|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 10, 2013 20:32:44 GMT
Precisely, whydelilah! I've been intending to raise this topic (ACV) on here, for some time, but was held back by the realisation that too many Stokies have no interest in such things, as was amply proven by the embarrassing lack of support by all but a (literal!) handful, for the formation of a Potters Trust, a few years ago. To then so harshly criticise those who indeed are willing to give up valuable time, for no other reason than to ensure that the club remains a community asset, is difficult to comprehend. Like whydelilah, I feel sumpathy for Malc, who works damned hard for supporters, at both local and national level, for little credit, at least locally. How anyone could doubt the positive and caring thinking behind his introduction of this subject, on which other more enlightened fans, elsewhere, have had the foresight to act, before it is too late, is also beyond me. How can it be taken for granted that anyone in the profesional game, at this time, even someone like our present owners, will never change or, more likely, that their successors will not act with the same loyalty and integrity? Ask Cardiff City fans (especially after today's news,admittedly on another topic) if they are able to trust their present owners ever again. To say that it is an insult to our owners, was an unprofessional response to divert, indeed, close any such discussion. Personally, I prefer democracy. There appears to be a few, on this thread alone, that agree with Malcolm on this subject. How do we, as fans, get this issue back on the table? Are their council members that we can contact, or other representatives, in order to pursue the issue; perhaps with a bit more support next time round? I fail to see how this issue isn't at least worthy of discussion. It's in all of our interests as fans of the club. WD I guess the best place to start is by contacting the representative from where the part of the ground You sit in?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 10, 2013 21:29:58 GMT
There appears to be a few, on this thread alone, that agree with Malcolm on this subject. How do we, as fans, get this issue back on the table? Are their council members that we can contact, or other representatives, in order to pursue the issue; perhaps with a bit more support next time round? I fail to see how this issue isn't at least worthy of discussion. It's in all of our interests as fans of the club. WD I guess the best place to start is by contacting the representative from where the part of the ground You sit in? I might be a bit thick here (not a new thing at all!) but I can't see on the Official site the email address we should use to contact our Council reps - even though the minutes of the last meeting said that the club was setting one up. If anyone can find it - can they post the link on here please. I see that this board is not carrying a link despite Angela Smith asking them to put one up yesterday on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 21:32:31 GMT
Yeah, that'd be a big help.
If anybody can oblige?
I'll have a look myself tomorrow if no one has posted it on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Oct 10, 2013 21:35:08 GMT
I guess the best place to start is by contacting the representative from where the part of the ground You sit in? I might be a bit thick here (not a new thing at all!) but I can't see on the Official site the email address we should use to contact our Council reps - even though the minutes of the last meeting said that the club was setting one up. If anyone can find it - can they post the link on here please. I was hoping they'd be on there. www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/members.aspxSticking it on that bit would be nice.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 11:34:56 GMT
I might be a bit thick here (not a new thing at all!) but I can't see on the Official site the email address we should use to contact our Council reps - even though the minutes of the last meeting said that the club was setting one up. If anyone can find it - can they post the link on here please. I was hoping they'd be on there. www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/members.aspxSticking it on that bit would be nice. I can't find any email addresses but at the bottom section of that link (http://www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/members.aspx) there is a form to fill out to contact the Council Members. I've filled it out with my thoughts. WD
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 11, 2013 11:44:17 GMT
I can't find any email addresses but at the bottom section of that link (http://www.stokecityfc.com/fans/supporterscouncil/members.aspx) there is a form to fill out to contact the Council Members. I've filled it out with my thoughts. WD Did you aim your thoughts at all members or just the rep for the stand in which you sit?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 11:47:27 GMT
I didn't aim it at anybody specifically.
I think the message just goes to all of the Council Members.
I just made it clear I thought the idea was at least worthy of discussion and that I failed to understand why Malcolm received no support on the matter. It is clearly in our interests, as fans of the club. I also fail to see how the Owners would be insulted by it.
