose to ignore them and all the fans can do is vote with their feet. If you don’t like it don’t go. If you don’t like the job the SC is doing vote them out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 18:40:12 GMT
I have an idea, only a small idea but an idea all the same. Would it be possible for the club to broadcast the team for the game on the tv's in the concourses? If they do so already, I apologise and must have missed them somehow.
I was thinking either a TV broadcast formation layout or more suitable for the games that they are showing on the tv's at the time, a scrolling bar across the bottom of the screen? Also could it be broadcast on the two big screens in similar fashion after Rory has been on?
Surely it must be do-able?
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Aug 28, 2019 18:50:03 GMT
Leicesterpotter and the Onlooker, thanks for the points, we meet with the Club September 14 and will report back after that .
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 28, 2019 18:50:23 GMT
My attention has been drawn to your request from myself and the FSA. Thanks for predicting I have a clue . I don't know about that but I'm happy to give my input on the important issues raised in this thread. A possible starting point is the EFL requirement on its clubs :- Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. As an aside regulation 20 requires that its customer charter is published on the club website. I can't find the charter on Stoke city's website. To pick up the clem/owdstoke2 debate about whether it has power or is just a channel of communication, I think "discuss" requires much more than just communication, and "significant issues" means that it should be much more than customer service issues ( important though such issues sometimes are). IMHO there is an obligation on the club to consult and discuss with the Council all such significant issues, including changes which affect fans, before they are implemented, and crucially to take into account the views of supporters in their decision-making. There is an obligation on the fans reps to raise issues which are of concern to fans in a clear and assertive way, to insist on a proper response from the club and to report back on the outcome to the supporter base. Before writing this, I tried to look at the Council minutes on the club website, to see, for example, whether the introduction of transaction and postage charges for the sale of tickets mentioned by Pugsley (and on other threads) was discussed in advance with the Council, as well as other significant issues which are of concern to fans. I cannot find the minutes (although I'm sure they used to be there). Even if they are there somewhere, it's not obvious where they are and it's very poor communication. When the Council was set up about 7 years ago, it was in my view a good model which was a "market leader", and indeed the SC section on the website quotes me as saying as much. Sadly, I don't think that is still the case and I may have to ask for that quote to be removed. Many other clubs have "caught up" since then but, more importantly, our Council made changes to its rules and modus operandi, without consultation with the fan base, and, most importantly, at one of its pre-meetings at which no minutes are taken, which is poor practice. The key principles were first that all members get there through a democratic process (not necessarily the same one) and that the football club has no influence or veto on who is elected. The initial structure included different types of "constituency" to try to ensure that all categories of supporter and all parts of the ground were represented. Democratically established supporters clubs, if big enough, also had a seat. Apart from a seat reserved for disabled supporters ( I'm not quite sure why that was exempt) they were all abolished leaving just a single category, on the grounds that this is more "democratic". So long as there is a democratic process within each category, I don't think it is a more 'democratic' to have a singe route (any more than it would be more "democratic" to abolish local Council wards, or Parliamentary constituencies, and have everyone elected together). But whatever view is taken on that, the change should have been the subject of consultation. Also, initially there was a limitation of 3 terms of office (i.e 6 years) for any member, to try to ensure some "churn" and new blood, which has been abolished. I readily accept that there is a very legitimate argument that it should be left to the electorate to decide if members should continue after that period, rather than a rule. But my concern is that the existing members who changed that clearly had a personal interest in the matter and that therefore at the very least it should have been the subject of a consultation, rather than taken at a private, unminuted, meeting. theoptimist states above that the Chair sits in the press box, and that Council members should have the 'ordinary' fan experience. I don't know if that's true but my view is that it is probably inappropriate for anyone who has any sort of special relationship with the club to represent fans on the Council. This goes beyond press and would also include anyone who has, or has recently had, any sort of ambassadorial role for the club, or has been paid by the club, through either an employment or contractual relationship. This is not just for the valid reason cited by theoptimist but also because they could be rightly perceived to have a conflict of interest. Attention was also drawn to the fact that at the time of the recent Council elections one of the candidates featured in a promotional video on the club website. Whilst I do not for a moment think that this was an attempt by the Club to influence the result of that election, it obviously increased the profile of that candidate and its timing was rather thoughtless. Whilst on the elections, I don't understand why they were (again) held in the holiday period when many fans, particularly those with school age children, were away on holiday. Holding them at either the end of the season or in September would also allow the matchday publicity outlets to be used to promote the election and the work of the Council and increase turnout. To be clear, absolutely none of the above is any way personal. I have the utmost respect for anyone who is willing to give up their time and put their head above the parapet to represent football supporters at either club or national level. I don't personally know many of the Council members but I'm sure they are good people who are doing their best to represent the fans who elect them, and I hope that the club is responding appropriately (difficult to know if you can't find the minutes !). This post has gone on longer than I expected, but I hope I have responded to Str8outhampton's "exam question" !. Thank you to those who have had the patience to read it all Wise words and valuable input as always Malcolm. Let's see responese to ALL the above from our representatives. I'd like to ask about the voting numbers, as has been mentioned before. Ange had said they didn't like the idea of releasing these as unelected candidates may find out how few voted for them. I don't think thats a valid democratic answer, but as a minimum howabout publishing the turnout numbers? Surely there is nothing to hide there?
