|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 31, 2022 9:15:37 GMT
We should thank all the candidates who stood in the recent Supporters Council election for putting themselves forward, whether or not they were successful. I know from my own experience, and, much more importantly, from that of FSA colleagues and affiliates up and down the country, that fans representative roles can be time-consuming and often under-appreciated.
In recent years I (and others) have raised the question of why the Club doesn't publish the Council election voting figures. I couldn't think of another organisation whose members elect representatives which doesn't publish the results to the electorate, or a good reason why that shouldn't be done. It comes up every year not only because there is an election every year, but also because the Club has changed its practice both last year and this year, and it is appropriate to assess that.
Until last year the Club didn't publish any figures. The reason given by the Chair of the Supporters Council was that publication of a very low number of votes for some candidates could deter them and others from standing. Whilst I appreciated the personal sensitivity of this argument, I don't think it trumps the requirement for good electoral practice and transparency. Last year the Club changed its practice and published the % of the total votes cast obtained by each of the successful candidates, but no actual figures. This year they published those %ages for all the candidates including the unsuccessful ones, so the above argument about candidates who didn't score well has been abandoned.
This is a welcome advance but we are still not told the much more important information of how many votes were actually cast in total, and what the turnout was, i.e what proportion of supporters eligible to vote actually did so. It is essential to know this in order to assess the effectiveness of the Club's current approach to supporter engagement, and how important fans think the Council is. I fear, but would be very happy to be proved wrong, that the turnout % was very low. I was surprised that, as far as I could see, there was no promotion of the election over the tannoy, big screen or match programme at the recent home games against M'Boro and Sunderland. I can see no good reason why the Club shouldn't publicise the total number of votes cast and the turnout.
One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. On the supporter side, in the FSA we now have a vibrant women's game supporter network at national level, and women's game supporter groups are being established at many clubs. Hopefully this will happen at Stoke.
From reading the minutes, Women's game supporters issues have not so far featured heavily, if at all, in the work of the Supporters Council. That of course could change with the new levels of interest in the women's game. But when it does, it raises a self-evident issue of conflict of interest if the General Manager of the Club's women's team, who one would expect to respond to any such issues on behalf of the Club, is already sitting on the supporters' side of the table. Also, the Government has promised a review of the women's game, as recommended to them by Tracey Crouch in her fan-led review of football. The Club will no doubt submit evidence to that, and the Women's Game GM will presumably play a central role in formulating that. But suppose the supporters and the Supporters Council disagreed with the Club on how the women's game should develop (there are some quite controversial issues involved), but the GM is also one of the fans' reps ?
I am not aware of any other Club where a club official is part of the supporters' side on a supporter engagement body, for obvious reasons. I don't think it's just a question of women's game issues being discussed. If you are a Club official but (very unusually) also representing fans on the engagement body, with the Club Chairman and Chief Operating Officer (your bosses) sitting on the other side of the table, it's only human nature that this might affect the way you fulfill your role, or at least be perceived by others to do so.
I think this also applies to journalistic and media roles, which involve maintaining a working relationship with the Club and its officials, on both the playing and non-playing sides, and access to games via a media pass. I think fans reps. on supporter engagement bodies really should not have any formal relationship with the Club other than being an ordinary fan and having the same matchday experience as all the other fans.
A perfectly legitimate response to these points might be that Angela declared her new Club role in her statement, that she came top of the poll and therefore the voters must be quite happy with the situation. I accept that, although I would guess that because she is already well-known, many voters either didn't feel they needed to read the statement, or if they did, perhaps didn't appreciate the possible conflict of interest implications. And, as stated above, we have not been told how many fans actually voted.
It goes without saying that none of this is personal to Angela as an individual or any other Council member. They are really matters which the Club needs to address, as it is the process by which it meets its supporter engagement obligations under EFL rules. And I think it is quite likely that the new post-Crouch regulatory regime (assuming the new CMS Secretary of State doesn't abandon the whole thing ! ) will outlaw Club officials being able to represent fans on official fan-engagement bodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by pavel on Aug 31, 2022 10:27:47 GMT
Thanks Malcolm, some interesting questions and issues raised here that no one not involved with either the club or supporters representatives would have known about.
|
|
|
|
Post by 01782 on Aug 31, 2022 10:32:10 GMT
Where are the results?
