Match Pick - Away members

[ncfcstar 287]

1 minute ago, Feedthewolf said:

I think what you suggest in the first two paragraphs is fair and logical. It's difficult to keep track of everything that's mentioned, so it'd probably make sense to have a thread where we collate such ideas. Would be good if @Lessingham Canary and @ncfcstarcould help out with this. If you or anyone else can remember anything that I said should be considered for the agenda, please feel free to let me know on this thread and I'll be sure to keep a better record of things from hereon in.

I know one overarching theme was a general lack of communication from the club relating to home/away membership schemes, ticketing availability and so on.

Fair point on my last sentence, I worded it badly. I just meant that if Essex Canary contacted the club directly, he would do so as a fan with a name and a membership number to whom they would reply directly. That is much more likely to get a faster, more thorough and more direct response than me saying "this is another query that someone from the Pinkun message board asked me two months ago".

I agree, it makes most sense from my POV that there is dedicated thread for our next meeting in September where ideas can be collated.  With the caveat that it doesn't guarantee that everything mentioned will be added to the agenda!

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

1 minute ago, ncfcstar said:

I agree, it makes most sense from my POV that there is dedicated thread for our next meeting in September where ideas can be collated.  With the caveat that it doesn't guarantee that everything mentioned will be added to the agenda!

Which of these two options do people think would be better?

1) There is a 'locked' thread that only Pete and/or the committee members can update (don't know if that's viable, @Pete Raven?), so we collate the ideas from throughout the threads on the forum; or

2) There is an 'open' thread where anyone can post (hopefully a pinned post?), where the opening post is posted/updated by one of the committee members as things get agreed.

Or if anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

[Greavsy 2,412]

Thanks both, agree that's a sensible approach. 

The only item I would suggest, you have covered, ie lack of / poor comms. 

[ncfcstar 287]

3 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Which of these two options do people think would be better?

1) There is a 'locked' thread that only Pete and/or the committee members can update (don't know if that's viable, @Pete Raven?), so we collate the ideas from throughout the threads on the forum; or

2) There is an 'open' thread where anyone can post (hopefully a pinned post?), where the opening post is posted/updated by one of the committee members as things get agreed.

Or if anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

I think a pinned thread makes most sense, I'm assuming there is some sort of arbitrary limit on how long a post can be pinned but also assuming that a mod can override that.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Just now, Greavsy said:

Thanks both, agree that's a sensible approach. 

The only item I would suggest, you have covered, ie lack of / poor comms. 

Cheers for your input, Greavsy.

I think there may well be a number of issues/comments that touch upon this overarching theme of poor communications, so if anyone has any specific examples they think should be considered, feel free to add them below until such time as we have a dedicated thread. From memory:

* No communication from the club to explain delay in sending out membership packs (obviously was contingent upon easing of coronavirus measures, but a short press release/e-shot/social media post would have done the trick);

* Difficulty in contacting/getting through to ticket office, instances of staff being unhelpful or even rude (see @priceyrice's post from this morning);

* Lack of clarity in comms surrounding priority of away tickets between 'match picks' and the 'priority group' of away regulars (as discussed with @TIL 1010 and others)

* I think there was some ambiguity about Covid-19 matchday procedures? Is that worth including?

 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

2 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Cheers for your input, Greavsy.

I think there may well be a number of issues/comments that touch upon this overarching theme of poor communications, so if anyone has any specific examples they think should be considered, feel free to add them below until such time as we have a dedicated thread. From memory:

* No communication from the club to explain delay in sending out membership packs (obviously was contingent upon easing of coronavirus measures, but a short press release/e-shot/social media post would have done the trick);

* Difficulty in contacting/getting through to ticket office, instances of staff being unhelpful or even rude (see @priceyrice's post from this morning);

* Lack of clarity in comms surrounding priority of away tickets between 'match picks' and the 'priority group' of away regulars (as discussed with @TIL 1010 and others)

* I think there was some ambiguity about Covid-19 matchday procedures? Is that worth including?