I have no idea if they get to read it or not but I've submitted it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 11, 2013 12:41:27 GMT
I didn't aim it at anybody specifically. I think the message just goes to all of the Council Members. I just made it clear I thought the idea was at least worthy of discussion and that I failed to understand why Malcolm received no support on the matter. It is clearly in our interests, as fans of the club. I also fail to see how the Owners would be insulted by it. I have no idea if they get to read it or not but I've submitted it anyway. Cheers, I'll ask questions on similar lines myself over the weekend. Let us know on this thread of any replies you receive and I will do the same. Just one thing I am not particularly happy about. I don't much like the idea that we have to contact the Supporters' Council reps via the club. If club staff can read the emails before (or at the same time) as the supporters reps it means they can get advance warning of the way the wind is blowing. I may be getting paranoid but I'd rather we were able to use an email address which was totally closed to club staff. Maybe this one is - I'm not at all clear how the system has been set up. It is also a bit concerning that, apart from Malcolm and Angela, only one other council member has posted on this thread. That isn't to say that the Oatcake has a monopoly of wisdom but you'd think council members would realise that it was the most active forum that members have and would monitor it and chip in with their views on matters which affect the Supporters' council. Again, I might just be being paranoid!
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 11, 2013 14:09:01 GMT
The Council e mails can only be read by the council. It is not part of the clubs e mail system. We posted the link on the site as we felt most people would look at the website for news. I cannot speak for other members of the Council, but I check the Oatcake every day for information. I suspect other Council members do too. Thanks for you comments via the website which I will pass on.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 11, 2013 14:15:36 GMT
I would also point out that the item was discussed, it was not dismissed out of hand. I appreciate that may not meet with the agreement of some, but it was discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 15:00:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 11, 2013 17:01:02 GMT
Cheers WD. "Individuals cannot nominate ACVs." So, in the case of the Britannia Stadium, which group would be most appropriate to be the nominator (also known as a nominor)? The Stoke City Supporters Club, possibly? Does S-O-T have parish councils within its boundary - most cities don't? Is there a civic society covering the area in which the Brit is situated?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Oct 11, 2013 17:26:57 GMT
We could possibly have a "golden share" concept which prevents a sale not in the interest of the public but otherwise would not interfere. I think that the FA in some ways should have this right given some of the daft things that have gone on in some clubs (Cardiff for example)
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Oct 11, 2013 17:35:19 GMT
sheikhmomo It was "rigorously" discussed and I have no doubt that everyone understood why it was debated. Tony Scholes has never bullied me, or tried to. He does of course have his own point of view (which naturally reflects his employers wishes) and sometimes,I like you and many others disagree with that viewpoint. That is when the "fun" starts and I think I stand my ground (and that of the supporters) in my role as indeed do many of the current Council. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter too I am absolutely certain, having heard you on Knot FM that you are someone who knows their own mind and is prepared to fight your corner. Thank you for what you do on our behalf.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 11, 2013 18:46:58 GMT
Joe, thanks for your comments. Can I make it clear that if anyone wishes to contact the supporters council the e mail address is chair@scfcsc.co.uk. This address is hosted by a site that is nothing to do with the club. The club has no access to the mails. I will personally answer every mail in the short term before passing them to the appropriate person. If anyone fills in a form on the club website, clearly that form goes directly to the club. Can I suggest you use the scfcsc mail address if you wish complete security or Tweet/DM scfcsc for general comments.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2013 18:50:17 GMT
Thanks Ange.
I'll put an email together and send it over on Monday.