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 31, 2022 10:36:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 01782 on Aug 31, 2022 10:44:46 GMT
Thanks Malcolm. If there was a low turnout, John, Dan and Ian can only have been separated by 1 or 2 votes.. if any at all. Hope the votes have been scrutinised for fair play.. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 31, 2022 10:56:22 GMT
Thanks Malcolm. If there was a low turnout, John, Dan and Ian can only have been separated by 1 or 2 votes.. if any at all. Hope the votes have been scrutinised for fair play.. Just to confirm, that at no stage this year or any other year have I had any reason to question the accuracy of the figures. That is not part of my argument at all. But you may well be right in your assumption about the difference between candidates. The % figures this year are given to one decimal place whereas last year they were given to 2 decimal places, and given that the actual difference between any two candidates must always be a whole number, I was able to calculate the options for the actual figures, which I posted on here ( anorak, I know  ). But wouldn't life be a lot simpler if the Club just published the actual figures ? |
|
|
|
Post by thestatusquo on Aug 31, 2022 11:09:13 GMT
We should thank all the candidates who stood in the recent Supporters Council election for putting themselves forward, whether or not they were successful. I know from my own experience, and, much more importantly, from that of FSA colleagues and affiliates up and down the country, that fans representative roles can be time-consuming and often under-appreciated. In recent years I (and others) have raised the question of why the Club doesn't publish the Council election voting figures. I couldn't think of another organisation whose members elect representatives which doesn't publish the results to the electorate, or a good reason why that shouldn't be done. It comes up every year not only because there is an election every year, but also because the Club has changed its practice both last year and this year, and it is appropriate to assess that. Until last year the Club didn't publish any figures. The reason given by the Chair of the Supporters Council was that publication of a very low number of votes for some candidates could deter them and others from standing. Whilst I appreciated the personal sensitivity of this argument, I don't think it trumps the requirement for good electoral practice and transparency. Last year the Club changed its practice and published the % of the total votes cast obtained by each of the successful candidates, but no actual figures. This year they published those %ages for all the candidates including the unsuccessful ones, so the above argument about candidates who didn't score well has been abandoned. This is a welcome advance but we are still not told the much more important information of how many votes were actually cast in total, and what the turnout was, i.e what proportion of supporters eligible to vote actually did so. It is essential to know this in order to assess the effectiveness of the Club's current approach to supporter engagement, and how important fans think the Council is. I fear, but would be very happy to be proved wrong, that the turnout % was very low. I was surprised that, as far as I could see, there was no promotion of the election over the tannoy, big screen or match programme at the recent home games against M'Boro and Sunderland. I can see no good reason why the Club shouldn't publicise the total number of votes cast and the turnout. One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. On the supporter side, in the FSA we now have a vibrant women's game supporter network at national level, and women's game supporter groups are being established at many clubs. Hopefully this will happen at Stoke. From reading the minutes, Women's game supporters issues have not so far featured heavily, if at all, in the work of the Supporters Council. That of course could change with the new levels of interest in the women's game. But when it does, it raises a self-evident issue of conflict of interest if the General Manager of the Club's women's team, who one would expect to respond to any such issues on behalf of the Club, is already sitting on the supporters' side of the table. Also, the Government has promised a review of the women's game, as recommended to them by Tracey Crouch in her fan-led review of football. The Club will no doubt submit evidence to that, and the Women's Game GM will presumably play a central role in formulating that. But suppose the supporters and the Supporters Council disagreed with the Club on how the women's game should develop (there are some quite controversial issues involved), but the GM is also one of the fans' reps ? I am not aware of any other Club where a club official is part of the supporters' side on a supporter engagement body, for obvious reasons. I don't think it's just a question of women's game issues being discussed. If you are a Club official but (very unusually) also representing fans on the engagement body, with the Club Chairman and Chief Operating Officer (your bosses) sitting on the other side of the table, it's only human nature that this might affect the way you fulfill your role, or at least be perceived by others to do so. I think this also applies to journalistic and media roles, which involve maintaining a working relationship with the Club and its officials, on both the playing and non-playing sides, and access to games via a