Thank you. I agree with you about the voting figures. Whilst I appreciate that it may be done for a sensitive reason, I think the transparency argument trumps that. I can't think of another democratic organisation which doesn't reveal the results of an election to the electorate. But, leaving that aside, as you say, there can be no good reason for not revealing the turnout. I fear that because of the timing of the election and the relatively limited publicity, it might be very low, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 18:56:25 GMT
Wise words and valuable input as always Malcolm. Let's see responese to ALL the above from our representatives. I'd like to ask about the voting numbers, as has been mentioned before. Ange had said they didn't like the idea of releasing these as unelected candidates may find out how few voted for them. I don't think thats a valid democratic answer, but as a minimum howabout publishing the turnout numbers? Surely there is nothing to hide there?
Thank you. I agree with you about the voting figures. Whilst I appreciate that it may be done for a sensitive reason, I think the transparency argument trumps that. I can't think of another democratic organisation which doesn't reveal the results of an election to the electorate. But, leaving that aside, as you say, there can be no good reason for not revealing the turnout. I fear that because of the timing of the election and the relatively limited publicity, it might be very low, but I'd love to be proved wrong. I have to admit I don't really vote unless there is someone I know. It's really hard just based on a few lines which normally all say the same thing. Perhaps more people would vote if there was a video of them being interviewed or something? Could be a a crazy idea but just thinking out loud as it's quite hard to engage with properly if you just get 5 paragraphs saying the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 28, 2019 19:16:19 GMT
It is concerning that it has taken you (not on the Supporters' Council) to point this out - and, of course, even you have only been able to point it out to those fans who read the Oatcake, Malcolm. Can I suggest that you raise the problem (of the minutes being no longer accessible on the club site) with the club yourself as it seems the Supporters' Council don't know ( = don't care?) about it. I'd like to know from the club and the SC why the minutes disappeared - whether deliberate or just yet another aspect of the club's hamfisted approach to communication and Social Media. The other points you raise as regards apparent changes to the constitution as regards elections etc. are equally concerning. Do these changes to the constitution of the Council amount to a breach which any outside bodies should be commenting on - such as the EFL or the FSF - or whatever it is calling itself at the moment - I'm old and lose track of such things! There's an earlier post on this Board regarding FSF commenting on the 2017(?) SCFC Council changes. Council responded promptly and vigorously in writing to the FSF's points and heard nothing in reply (to my knowledge). On subject of candidates for Council elections raised on this same thread. Candidates are sought from "...all fans..." and "....all backgrounds....". Where you sit in the Stadium, where you live, how many games you attend, whether you've been a season ticket holder and for how long aren't criteria used to qualify or disqualify candidates. The general supporter population does that through reading the candidate's bios and voting in a democratic election. I wouldn't expect someone paid by the Club to stand for election. Council is composed of a group who sit in different areas of the Stadium and can speak to the fan experience either through their own knowledge or by drawing on input from other fans through social media. Mike, I'm not sure on what points you think the FSA (as we now are) owe the Council a response ? I recall exchanging some posts with you on here a while ago, and without checking back, I didn't think that I had left any points/questions unanswered, even though we didn't agree on some points. If the Council has written to the FSA office and hasn't had a response, that would be a different matter and of course I will investigate. I didn't start this thread, and contributed after being informed that a poster (Str8outhampton) had suggested input from me/FSA about the Council. Obviously I'm likely to make some of the same points I made before. I wanted to check the Council minutes before contributing and was hamstrung by not being able to find them, and I'm pleased that my making that point has elicited an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 28, 2019 19:26:03 GMT
Thank you. I agree with you about the voting figures. Whilst I appreciate that it may be done for a sensitive reason, I think the transparency argument trumps that. I can't think of another democratic organisation which doesn't reveal the results of an election to the electorate. But, leaving that aside, as you say, there can be no good reason for not revealing the turnout. I fear that because of the timing of the election and the relatively limited publicity, it might be very low, but I'd love to be proved wrong. I have to admit I don't really vote unless there is someone I know. It's really hard just based on a few lines which normally all say the same thing. Perhaps more people would vote if there was a video of them being interviewed or something? Could be a a crazy idea but just thinking out loud as it's quite hard to engage with properly if you just get 5 paragraphs saying the same thing. Personally, I don't think it's a crazy idea. In fact if memory serves I think Steve Buxton proposed it when the Council was originally being mooted, and some of us supported the idea, but there was a counter view that it might deter some good candidates who might not want to appear on video.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2019 19:30:30 GMT
I have to admit I don't really vote unless there is someone I know. It's really hard just based on a few lines which normally all say the same thing. Perhaps more people would vote if there was a video of them being interviewed or something? Could be a a crazy idea but just thinking out loud as it's quite hard to engage with properly if you just get 5 paragraphs saying the same thing. Personally, I don't think it's a crazy idea. In fact if memory serves I think Steve Buxton proposed it when the Council was originally being mooted, and some of us supported the idea, but there was a counter view that it might deter some good candidates who might not want to appear on video. I appreciate that but if someone doesn't want to be accountable and have a face then that's kind of the point!
|
|