WD
|
|
|
Post by scfcsc on Oct 11, 2013 21:15:41 GMT
We now have an Oatcake account for those who wish to Dm via this board too or use the forum rather than e mail or tweet us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2013 1:44:05 GMT
Cheers WD. "Individuals cannot nominate ACVs." So, in the case of the Britannia Stadium, which group would be most appropriate to be the nominator (also known as a nominor)? The Stoke City Supporters Club, possibly? Does S-O-T have parish councils within its boundary - most cities don't? Is there a civic society covering the area in which the Brit is situated? Yes (wider) Stoke-on-Trent has parishes. I was born in the parish of Audley, which is part of (wider) Stoke-on-Trent. So I assume either Stoke (town) is a parish, or it is covered by one or more of the surrounding ones The Supporters Club has - historically - wanted to keep away from things political and be there solely to help supporters support the club. That said, as the longest serving fan club it would do no harm at all to ask them ( first!). As far as I know (and can tell from skim reading Bayern's link) any old group will do ... So I guess, if all else fails, a group of supporters could form the "Friends of the Britannia Stadium" I'll save myself ten pages of typing by just saying it may be easier not to bother with the Football Club Trust thing ... depending on what Malcolm/Steve did with the Trust after I stopped running it?? ... There are rules about re-establishing one, if memory serves ... Going instead for an "association" based on "the care of the Stadium") would probably save some ghrief (and keep agendas shorter ) I still think it would be better to be more politically sensitive. Just for the record ...
|
|
|
Post by surreystokie on Oct 12, 2013 9:10:20 GMT
Sorry to see this so important thread disappearing down and shortly off the front page of this MB. To me, it is of the utmost urgency and I'll try to explain why. Stay with me, as it is the final paragraph which is the prime one.
MarkWolstanton gets it right in his opening paragraphs but I must question his final comments. As he states, the ACV is indeed 'a way of protecting assets which the community values and to prevent it from being sold under our feet'.
What disappoints me is that he can understand its appearance on the MB's of other clubs, who do not enjoy the benefits our ownership brings, re. stability and well-being. The sheer 100% trust in this state of affairs continuing, at SCFC, just boggles my mind, however.
I doubt that Liverpool FC supporters, never ever considered, in thier wildest nightmares, that the lifelong ownership (and success) under the Moores family, would end as it did, taken over by a USA duo (Hicks and Gilett) even though some nearer home were available, who went so precariously near to killing off the club, had it not been for a rule which the USA smarties had failed to read properly.
Why could that not possibly happen to SCFC? As MarkW says, it would do well for some to recall what has happened to a good number of stadiums, in the recent past and continues to grow, via Coventry, wehre fans may win, but only due to staying away, almost en masse. Why are we to be an exception?
No I don't believe a ground sale will happen, while Peter Coates is around and hugely active, despite now owning only a minor amount of shares. But who can guarantee any such future loyalty and integrity at the helmof our beloved club?
What bitterly disappoints me, however, is the fact that this important issue was not disseminated to supporters at large. However the numerical vote on the Supporters Council went, and on the law of averages, some will have agreed with Malc, what worries me is what I perceive as the true reason for disagreement and the frightening possibility of it being swept under the carpet. In short, it is the belief that some will have been wrongly influenced by our chief executive.
It is not my failure to accept the opinions of others, please note, but a fear that one man alone has probably dictated the outcome, for those lucky enough to vote. (Some of us did not volunteer for Council membership due entirely to distance problems and its financial implication.)
The crunch lies in my final paragraph, however. What Tony Scholes did, was more than sway the vote, in a quite crafty way. In stating that a vote for the motion would be an insult to Peter Coates, he not only swayed voting but cetainly offended me and many others who believe that our chairman would not have been insulted, at all. Peter Coates is one of the most community-minded of chairmen, in the PL and I believe that he would want the club to have its ground secured, for life, to the local community, for which he has fought so long.