media pass. I think fans reps. on supporter engagement bodies really should not have any formal relationship with the Club other than being an ordinary fan and having the same matchday experience as all the other fans. A perfectly legitimate response to these points might be that Angela declared her new Club role in her statement, that she came top of the poll and therefore the voters must be quite happy with the situation. I accept that, although I would guess that because she is already well-known, many voters either didn't feel they needed to read the statement, or if they did, perhaps didn't appreciate the possible conflict of interest implications. And, as stated above, we have not been told how many fans actually voted. It goes without saying that none of this is personal to Angela as an individual or any other Council member. They are really matters which the Club needs to address, as it is the process by which it meets its supporter engagement obligations under EFL rules. And I think it is quite likely that the new post-Crouch regulatory regime (assuming the new CMS Secretary of State doesn't abandon the whole thing ! ) will outlaw Club officials being able to represent fans on official fan-engagement bodies. I totally agree with your point about the council having a totally independent voice and as Angela is now effectively an “employee” of the club has to bring that into question. Would you think that should also apply to her roll for radio Stoke? |
|
|
|
Post by Timmy on Aug 31, 2022 11:34:04 GMT
Thanks Malcolm. If there was a low turnout, John, Dan and Ian can only have been separated by 1 or 2 votes.. if any at all. Hope the votes have been scrutinised for fair play.. Yeah 0.1% of the vote is harsh on Ian who I believe has some cracking ideas that haven't even been considered before, hopefully these ideas can be brought forward by another supporters council member. |
|
|
|
Post by Timmy on Aug 31, 2022 11:39:50 GMT
We should thank all the candidates who stood in the recent Supporters Council election for putting themselves forward, whether or not they were successful. I know from my own experience, and, much more importantly, from that of FSA colleagues and affiliates up and down the country, that fans representative roles can be time-consuming and often under-appreciated. In recent years I (and others) have raised the question of why the Club doesn't publish the Council election voting figures. I couldn't think of another organisation whose members elect representatives which doesn't publish the results to the electorate, or a good reason why that shouldn't be done. It comes up every year not only because there is an election every year, but also because the Club has changed its practice both last year and this year, and it is appropriate to assess that. Until last year the Club didn't publish any figures. The reason given by the Chair of the Supporters Council was that publication of a very low number of votes for some candidates could deter them and others from standing. Whilst I appreciated the personal sensitivity of this argument, I don't think it trumps the requirement for good electoral practice and transparency. Last year the Club changed its practice and published the % of the total votes cast obtained by each of the successful candidates, but no actual figures. This year they published those %ages for all the candidates including the unsuccessful ones, so the above argument about candidates who didn't score well has been abandoned. This is a welcome advance but we are still not told the much more important information of how many votes were actually cast in total, and what the turnout was, i.e what proportion of supporters eligible to vote actually did so. It is essential to know this in order to assess the effectiveness of the Club's current approach to supporter engagement, and how important fans think the Council is. I fear, but would be very happy to be proved wrong, that the turnout % was very low. I was surprised that, as far as I could see, there was no promotion of the election over the tannoy, big screen or match programme at the recent home games against M'Boro and Sunderland. I can see no good reason why the Club shouldn't publicise the total number of votes cast and the turnout. One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. On the supporter side, in the FSA we now have a vibrant women's game supporter network at national level, and women's game supporter groups are being established at many clubs. Hopefully this will happen at Stoke. From reading the minutes, Women's game supporters issues have not so far featured heavily, if at all, in the work of the Supporters Council. That of course could change with the new levels of interest in the women's game. But when it does, it raises a self-evident issue of conflict of interest if the General Manager of the Club's women's team, who one would expect to respond to any such issues on behalf of the Club, is already sitting on the supporters' side of the table. Also, the Government has promised a review of the women's game, as recommended to them by Tracey Crouch in her fan-led review of football. The Club will no doubt submit evidence to that, and the Women's Game GM will presumably play a central role in formulating that. But suppose the supporters and the Supporters Council disagreed with the Club on how the women's game should develop (there are some quite controversial issues involved), but the GM is also one of the fans' reps ? I am not aware of any other Club where a club official is part of the