 

Anything about the club completely disregarding attendance /ticket sales for 16 of the 19 away games before covid in the premier league two seasons ago when calculating these 'priority groups' ?

[king canary 7,578]

22 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Which of these two options do people think would be better?

1) There is a 'locked' thread that only Pete and/or the committee members can update (don't know if that's viable, @Pete Raven?), so we collate the ideas from throughout the threads on the forum; or

2) There is an 'open' thread where anyone can post (hopefully a pinned post?), where the opening post is posted/updated by one of the committee members as things get agreed.

Or if anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

Locked thread would be best I think, no way it can be dragged off topic.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

12 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Anything about the club completely disregarding attendance /ticket sales for 16 of the 19 away games before covid in the premier league two seasons ago when calculating these 'priority groups' ?

That's a separate point to the poor communications issues we're discussing here, but I can answer that for you... it's here: https://tickets.canaries.co.uk/PagesPublic/UserControlled/UserDefined.aspx?page=membership-faq

Screenshots attached of the relevant Q&As:

For what it's worth, I personally think it's strange that away attendance counts for nothing in the three-quarters of the 2019-20 season that functioned normally, but it sounds like the supporters they consulted offered a clear opinion to the contrary.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

55 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Anything about the club completely disregarding attendance /ticket sales for 16 of the 19 away games before covid in the premier league two seasons ago when calculating these 'priority groups' ?

We know why that was done (if it has been). It was because their complete change to the away ticket system with no prior notice distorted the ticket priorities for that season which enabled various people to essentially jump the queue.

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, ncfcstar said:

1.  What sort of compensation are you expecting for a season where essentially no one went to a game (other than a few lucky thousand in September and late December?)

2.  How do you expect the club to manage tickets which are returned to them in the hours leading up to a game?  If they suddenly receive 300 tickets, and there are only 100 people asking for tickets a couple of hours/an hour before the match then what do you propose the club do with those 200 extra tickets?  It's the season ticket holders that are the problem here, not the club.

3.  The club have to make a sensible compromise on buybacks, season ticket holders are in a privileged position of having a guaranteed seat for each home league game, if your friend in the lounge area doesn't feel he or she is incentivised enough to sell their ticket back to the club for £20 a game, then again that is their problem, not the clubs.  I personally think it says more about them that they are prepared to throw away £30 or whatever the difference would be based on some sort of principle.

1. Às I understand it season ticket holders got their money rolled over into next season, as a season ticket for life shareholder whose 'dividend' ends with my life, that doesn't work as my life clearly can't be extended by 25 matches. It is ridiculous that the 'dividends ends with me.

2. If they priced it at say 80% of your original payment before the day of the game, 50% on the day up to 2 hours before kick off and possibly zero beyond 2 hours they may create the right incentives that would help them manage it better? There maybe more than 100 people asking for tickets going forward if they had retained the £30 casual price.

3. Why should supporters in some areas of the ground get 75% of their money back and others get only 45%. If the difference results in proportionately greater numbers of empty seats in certain parts of the ground it is most certainly their problem.

4. If they managed 2 & 3 above better they would not only get more people in the ground enjoying the football but they would be able to afford solving number 1 on an ongoing basis and they wouldn't need to raise probably around £150,000 per season less the unnecessary costs of sock and keyring packages. 

A win, win situation? Our protest is about a lack of common sense.

[essex canary 491]

2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

I don't have answers to any of the questions you've asked me there, I'm afraid. I could put any or all of these questions up for consideration to go onto what will no doubt be a packed agenda at our next meeting in September, but I do think you'd be better advised speaking to the club directly... not least because then they're dealing directly with a name and a face (and a loyal customer/supporter), rather than me trying to act as a mouthpiece/middleman for someone I've never met.

Wolfie, I have relentlessly pursued these matters with the Club but I don't think there are the right linkages between the front line staff and the hierarchy to get the matters resolved sensibly. See my further response to NCFC star. Also I drafted a paper for the Panel which I suspect Supporter Relations have not passed on to you?

