Always a balance though isn't it. The method they used gave them the opportunity to explain the financial and other realities so that those expressing an opinion id so with an informed opinion. Your alternative gets (possibly) a larger response but a less informed opinion. Which is better.
Its a bit like deciding an utterly crucial decision for the future of the country based on an utterly illinformed plurality in a referendum voting on press deceptions or a much more informed but lower numerically electorate of MPs making the decision understanding the facts.
CTTrophy:
We made a lot of money (to buy players like Sam S)
We gave squad players a competitive run out
We saw some over privileged u-23 kids get a Div 2 wake up call (v funny)
Sound business sense, and without that we have no club.
Carry on keeping the lunatics from taking over the asylum Mr Chairman, it must be v frustrating having to justify sound business choices to those who only capable of applying emotional feelings to the running of the club.
Can we try to control the hysteria? To describe the FC as a "secret society" is absurd.
There was an item on the club's website several days ahead of the meeting encouraging attendance and saying what the subject matter was. In addition the Club tweeted about the meeting on 23 April (twice), 24 April, 25 April and 26 April. Among all of this was a tweet giving an email address for comments for anyone who couldn't make the meeting.
The Club was clearly conscious that in some quarters the Checkatrade trophy is a sensitive issue and I don't really think you can criticise it for not asking for fans' views.
Reading Alan's summary, it doesn't sound much of a decision.
Basically keep it with the highest money incentive ever, or go back to the dreadfully unprofitable dead version, or scrap it altogether.
I expect many would go for the latter, but that'd be cutting off one of our few methods of extra funds
So how many people actually went? How many is a few?
Advertising the meeting is one thing. I've seen these in a few different places. What I haven't seen is either an agenda or post meeting minutes to see what was discussed. For me I would be more likely to go if I knew who was chairing, involved and what types of discussions were part of the meeting. Saying there is a meeting is only the start of the process.
Why do the club get good turnouts for forums involving Andrew Howard and Gareth Ainsworth? Because we know they will be there? I have no idea who is involved in the Fans Council and what is discussed and agreed. I think it's a great idea that just needs a bit more care and attention.
Thanks @peterparrotface . Sounds like a decent turnout to me but all I'm hearing is this is not enough. So either the Trust lower its expectations or they actually give minutes on past meetings and show more people they are worth attending.
Always hated Skype meetings (I find they are a bit too chaotic and body language gets missed) but it is an option.
@Uncle_T said:
Is there any possibility of holding the Fans Council meetings on a match day or providing remote access via teleconference/webconference in order to allow more people to take part? I would make an effort to attend these sessions if I lived locally to High Wycombe, but I am not going to make the 200+ mile round-trip from my home just for one of these.
Seconded. I'd be delighted to participate if I didn't live 2.5 hours drive away. Perhaps worth asking members to see if any others would be interested.
I'd like to see an on-line end of season survey to Trust members, asking for views on a variety of issues.
Would be easy to set up and police through membership numbers etc and would give a good idea of where the Trust needs to devote its time and effort, and probably produce some useful suggestions, etc.
@perfidious_albion Lets get in correct we made money from the CTT it helped Line Sam Saunders pockets is what you mean. It allowed us to pay inflated wages. Nothing wrong with that by the way. But its blood money. But you are entitled to your opinion. But you still miss the whole point. This is a precursor to the Premier League running our league, to manipulate small clubs with bribery money, to appease them. Once we accept this and it becomes the norm you will be happy won't you playing in a league against the reserves and 'A' teams from Premiership clubs. Just because its not on the table now doesn't mean it wont be and we will sleep walk into it. The lunatics you refer to are the same lunatics that want to stop owners taking over clubs without proper vetting, who fight to bring back safe standing, support twenty is plenty campaign.
It would have been nice if I had known about the Fans Council meeting with more than two days notice. As I work late and away from Wycombe I'd need to put arrangements in place at work in advance to allow me to be able to make it. Judging by the lack of any discussion of what happened at the meeting I'm surprised there were 16 in attendence (unless they were bound to an agreement to not discuss anything in the meeting until a statement had been made by the club?).