supporters' side on a supporter engagement body, for obvious reasons. I don't think it's just a question of women's game issues being discussed. If you are a Club official but (very unusually) also representing fans on the engagement body, with the Club Chairman and Chief Operating Officer (your bosses) sitting on the other side of the table, it's only human nature that this might affect the way you fulfill your role, or at least be perceived by others to do so. I think this also applies to journalistic and media roles, which involve maintaining a working relationship with the Club and its officials, on both the playing and non-playing sides, and access to games via a media pass. I think fans reps. on supporter engagement bodies really should not have any formal relationship with the Club other than being an ordinary fan and having the same matchday experience as all the other fans. A perfectly legitimate response to these points might be that Angela declared her new Club role in her statement, that she came top of the poll and therefore the voters must be quite happy with the situation. I accept that, although I would guess that because she is already well-known, many voters either didn't feel they needed to read the statement, or if they did, perhaps didn't appreciate the possible conflict of interest implications. And, as stated above, we have not been told how many fans actually voted. It goes without saying that none of this is personal to Angela as an individual or any other Council member. They are really matters which the Club needs to address, as it is the process by which it meets its supporter engagement obligations under EFL rules. And I think it is quite likely that the new post-Crouch regulatory regime (assuming the new CMS Secretary of State doesn't abandon the whole thing ! ) will outlaw Club officials being able to represent fans on official fan-engagement bodies. Personally I don't have a problem with Angela having a seat on the council. First and foremost she is a avid stoke supporter who is passionate about the club, her stature also enables her to have more weight behind issues around the club which can only be good for us as supporters. If other people think it's a problem then I would suggest the club to have Angela as a representative of the club in the meetings and elect another person, for example the person with the next highest votes. |
|
|
|
Post by bunnyscfc on Aug 31, 2022 11:54:34 GMT
Cheers Malcolm, but re the women's team I think it is positive that one of their hierarchy are on the forum and don't really see too many conflicting issues, indeed I think it's positive that indirect representation is on. Angela has always put the club first and often held them to account.
Plus, over the years there have been council members that work at the club. Again, I don't see any problem with that plus I don't see any difference to a representative of the women's team going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by poshnbecks on Aug 31, 2022 12:13:33 GMT
Stoke offered Angela the job at the Ladies team and also allowed her to apply to re-stand for the council. Surely Stoke City don't consider there to be a conflict of interest. Perhaps you could email them and ask them to explain their reasoning behind this issue Malcolm
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 31, 2022 12:18:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 31, 2022 13:01:38 GMT
We should thank all the candidates who stood in the recent Supporters Council election for putting themselves forward, whether or not they were successful. I know from my own experience, and, much more importantly, from that of FSA colleagues and affiliates up and down the country, that fans representative roles can be time-consuming and often under-appreciated. In recent years I (and others) have raised the question of why the Club doesn't publish the Council election voting figures. I couldn't think of another organisation whose members elect representatives which doesn't publish the results to the electorate, or a good reason why that shouldn't be done. It comes up every year not only because there is an election every year, but also because the Club has changed its practice both last year and this year, and it is appropriate to assess that. Until last year the Club didn't publish any figures. The reason given by the Chair of the Supporters Council was that publication of a very low number of votes for some candidates could deter them and others from standing. Whilst I appreciated the personal sensitivity of this argument, I don't think it trumps the requirement for good electoral practice and transparency. Last year the Club changed its practice and published the % of the total votes cast obtained by each of the successful candidates, but no actual figures. This year they published those %ages for all the candidates including the unsuccessful ones, so the above argument about candidates who didn't score well has been abandoned. This is a welcome advance but we are still not told the much more important information of how many votes were actually cast in total, and what the turnout was, i.e what proportion of supporters eligible to vote actually did so. It is essential to know this in order to assess the effectiveness of the Club's current approach to supporter engagement, and how important fans think the Council is. I fear, but would be very happy to be proved wrong, that the turnout % was very low. I was surprised that, as far as I could see, there was no promotion of the election over the tannoy, big