The disbanding point was made by someone else. I think the supporters council are getting some unfair stick here because of the clubs lack of transparency.
I don't think the questions are off limits. It's why I was under the impression the question had been asked before.
Are they obligated to agree that the question is fair and true or can they just say that's not the case as we see it? Similar to the left back issue response in a public forum.
The club made a statement when we got relegated from the Prem. Should that form the basis of the questioning and call out the points they made in that and ask for a response? What questions would you ask and how would you phrase them?
I stated above that "I don't have a clear perspective on exactly what questions have been asked of the club by the SC, what the responses have been, and what the SC has done about any refusal to give answers to questions which could legitimately come within the definition of "significant issues" . I've tried to gain such a perspective by looking at the SC minutes, back to the beginning of last season. As far as I can see, the minutes record no questions about about job descriptions and responsibilities ( which is where this discussion started) nor any about the club's view on its performance on player recruitment, and the reasons for what is generally agreed to be a very poor performance in that area over recent years.
It was stated above by the SC Chair that such questions have been asked but the club does not answer because they relate to business operations. Assuming I haven't missed something in the minutes, if they have been asked, the questions and the response have not been recorded in the minutes, which would be wrong because that's the route for fans to monitor the SC activities. If they have been asked outside the meeting, that fact and the response should be reported to the meeting so that it can be recorded in the minutes. A narrative has been developed in this thread that the SC have asked the questions but the Club have refused to answer them. As I said I don't want to be unfair to either the SC or the Club.
In response to your question, I would ask the SC what questions have been asked of the Club in this area, in what forum and when, what the response has been, and why this isn't recorded in the SC minutes. If the Club declined to answer on the grounds that it is business operations, was this challenged by the SC ?
If I were on the SC I would ask the Club to clarify the role and respective responsibilities in the area of player recruitment of The owners; the full Board; The Director of recruitment ( or whatever Mr.Cartwright's successor is titled), the CEO and The Manager. I would also ask whether the Club agrees that performance in this area in recent years has been poor; If so, to what do the Club attribute this, and what, if any, measures have been taken to rectify it ? If the Club declined to answer, I would challenge that, because I think it comes within the definition of significant issues and the answers would not reveal commercially sensitive information. Does that answer your question ?
The SC minutes do record that the SC and the Club have signed a memorandum of agreement on the operation of the Council and what topics should be raised there. What is in that MOU is obviously central to this discussion, but I can't find it on the Club website. A search on "memorandum of understanding" or "MOU" does not throw it up. It should be readily accessible to fans.
On the same theme, on the old website it was easy to look up SC minutes. Unless I'm missing something on the new one it is much harder because they are not all in one place ( or if they are, I can't find it). Searching under "Supporters Council" throws up too many items. In the end I searched on the surname of one of the Council members to find them. If you do that, choose a non common name, not Smith for example which will throw up every reference to Tommy Smith. This is not good. The minutes should be easily accessible to fans. If I have missed something obvious, then I suspect others will do as well.
I am not trying to have a go at the SC. I know only too well that representing fans can be a time consuming and thankless task. Neither would I minimise the importance of the customer service type issues which dominate the SC minutes. I am only trying to clarify exactly what, if anything, has happened on the issues raised in the thread and whether or not the Club are not meeting their obligations in this respect under the EFL regulations. The Club cannot be criticised for failing to answer questions they haven't been asked, if that be the case.