The position of supporting the current format on the basis that we get a few crumbs from the top table in prize money for wins over wet-behind-the-ears lightweight youth teams on the basis that B teams being allowed into the league structure is 'off the table' and bypass the established pyramid is short-term pragmatism with some degree of naivety.
How long this will be off the table isn't known, senior figures at the Premier League (and talking heads who have no respect for lower league football) periodically float the idea whenever the issue of a lack of young British players in the Premier League becomes the topic of discussion in the media (refusing to look at the more obvious issue of them hoarding vast stockpiles of youngsters with no intention of blooding them in the first team).
With the parlous state of finances in the lower reaches of professional football, I don't think it would take much for the PL to make an offer that beancounters won't refuse.
There is no evidence that the Checkatrade Trophy is the so called thin edge of the wedge.
Seems a straightforward choice between getting a decent wodge of cash at the price of an extra game or two or not.
If down the road, premier league teams want to dangle a financial carrot to allow B teams into the league, they will do that with or without the Checkatrade.
Notable that apparently all the supporters who did attend when given the full facts, chose to support the status quo option in WWFC position. Early numbers suggest overall club vote will be quite close though. I suppose the relative financial benefit to a large Lg1 club is much smaller than a small lg2 club and hence they are more likely to choose the old format or scrap altogether.
@DevC - No evidence other than proposals to shoehorn them into the pyramid periodically being brought up by the powers that be. Are they just testing the waters with no intention of carrying it out? The inclusion of B teams in the Football League Trophy is clearly a part of the softening-up process. If you choose not to see any possible connection between the two, it's up to you.
I'm guessing you were at the meeting and know what these 'full facts' are? If it's anything like the information that the club have provided previously, it's along the lines of
these kids are piece of piss to beat
we get loadsa money/the odd crumb or two from the top table if we win a game
'Full facts' implies some sort of balanced and objective facts in favour and against, though this certainly hasn't been forthcoming in my previous experience of trying to discuss the matter with the top brass at previous events.
Premier League U23 - essentially - B teams taking part in a competition meant for Div 3 and 4 teams is already very much a part of the wedge and arguably not a very thin part either.
I can see why our club has taken this decision, but the whole thing stinks. Sadly, our precarious position leaves us open to this kind of financial manipulation. I'm not angry at our club, or the people who have made this decision, but I am absolutely disgusted by the grotesque, pompous, bullying Premier League. I look forward to the day when that unsustainable house of cards comes toppling down. Maybe then football in this country will get a little bit of it's soul back, if it hasn't been wasted beyond all repair.
Two things would have made this more palatable. Firstly, if first and second division clubs had the option of not partaking in the competition and secondly, if we could put out whatever side we liked.
Those actually running the club have to make a pragmatic choice - if we win a game that is £20k, enough to give a young prospect a contract for a year or enough to sign a more experienced pro in January. Win two and you can double the effect.
Those standing on the sidelines don't have to worry about consequences or getting their hands dirty, they can just pontificate, invent conspiracies and ultimate talk utter nonsense. Whether U21 teams play a handful of games in a fairly unimportant cup has no bearing on whether they are allowed to play in the League Structure. That is an entirely separate decision that the lower league clubs themselves would have to agree to. That decision could be made whether or not premier teams play in the checkatrade or not made whether or not they play in the checkatrade.
"Those standing on the sidelines don't have to worry about consequences or getting their hands dirty, they can just pontificate, invent conspiracies and ultimate talk utter nonsense."
I think I might come back to that quote a few times today to cheer me up. Well up there with the Ched Evans post 'you can't possibly make a meaningful conclusion without hearing every second of the evidence'
As said before, peter, there is a reasonable debate to be had whether supporter consultation you seek should be in volume but illinformed (i.e. by online survey) or in more depth but lower volume (i.e.by holding a meeting open to all).
@DevC it doesn't have to be ill-informed, does it? It could be about building a skills database. It could be anything, but lets get people involved.
We've got over a 1000 Trust members now - massive untapped resource, but not all are able to get to AP on a Thursday night for meetings. Like you Devvo.