screen or match programme at the recent home games against M'Boro and Sunderland. I can see no good reason why the Club shouldn't publicise the total number of votes cast and the turnout. One of the successful candidates, Angela (Smith), announced in her election statement that she has been appointed as General Manager of the Club's women's team. I wish her every success in that important role. As we know, women's football is enjoying a huge upturn in interest at the moment, which is great. It would be good to see that reflected at our club as well, and I'm sure that Angela will be working hard to achieve that. On the supporter side, in the FSA we now have a vibrant women's game supporter network at national level, and women's game supporter groups are being established at many clubs. Hopefully this will happen at Stoke. From reading the minutes, Women's game supporters issues have not so far featured heavily, if at all, in the work of the Supporters Council. That of course could change with the new levels of interest in the women's game. But when it does, it raises a self-evident issue of conflict of interest if the General Manager of the Club's women's team, who one would expect to respond to any such issues on behalf of the Club, is already sitting on the supporters' side of the table. Also, the Government has promised a review of the women's game, as recommended to them by Tracey Crouch in her fan-led review of football. The Club will no doubt submit evidence to that, and the Women's Game GM will presumably play a central role in formulating that. But suppose the supporters and the Supporters Council disagreed with the Club on how the women's game should develop (there are some quite controversial issues involved), but the GM is also one of the fans' reps ? I am not aware of any other Club where a club official is part of the supporters' side on a supporter engagement body, for obvious reasons. I don't think it's just a question of women's game issues being discussed. If you are a Club official but (very unusually) also representing fans on the engagement body, with the Club Chairman and Chief Operating Officer (your bosses) sitting on the other side of the table, it's only human nature that this might affect the way you fulfill your role, or at least be perceived by others to do so. I think this also applies to journalistic and media roles, which involve maintaining a working relationship with the Club and its officials, on both the playing and non-playing sides, and access to games via a media pass. I think fans reps. on supporter engagement bodies really should not have any formal relationship with the Club other than being an ordinary fan and having the same matchday experience as all the other fans. A perfectly legitimate response to these points might be that Angela declared her new Club role in her statement, that she came top of the poll and therefore the voters must be quite happy with the situation. I accept that, although I would guess that because she is already well-known, many voters either didn't feel they needed to read the statement, or if they did, perhaps didn't appreciate the possible conflict of interest implications. And, as stated above, we have not been told how many fans actually voted. It goes without saying that none of this is personal to Angela as an individual or any other Council member. They are really matters which the Club needs to address, as it is the process by which it meets its supporter engagement obligations under EFL rules. And I think it is quite likely that the new post-Crouch regulatory regime (assuming the new CMS Secretary of State doesn't abandon the whole thing ! ) will outlaw Club officials being able to represent fans on official fan-engagement bodies. I totally agree with your point about the council having a totally independent voice and as Angela is now effectively an “employee” of the club has to bring that into question. Would you think that should also apply to her roll for radio Stoke? Personally I think the roles of journalist, club general manager, and fans rep should be mutually exclusive for the reasons I gave above. In the light of some of the responses I should repeat that this is not about the personal integrity, ability or commitment of Angela (or any other Council member).It’s about potential conflicts of interest and clarity and separation of roles. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 31, 2022 13:11:10 GMT
This is a substitute for engaging with the substantive issues, but for the record I’m not phased by being dubbed a troublemaker by those in football who don’t want to engage the debate. My colleagues and I in the FSA are well used to it. I have absolutely nothing to gain by creating arguments for the sake of it, but neither will I shy away from tackling important but sensitive issues. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 31, 2022 13:32:42 GMT
This is a substitute for engaging with the substantive issues, but for the record I’m not phased by being dubbed a troublemaker by those in football who don’t want to engage the debate. My colleagues and I in the FSA are well used to it. I have absolutely nothing to gain by creating arguments for the sake of it, but neither will I shy away from tackling important but sensitive issues. The question I would ask you is why do you only single out the female re media work when another male member of the council attends and asks questions at every conference,including yesterday and appears on the radio after every game? Also there have been paid employees of the club for the last 3 years on the council to your knowledge but yet again you single out the female🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2022 13:33:05 GMT