So I appeal to those who feel the same way as I do, to ask for the issue to be explored, by contacting Council members, if only briefly, to say so. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 12, 2013 10:13:00 GMT
I think you have rather misunderstood my original post on the subject Monica which is probably a function of the fact that I didn't expand it to the point of boring everyone to death. I simply tried to frame the post as a question to prompt some discussion on the subject in an attempt to understand what had motivated the item being on the Supporters Council agenda in the first place. I simply gave but two possible reasons to assist in the discussion which I perfectly well understood would be wider than that. I'm certainly not dim enough to believe the Coates dynasty will go on forever and be a never ending safeguard for the well being of either the football club or the stadium. I have now read the replies along with continuing to contrast the circumstances surrounding other football clubs whose supporters have and are looking to apply this process. It has enabled me to reflect on the validity/usefulness of such a process being put in place at the Britannia. Despite your reassurances I suspect the subject is likely to send a message to the current owners that is likely to be seen, rightly or wrongly in a negative light. That should not on its own be a reason to shy away ifthe longer term security of the stadium as a venue for football played by Stoke City could be threatened. You have eloquently (as ever) used examples of what could go wrong by example of other football clubs but, if you do not mind me saying so, have sidestepped the local factors that arguably substantially diminish similar risks being visited on us. Without expanding too much I wonder whilst you enthusiastically embrace the value of ACV to Stoke City if you considered matters such as: Why the Britannia Stadium was strategically located where it is in the first place and how that impacts on the likelihood of it being removed from where it is and what it is used for? The location of the overwhelming majority of the other clubs applying or considering applying for recognition of ACV slap bang in the middle of towns where they are a nuisance in many people's eyes and blocking area development (in direct contrast to my first point). The other economic and development factors in the Stoke on Trent area that cannot be ignored in considering the likelihood of anyone going to the immense trouble of even attempting to uproot the club from its present location in the hope of making money. That is but three of the local factors you have ignored. It is easy to raise scare scenarios but I wonder if many really carry much of a credible risk when placed in the context of Stoke on Trent? You have been dwelling in leafy Surrey for far too long, Monica! My personal view is, whilst recognising it is impossible to predict accurately future scenarios; as it stands there is little short or medium term risk to the future of football at the Britannia unless the club itself goes bust. In that case the ACV would be pretty well meaningless and offer no protection to the supporters of Stoke City now or future. The arguments I have so far read would lead me to value it no higher than a nice to have of little real meaning in the context of Stoke City and I would therefore be most unlikely to support potentially destabilising relationships with the current ownership or bind potential future ownership in order to blindly apply a largely irrelevant process. Even if the ownership question is not valid I am struggling to see the point in the context of Stoke City and Stoke on Trent. The lack of reality is the reason for the lack of interest.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 12, 2013 10:32:34 GMT
I do agree with your criticism of the Supporters Council communication process which brings me round nicely to replying to Ange's request for a link being pinned through to the Official Site section for the Supporters Council.
It would be easily done of course and I'm sure there would be no objections raised by anyone connected to the site. I do question if that is really the answer.
As already pointed out the Official Site coverage of the work of the Supporters Council is a shambles in terms of either being informative or offering the opportunity for supporters to influence the thoughts and actions of their reps on the Council. A link at the top of this message board is not going to fix that and as a result would soon become an ignored part of the furniture.
It never ceases to amaze me that (Malcolm and Ange apart)that Council members make no attempt to utilise the facility of this message board to prompt debate, gauge opinions or explain issues to what is by some distance the most easily accessed and widely used home for Stoke supporters on the internet. That's not an attempt to big up the site in any way. It is just a fact.
Surely a well constructed thread opener on a subject the council or one of its members wishes to discuss will have more freshness and greater attention than a link button to a grave yard?
Furthermore there is the fanzine itself which has wider readership than the official club programme. When was the last time any Council member offered up an article in which they attempted to prompt interest/discussion/debate or procure feedback?
It really is not any use complaining of disinterest when you operate in a concealed dungeon.