If they intended to change the casual ticket prices or the buyback prices, I think they ought to have either declared that to the Panel in June or have committed to sharing their ideas with you prior to making it public. All the more so given the discussion you did have about maximising attendance and the suspicion that the £28 difference between buyback price and onward sale price for the two matches this month are as probably as great as it has ever been. Perhaps you could ask for a full set of statistics for these 2 matches at your next meeting to monitor the Clubs success or otherwise in maximising both attendances and revenues?

I think these are all poor communication issues. I appreciate it is difficult when you are doing it voluntarily. I don't think it is fair to hassle the front line staff too much either. Given that the hierarchy claim that they are merely custodians of the Club, it is very disappointing that fans are not consulted much, much more.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Is there still a football ombudsman for long standing issues?

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Is there still a football ombudsman for long standing issues?

Hope not. It’s more effective than Night Nurse. 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

9 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Is there still a football ombudsman for long standing issues?

theifo.co.uk.

Might be a solution for Essex if he feels the club isn't taking his issues seriously? (Essex, I wanted to tag you but there are about six different Essex Canary profiles and I'm not sure which is yours.)

[GMF 736]

7 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

theifo.co.uk.

Might be a solution for Essex if he feels the club isn't taking his issues seriously? (Essex, I wanted to tag you but there are about six different Essex Canary profiles and I'm not sure which is yours.)

Have you not looked at recent judgments? 😉

[GMF 736]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

Wolfie, I have relentlessly pursued these matters with the Club but I don't think there are the right linkages between the front line staff and the hierarchy to get the matters resolved sensibly.

 

As in they won’t give you the answer you want, despite the previous IFO judgement, who also agrees with the Club’s previous responses?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Just now, GMF said:

As in they won’t give you the answer you want, despite the previous IFO judgement, who also agrees with the Club’s previous responses?

It seems to me that with revisions such as closing the Carrow Road ticket office (who were always very helpful when I called them) the level of day to day interaction between fans and staff at the club is only going to decrease. I sent them a couple of emails about things this summer and got no reply at all. The club seems to be running on a pretty skeleton staff these days and I think that’s probably one of the reasons communications (perhaps also between internal departments there) is not as good as it was. 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

13 minutes ago, GMF said:

As in they won’t give you the answer you want, despite the previous IFO judgement, who also agrees with the Club’s previous responses?

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

https://theifo.co.uk/adjudications/ifo_2105-1.pdf

Taken from the report, the club has said:

"15. Regarding the supporters’ panel, members are required to present the views of all supporters and should not address issues of a purely personal interest. The Club already engages with a number of special interest groups, including the AD Group and the supporters’ panel is not the place to raise issues which affect 25 ADs who already have an outlet to contact the Club."

Therefore I recommend we as the OSP do not make any further representation of Essex Canary's issues relating to the matters discussed in the above report. Any further issues raised by Essex Canary unrelated to those in the report above can be considered for discussion at future meetings of the panel.

I'd like @Lessingham Canary to have the final call on this as Chairman, though.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

9 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Is there still a football ombudsman for long standing issues?

Not only a seat for life and then pass it on it looks like dividends as well !

[ncfcstar 287]

Out of interest, how many ordinary shares have been issued by the club?  I'd be keen to see what % holding 1000 ordinary shares gives you.  For £25k, it seems that Essex got a pretty plum deal with a 'seat for life' and whatever other benefits he's received in the years since the offer.

[GMF 736]

16 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

Out of interest, how many ordinary shares have been issued by the club?  I'd be keen to see what % holding 1000 ordinary shares gives you.  For £25k, it seems that Essex got a pretty plum deal with a 'seat for life' and whatever other benefits he's received in the years since the offer.

There’s 616,913 ordinary shares allocated, with the original AD’s having almost 25,000 shares, just over 4% for those who’re interested.