This is a substitute for engaging with the substantive issues, but for the record I’m not phased by being dubbed a troublemaker by those in football who don’t want to engage the debate. My colleagues and I in the FSA are well used to it. I have absolutely nothing to gain by creating arguments for the sake of it, but neither will I shy away from tackling important but sensitive issues. Why don't they sell cake at football grounds? Has this ever been looked into? I never want a pie but often fancied a nice piece of Lemon Drizzle or an Almond slice. Would improve the mood of supporters I think. People like cake |
|
|
|
Post by One-Two on Aug 31, 2022 13:48:03 GMT
Stoke offered Angela the job at the Ladies team and also allowed her to apply to re-stand for the council. Surely Stoke City don't consider there to be a conflict of interest. Perhaps you could email them and ask them to explain their reasoning behind this issue Malcolm Of course the club are fine with it. The whole point is that the conflict of interests has the potential to negatively impact the supporters, not the club. The question is whether someone should be allowed to sit in a position where they are likely to need to hold the club to account when that same person relies on the good will of the club (directly and indirectly) for other jobs. I really don't understand how anyone could think that this is unproblematic. |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 31, 2022 13:51:28 GMT
This is a substitute for engaging with the substantive issues, but for the record I’m not phased by being dubbed a troublemaker by those in football who don’t want to engage the debate. My colleagues and I in the FSA are well used to it. I have absolutely nothing to gain by creating arguments for the sake of it, but neither will I shy away from tackling important but sensitive issues. The question I would ask you is why do you only single out the female re media work when another male member of the council attends and asks questions at every conference,including yesterday and appears on the radio after every game? Also there have been paid employees of the club for the last 3 years on the council to your knowledge but yet again you single out the female🤔 I absolutely reject any suggestion that this is gender-based discrimination. I did not know that another member of the Council has a journalist role and if that is the case, exactly the same comments apply. To the best of my recollection the questioners at most of the press conferences I’ve listed to ( not all of them by any means) have been Angela Smith and George Andrews. I have not been aware of others, and certainly not that he is a member of the Supporters Council. Similarly I was not aware that other Club employees sit on the Council or what job role they have. Your post has alerted me to the fact that this is perhaps a bigger issue than I realised for which I thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Aug 31, 2022 14:07:32 GMT
I’m glad one of my three votes is on the council (re-elected). It’s obviously more difficult for those not already on the council but I hope they try again in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 31, 2022 14:11:30 GMT
The question I would ask you is why do you only single out the female re media work when another male member of the council attends and asks questions at every conference,including yesterday and appears on the radio after every game? Also there have been paid employees of the club for the last 3 years on the council to your knowledge but yet again you single out the female🤔 I absolutely reject any suggestion that this is gender-based discrimination. I did not know that another member of the Council has a journalist role and if that is the case, exactly the same comments apply. To the best of my recollection the questioners at most of the press conferences I’ve listed to ( not all of them by any means) have been Angela Smith and George Andrews. I have not been aware of others, and certainly not that he is a member of the Supporters Council. Similarly I was not aware that other Club employees sit on the Council or what job role they have. Your post has alerted me to the fact that this is perhaps a bigger issue than I realised for which I thank you. You obviously didn’t listen to yesterday’s press conference very closely then |
|
|
|
Post by chigstoke on Aug 31, 2022 14:17:26 GMT
I absolutely reject any suggestion that this is gender-based discrimination. I did not know that another member of the Council has a journalist role and if that is the case, exactly the same comments apply. To the best of my recollection the questioners at most of the press conferences I’ve listed to ( not all of them by any means) have been Angela Smith and George Andrews. I have not been aware of others, and certainly not that he is a member of the Supporters Council. Similarly I was not aware that other Club employees sit on the Council or what job role they have. Your post has alerted me to the fact that this is perhaps a bigger issue than I realised for which I thank you. You obviously didn’t listen to yesterday’s press conference very closely then Sounds like this needs sorting out between you both before the game at the statue. |
|
|
|
Post by banksy1art on Aug 31, 2022 14:26:49 GMT
Can anyone in the supporters council push for a train station outside of the ground?