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 12, 2013 11:34:43 GMT
It appears that the Supporters Council is taking a battering from a few fans who feel "let down" by the result of a majority opinion on the topic Asset of Community Value discussed at the last meeting. Can I respectfully remind those of you who are disgruntled that the only person who brought up the item was Malcolm, we did not receive one request regarding the topic from any supporter, this would suggest to me that either fans were not aware of the situation or were not sufficiently interested to ask for the subject to be debated. The fact that few supporters have joined into the debate on this thread is further indication in my opinion that supporters are either unaware or not sufficiently interested at this time.
Malcolm produced a paper on the subject, which I am sure he will happily share with supporters who have sufficient interest and wish to explore the situation further. I cannot speak for others but no one writes my script or "wrongly influences" me as I have previously stated. I sometimes disagree with the CEO of the club but on this occasion I believe he stated his case, as he is entitled and nothing more.
My personal opinion is in agreement with the statement "I would therefore be most unlikely to support potentially destabilising relationships with the current ownership or bind potential future ownership in order to blindly apply a largely irrelevant process." I think it is fair to assume that the CEO is more likely to know how the club owners feel on the subject than ourselves too
As for operating in a concealed dungeon, I will request that other council members attempt to prompt interest and procure feedback. I think that is a valid request. As for the club site, I have lost count of the attempts made to gain improvements to the site and access to the Council matters by myself. I am informed that some of the problems are due to contractual issues, but I will continue to try to improve visibility and accessibility to the Council.
Thanks for your feedback and your continuing support of the Club.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 12, 2013 11:34:49 GMT
Increased communication can only be a good thing of course but even then any topics raised still have to be deemed worthy by our Chief Executive and pass his self determined 'offence to the family' test!
|
|
|
Post by ange1 on Oct 12, 2013 11:41:59 GMT
Sheikmomo. Increased communication can be positive step. As for your comments re our CEO, that is not my experience and if I ever feel that anyone is treating the Council suggestions from the supporters with contempt and disdain, then I will address the matter firstly with that person and then with the owners of the club.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 12, 2013 11:43:23 GMT
Increased communication can only be a good thing of course but even then any topics raised still have to be deemed worthy by our Chief Executive and pass his self determined 'offence to the family' test! If you read some of the older minutes there are several items that are closed by the invite by Tony to the member raising a particular item to discuss the matter in private. I do wonder if the particular representative has ever been seen again or is buried under the Q Railings concourse with the subsequent minutes reading "member unable to attend for personal reasons!"
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 12, 2013 11:46:47 GMT
Increased communication can only be a good thing of course but even then any topics raised still have to be deemed worthy by our Chief Executive and pass his self determined 'offence to the family' test! If you read some of the older minutes there are several items that are closed by the invite by Tony to the member raising a particular item to discuss the matter in private. I do wonder if the particular representative has ever been seen again or is buried under the Q Railings concourse with the subsequent minutes reading "member unable to attend for personal reasons!" Tony Scholes, the Fred West of Football Administration.