I think we have had the discussion before, peter. I am a firm believer in representative democracy not direct democracy. The EU referendum, regardless of where you stand on the outcome, was a brilliant case in point. In football terms I am not in favour of the old Ebbsfleet model at all.
I am very happy for consultation to take place on key issues, but that consultation has to be meaningful, requiring consultees to spend some time and effort understanding the issue in hand. Best way is meetings, as the club did in this case. Not many thought the issue important enough to attend. If technology exists to do this effectively also remotely all well and good, but I think we are still a few years off the cost being justified by the demand (maybe I am wrong though).
Either way while I am happy for consultation, I would not want it to be delegation, decisions should be made by representatives with the time and commitment to understand the full picture - in the national context by mps not referendums - every now and then I get the chance to judge those representatives and vote them off if I don't like their decisions.
I may have missed it but was this fans council meeting advertised as a vote on the trophy format? I don't remember that. Also is it the proper place for such a vote? I am a member of the Trust and sometimes travel down from the North at some expense for Trust agms but can't pop down for councils. I would suggest that if the Club were seriously canvassing opinion of supporters an email could have been sent out with the option to reply on the available options. Holding a fans council then saying the attendance was poor seems like deliberately hiding the issue
I totally agree @DevC . Football fans are all thick as shit (myself included), there's no way any of us have any bright ideas or talents worth sharing with racing car drivers, local construction magnates and peanut salesmen.
If they can't be bothered to go to sparingly publicised meetings because of spurious reasons like, work, looking after children and/or partners, or having a social life outside of the football club, then they probably weren't worth listening to anyway.
We probably should let the grown ups get on with things, eh son.
Comments
@AlanCecil I take your point, as I'm sure you take mine. Surely an online poll emailed to Trust members and/STHs would have worked much better?
Always a balance though isn't it. The method they used gave them the opportunity to explain the financial and other realities so that those expressing an opinion id so with an informed opinion. Your alternative gets (possibly) a larger response but a less informed opinion. Which is better.
Its a bit like deciding an utterly crucial decision for the future of the country based on an utterly illinformed plurality in a referendum voting on press deceptions or a much more informed but lower numerically electorate of MPs making the decision understanding the facts.
CTTrophy:
We made a lot of money (to buy players like Sam S)
We gave squad players a competitive run out
We saw some over privileged u-23 kids get a Div 2 wake up call (v funny)
Sound business sense, and without that we have no club.
Carry on keeping the lunatics from taking over the asylum Mr Chairman, it must be v frustrating having to justify sound business choices to those who only capable of applying emotional feelings to the running of the club.
Can we try to control the hysteria? To describe the FC as a "secret society" is absurd.
There was an item on the club's website several days ahead of the meeting encouraging attendance and saying what the subject matter was. In addition the Club tweeted about the meeting on 23 April (twice), 24 April, 25 April and 26 April. Among all of this was a tweet giving an email address for comments for anyone who couldn't make the meeting.
The Club was clearly conscious that in some quarters the Checkatrade trophy is a sensitive issue and I don't really think you can criticise it for not asking for fans' views.
Reading Alan's summary, it doesn't sound much of a decision.
Basically keep it with the highest money incentive ever, or go back to the dreadfully unprofitable dead version, or scrap it altogether.
I expect many would go for the latter, but that'd be cutting off one of our few methods of extra funds
So how many people actually went? How many is a few?
Advertising the meeting is one thing. I've seen these in a few different places. What I haven't seen is either an agenda or post meeting minutes to see what was discussed. For me I would be more likely to go if I knew who was chairing, involved and what types of discussions were part of the meeting. Saying there is a meeting is only the start of the process.
Why do the club get good turnouts for forums involving Andrew Howard and Gareth Ainsworth? Because we know they will be there? I have no idea who is involved in the Fans Council and what is discussed and agreed. I think it's a great idea that just needs a bit more care and attention.
@Right_in_the_Middle I saw on Facebook that there were 16 fans present.