|
|
|
|
Post by owdestokie2 on Aug 31, 2022 15:06:37 GMT
Malcom
I did vote. How did I get to vote? Through social media contact by one of the perspective candidates. I do think you’re right about the club and how they could be more proactive in advertising the elections and running candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokieBoy31 on Aug 31, 2022 15:17:53 GMT
This is a substitute for engaging with the substantive issues, but for the record I’m not phased by being dubbed a troublemaker by those in football who don’t want to engage the debate. My colleagues and I in the FSA are well used to it. I have absolutely nothing to gain by creating arguments for the sake of it, but neither will I shy away from tackling important but sensitive issues. Maybe in future you gather all relevant info before singling out one person, you say it isn’t personal but it looks that way when it’s clear others on the council are doing the exact same without mention or criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 31, 2022 15:23:28 GMT
Can anyone in the supporters council push for a train station outside of the ground? Not sure why they'd want the club wasting so much money on something that isn't needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2022 15:30:46 GMT
Can anyone in the supporters council push for a train station outside of the ground? Was tried years ago and told wasn't in any way feasible |
|
|
|
Post by bunnyscfc on Aug 31, 2022 15:44:23 GMT
Can anyone in the supporters council push for a train station outside of the ground? Was tried years ago and told wasn't in any way feasible Yup, amazing how Brighton and other clubs have managed to make it feasible. Typical Stoke-on-Trent short-sightedness. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2022 15:47:30 GMT
Was tried years ago and told wasn't in any way feasible Yup, amazing how Brighton and other clubs have managed to make it feasible. Typical Stoke-on-Trent short-sightedness. It wasn't to do with Stoke though that it wasn't and the close vicinity of the station in Stoke which not an issue at Brighton, so not really. The Amex has Falmer station nearby. Was a non starter before it got off the ground. Was something Moxey was keen on doing |
|
|
|
Post by wembley4372 on Aug 31, 2022 15:50:11 GMT
Was tried years ago and told wasn't in any way feasible Yup, amazing how Brighton and other clubs have managed to make it feasible. Typical Stoke-on-Trent short-sightedness. I suspect it would be cheaper to run a cable car to Stoke station |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Aug 31, 2022 15:52:48 GMT
I absolutely reject any suggestion that this is gender-based discrimination. I did not know that another member of the Council has a journalist role and if that is the case, exactly the same comments apply. To the best of my recollection the questioners at most of the press conferences I’ve listed to ( not all of them by any means) have been Angela Smith and George Andrews. I have not been aware of others, and certainly not that he is a member of the Supporters Council. Similarly I was not aware that other Club employees sit on the Council or what job role they have. Your post has alerted me to the fact that this is perhaps a bigger issue than I realised for which I thank you. You obviously didn’t listen to yesterday’s press conference very closely then As it happens I did listen and concentrated but didn’t know who the initial questioners were, let alone that any of them are on the Supporters Council. |
|
). But wouldn't life be a lot simpler if the Club just published the actual figures ? 