At least three of the original AD’s are no longer with us, so the numbers of seats for life are diminishing.

[ncfcstar 287]

So Essex got a seat for life by purchasing 0.16% of the ordinary shares available?  Appreciate that may have been diluted from the original investment if more shares have been allocated post the original offering.  Either way, like I said, it seems he received a pretty good deal for the investment.

[Uncle Fred 526]

The ticketing process was never this bad under Chris Hughton 

[GMF 736]

6 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

The ticketing process was never this bad under Chris Hughton 

Just wait until we endorse mobile ticketing technology, like most of the other Premier League clubs are now doing. It’s coming whether we like it or not…

[Pete Raven 276]

13 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

Which of these two options do people think would be better?

1) There is a 'locked' thread that only Pete and/or the committee members can update (don't know if that's viable, @Pete Raven?), so we collate the ideas from throughout the threads on the forum; or

2) There is an 'open' thread where anyone can post (hopefully a pinned post?), where the opening post is posted/updated by one of the committee members as things get agreed.

Or if anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

Unfortunately only I can add to a locked thread but we can have a pinned post which sits at the top of the forum as long as is necessary.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

1 minute ago, Pete Raven said:

Unfortunately only I can add to a locked thread but we can have a pinned post which sits at the top of the forum as long as is necessary.

Thanks Pete, that's fine. As long as it's me who starts the thread, I can just keep updating the OP as we agree on things, and conversations can happen freely between other posters.

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

theifo.co.uk.

Might be a solution for Essex if he feels the club isn't taking his issues seriously? (Essex, I wanted to tag you but there are about six different Essex Canary profiles and I'm not sure which is yours.)

Hi Wolfie, the paper I sent to Supporter Relatiions for the Panel contained a perspective on the away ticket scheme and from a much wider perspective than purely my own experience.

The IFO reports are publicly available information which raise some very important issues. For instance I am told that my home arrangements have been resolved on a case-by-case basis. I thought equalities is supposed to be the name of the game?

In so far as my Supporters Panel paper addressed shareholder issues it looks forward rather than backwards and again addresses it from a wider perspective of all shareholders.

If you have a closed email environment perhaps we can discuss further.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Hi Wolfie, the paper I sent to Supporter Relatiions for the Panel contained a perspective on the away ticket scheme and from a much wider perspective than purely my own experience.

The IFO reports are publicly available information which raise some very important issues. For instance I am told that my home arrangements have been resolved on a case-by-case basis. I thought equalities is supposed to be the name of the game?

In so far as my Supporters Panel paper addressed shareholder issues it looks forward rather than backwards and again addresses it from a wider perspective of all shareholders.

If you have a closed email environment perhaps we can discuss further.

The paper that you sent to the club regarding the Supporters Panel has not been shared with us. Until such time as it is, I don't want to engage any further on the subject.

[essex canary 491]

2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

The paper that you sent to the club regarding the Supporters Panel has not been shared with us. Until such time as it is, I don't want to engage any further on the subject.

In relation to the IFO process, there should be a clear escalation process leading up to it. There isn't, I needed to make my own judgements. Also at one point in time I was advised by the Chief Operating Officer,  before going to the IFO, to write to the Acting Chairman. I did so and never received a response.

A member of the supporter relations team  sent me an email on 14 April 13:18 in which she specifically pledged to pass on information to the Panel.

These are all clearly communication issues.

 

 

 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Just now, essex canary said:

In relation to the IFO process, there should be a clear escalation process leading up to it. There isn't, I needed to make my own judgements. Also at one point in time I was advised by the Chief Operating Officer,  before going to the IFO, to write to the Acting Chairman. I did so and never received a response.

A member of the supporter relations team  sent me an email on 14 April 13:18 in which she specifically pledged to pass on information to the Panel.

These are all clearly communication issues.

I've already said what I wish to say on the matter. If @Lessingham Canary as Chairman has a different take on it, he is welcome to do so. I shall not be commenting further.