Thanks @peterparrotface . Sounds like a decent turnout to me but all I'm hearing is this is not enough. So either the Trust lower its expectations or they actually give minutes on past meetings and show more people they are worth attending.
Always hated Skype meetings (I find they are a bit too chaotic and body language gets missed) but it is an option.
Seconded. I'd be delighted to participate if I didn't live 2.5 hours drive away. Perhaps worth asking members to see if any others would be interested.
I'd like to see an on-line end of season survey to Trust members, asking for views on a variety of issues.
Would be easy to set up and police through membership numbers etc and would give a good idea of where the Trust needs to devote its time and effort, and probably produce some useful suggestions, etc.
Sixteen fans seems reasonable, more than I thought to be fair.
I'm not sure why an email poll would necessarily mean less informed voters
@perfidious_albion Lets get in correct we made money from the CTT it helped Line Sam Saunders pockets is what you mean. It allowed us to pay inflated wages. Nothing wrong with that by the way. But its blood money. But you are entitled to your opinion. But you still miss the whole point. This is a precursor to the Premier League running our league, to manipulate small clubs with bribery money, to appease them. Once we accept this and it becomes the norm you will be happy won't you playing in a league against the reserves and 'A' teams from Premiership clubs. Just because its not on the table now doesn't mean it wont be and we will sleep walk into it. The lunatics you refer to are the same lunatics that want to stop owners taking over clubs without proper vetting, who fight to bring back safe standing, support twenty is plenty campaign.
https://www.againstleague3.co.uk/
http://www.fsf.org.uk/
It would have been nice if I had known about the Fans Council meeting with more than two days notice. As I work late and away from Wycombe I'd need to put arrangements in place at work in advance to allow me to be able to make it. Judging by the lack of any discussion of what happened at the meeting I'm surprised there were 16 in attendence (unless they were bound to an agreement to not discuss anything in the meeting until a statement had been made by the club?).
The position of supporting the current format on the basis that we get a few crumbs from the top table in prize money for wins over wet-behind-the-ears lightweight youth teams on the basis that B teams being allowed into the league structure is 'off the table' and bypass the established pyramid is short-term pragmatism with some degree of naivety.
How long this will be off the table isn't known, senior figures at the Premier League (and talking heads who have no respect for lower league football) periodically float the idea whenever the issue of a lack of young British players in the Premier League becomes the topic of discussion in the media (refusing to look at the more obvious issue of them hoarding vast stockpiles of youngsters with no intention of blooding them in the first team).
With the parlous state of finances in the lower reaches of professional football, I don't think it would take much for the PL to make an offer that beancounters won't refuse.
There is no evidence that the Checkatrade Trophy is the so called thin edge of the wedge.
Seems a straightforward choice between getting a decent wodge of cash at the price of an extra game or two or not.
If down the road, premier league teams want to dangle a financial carrot to allow B teams into the league, they will do that with or without the Checkatrade.
Notable that apparently all the supporters who did attend when given the full facts, chose to support the status quo option in WWFC position. Early numbers suggest overall club vote will be quite close though. I suppose the relative financial benefit to a large Lg1 club is much smaller than a small lg2 club and hence they are more likely to choose the old format or scrap altogether.
@DevC - No evidence other than proposals to shoehorn them into the pyramid periodically being brought up by the powers that be. Are they just testing the waters with no intention of carrying it out? The inclusion of B teams in the Football League Trophy is clearly a part of the softening-up process. If you choose not to see any possible connection between the two, it's up to you.
I'm guessing you were at the meeting and know what these 'full facts' are? If it's anything like the information that the club have provided previously, it's along the lines of
'Full facts' implies some sort of balanced and objective facts in favour and against, though this certainly hasn't been forthcoming in my previous experience of trying to discuss the matter with the top brass at previous events.
It normalises lower league clubs playing against B teams, making it much more likely to be accepted in the future.
Premier League U23 - essentially - B teams taking part in a competition meant for Div 3 and 4 teams is already very much a part of the wedge and arguably not a very thin part either.