|
|
|
Post by hollybush on Oct 12, 2013 12:10:07 GMT
I do agree with your criticism of the Supporters Council communication process which brings me round nicely to replying to Ange's request for a link being pinned through to the Official Site section for the Supporters Council. It would be easily done of course and I'm sure there would be no objections raised by anyone connected to the site. I do question if that is really the answer. As already pointed out the Official Site coverage of the work of the Supporters Council is a shambles in terms of either being informative or offering the opportunity for supporters to influence the thoughts and actions of their reps on the Council. A link at the top of this message board is not going to fix that and as a result would soon become an ignored part of the furniture. It never ceases to amaze me that (Malcolm and Ange apart)that Council members make no attempt to utilise the facility of this message board to prompt debate, gauge opinions or explain issues to what is by some distance the most easily accessed and widely used home for Stoke supporters on the internet. That's not an attempt to big up the site in any way. It is just a fact. Surely a well constructed thread opener on a subject the council or one of its members wishes to discuss will have more freshness and greater attention than a link button to a grave yard? Furthermore there is the fanzine itself which has wider readership than the official club programme. When was the last time any Council member offered up an article in which they attempted to prompt interest/discussion/debate or procure feedback? It really is not any use complaining of disinterest when you operate in a concealed dungeon. I can maybe understand why Council members don't post regularly on here, as they may see how rapidly threads can degenerate into abuse, name-calling and point scoring. However, surely this very thread has demonstrated that is is possible to have a continuing sensible debate over a subject without it degenerating. Maybe those people who don't post should be somehow pointed towards this thread as evidence that it might well be worthwhile maintaining a dialogue with this site and its posters.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Oct 12, 2013 12:24:10 GMT
I do agree with your criticism of the Supporters Council communication process which brings me round nicely to replying to Ange's request for a link being pinned through to the Official Site section for the Supporters Council. It would be easily done of course and I'm sure there would be no objections raised by anyone connected to the site. I do question if that is really the answer. As already pointed out the Official Site coverage of the work of the Supporters Council is a shambles in terms of either being informative or offering the opportunity for supporters to influence the thoughts and actions of their reps on the Council. A link at the top of this message board is not going to fix that and as a result would soon become an ignored part of the furniture. It never ceases to amaze me that (Malcolm and Ange apart)that Council members make no attempt to utilise the facility of this message board to prompt debate, gauge opinions or explain issues to what is by some distance the most easily accessed and widely used home for Stoke supporters on the internet. That's not an attempt to big up the site in any way. It is just a fact. Surely a well constructed thread opener on a subject the council or one of its members wishes to discuss will have more freshness and greater attention than a link button to a grave yard? Furthermore there is the fanzine itself which has wider readership than the official club programme. When was the last time any Council member offered up an article in which they attempted to prompt interest/discussion/debate or procure feedback? It really is not any use complaining of disinterest when you operate in a concealed dungeon. I can maybe understand why Council members don't post regularly on here, as they may see how rapidly threads can degenerate into abuse, name-calling and point scoring. However, surely this very thread has demonstrated that is is possible to have a continuing sensible debate over a subject without it degenerating. Maybe those people who don't post should be somehow pointed towards this thread as evidence that it might well be worthwhile maintaining a dialogue with this site and its posters. If anyone is put off standing as a representative of anything on the basis of being subject to any of the above then they really need to reconsider their position. It goes with the territory, rightly or wrongly. Sorry but in my opinion that is a poor excuse for not bothering to take advantage of a free and easily available communication channel to a more than decent sized community of the people the members are supposed to represent.
|
|
|
Post by fegghayze on Oct 12, 2013 12:57:59 GMT
I can't get my head around why the outrage over the discussion or lack of at the meeting. If you read the information, it's almost a cosmetic exercise and in the financial world of no real importance. If a group of supporters want to do it, then do it, the supporters group and club don't have to be involved at all.
|
|
JoolZ
Academy Starlet
Posts: 111
|
Post by JoolZ on Oct 12, 2013 12:59:36 GMT
I represent the Southern Supporters club on the supporters Council and raise any issues on their behalf. Additionally I'm happy to raise any topic from any supporter, not just those in the South.
Each council meeting is limited to 2 hours on the morning of a match day, 4 to 5 times a season, so it can be practical to take a topic away for later discussion, either by a sub group of the council and/ or perhaps with an individual at the club. There is nothing sinister in this, just common sense.
The ACV topic was added to the agenda of the latest meeting by Malcolm at the last minute so no-one else really had much time to consider it in advance. We also had a full agenda of planned items to discuss and as this item came near to the end of the meeting there wasn't much time to expand on it.
Our next full council meeting is on 23rd November where I'm sure this topic will be on the agenda.
While this thread appears to show that further discussion is needed, it should be noted that even though there have been over 2400 views, less than 20 people have been involved so far in commenting on this topic. It would be helpful if more people could add their thoughts here so that a wider fan perspective could be available.
|
|