I can see why our club has taken this decision, but the whole thing stinks. Sadly, our precarious position leaves us open to this kind of financial manipulation. I'm not angry at our club, or the people who have made this decision, but I am absolutely disgusted by the grotesque, pompous, bullying Premier League. I look forward to the day when that unsustainable house of cards comes toppling down. Maybe then football in this country will get a little bit of it's soul back, if it hasn't been wasted beyond all repair.
Two things would have made this more palatable. Firstly, if first and second division clubs had the option of not partaking in the competition and secondly, if we could put out whatever side we liked.
Comments here sum up the debate rather well.
Those actually running the club have to make a pragmatic choice - if we win a game that is £20k, enough to give a young prospect a contract for a year or enough to sign a more experienced pro in January. Win two and you can double the effect.
Those standing on the sidelines don't have to worry about consequences or getting their hands dirty, they can just pontificate, invent conspiracies and ultimate talk utter nonsense. Whether U21 teams play a handful of games in a fairly unimportant cup has no bearing on whether they are allowed to play in the League Structure. That is an entirely separate decision that the lower league clubs themselves would have to agree to. That decision could be made whether or not premier teams play in the checkatrade or not made whether or not they play in the checkatrade.
Vote must be released any day now. We'll see.
"Those standing on the sidelines don't have to worry about consequences or getting their hands dirty, they can just pontificate, invent conspiracies and ultimate talk utter nonsense."
huge start to the day for irony fans
I think I might come back to that quote a few times today to cheer me up. Well up there with the Ched Evans post 'you can't possibly make a meaningful conclusion without hearing every second of the evidence'
Today is going to be a good day
@DevC One of the most amazing posts of utter garbage you have ever put on here.
When you cant reach the ball, play the man. Usual response. La plus ca change.....
@DevC supporter ownership will only succeed if we have fewer people on the sidelines and more people engaged enough to want to muck in.
Asking for views and feedback can only help that. In 2017 it can be done cheaply and easily on-line, lets get cracking on that.
As said before, peter, there is a reasonable debate to be had whether supporter consultation you seek should be in volume but illinformed (i.e. by online survey) or in more depth but lower volume (i.e.by holding a meeting open to all).
@DevC it doesn't have to be ill-informed, does it? It could be about building a skills database. It could be anything, but lets get people involved.
We've got over a 1000 Trust members now - massive untapped resource, but not all are able to get to AP on a Thursday night for meetings. Like you Devvo.
I think we have had the discussion before, peter. I am a firm believer in representative democracy not direct democracy. The EU referendum, regardless of where you stand on the outcome, was a brilliant case in point. In football terms I am not in favour of the old Ebbsfleet model at all.
I am very happy for consultation to take place on key issues, but that consultation has to be meaningful, requiring consultees to spend some time and effort understanding the issue in hand. Best way is meetings, as the club did in this case. Not many thought the issue important enough to attend. If technology exists to do this effectively also remotely all well and good, but I think we are still a few years off the cost being justified by the demand (maybe I am wrong though).
Either way while I am happy for consultation, I would not want it to be delegation, decisions should be made by representatives with the time and commitment to understand the full picture - in the national context by mps not referendums - every now and then I get the chance to judge those representatives and vote them off if I don't like their decisions.
I may have missed it but was this fans council meeting advertised as a vote on the trophy format? I don't remember that. Also is it the proper place for such a vote? I am a member of the Trust and sometimes travel down from the North at some expense for Trust agms but can't pop down for councils. I would suggest that if the Club were seriously canvassing opinion of supporters an email could have been sent out with the option to reply on the available options. Holding a fans council then saying the attendance was poor seems like deliberately hiding the issue
I totally agree @DevC . Football fans are all thick as shit (myself included), there's no way any of us have any bright ideas or talents worth sharing with racing car drivers, local construction magnates and peanut salesmen.
If they can't be bothered to go to sparingly publicised meetings because of spurious reasons like, work, looking after children and/or partners, or having a social life outside of the football club, then they probably weren't worth listening to anyway.
We probably should let the grown ups get on with things, eh son.
Apologies just read the thread apparently it was flagged up. My point remains about it being easier and better to get opinion via email