Jump to content
Feedthewolf

NCFC Official Supporters Panel: fan issues to discuss

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I don't have a direct line to Danny, but I do to Caroline. It's clearly a supporter relations issue if a lot of supporters are unhappy about it, so I can't see it doing any harm.

i have Danny's email address if you would like it Wolfie (via PM). Always been very helpful and approachable, via email / phone and face to face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

i have Danny's email address if you would like it Wolfie (via PM). Always been very helpful and approachable, via email / phone and face to face. 

Cheers Greavsy, I know his email address but as Caroline is my point of contact on the OSP I'd rather go to her in the first instance. I'm drafting an email now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Cheers Greavsy, I know his email address but as Caroline is my point of contact on the OSP I'd rather go to her in the first instance. I'm drafting an email now.

A few minutes ago you said you didn't have a direct line to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

A few minutes ago you said you didn't have a direct line to him.

Open and transparent! 😉 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

A few minutes ago you said you didn't have a direct line to him.

I've never spoken to him or contacted him before, but his email address is easy to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a bit long winded. 

  1. We mention on a forum,   
  2. OSP rep picks it up, 
  3. OSP emails club rep   
  4. Club rep sends to appropriate person at club,
  5. App person provides answer to club rep 
  6. club rep emails OSP rep 
  7. OSP updates forum 

Which depending on the reply is then open for a further discussion. 

Or 

  1. Person with the issue emails appropriate person / department. 
  2. Appropriate person / department replies directly. 

Depending on the question info is shared on the forum (like the Away memberships following a discussion with Danny previously)

Seems ludicrous that when one of he main gripes has been poor comms at the club and the suggested process has more steps in it, and hence potential for delay / chinese whispers and the like. 

@FeedthewolfTo be clear this is not a personal criticism just my observations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Seems a bit long winded. 

  1. We mention on a forum,   
  2. OSP rep picks it up, 
  3. OSP emails club rep   
  4. Club rep sends to appropriate person at club,
  5. App person provides answer to club rep 
  6. club rep emails OSP rep 
  7. OSP updates forum 

Which depending on the reply is then open for a further discussion. 

Or 

  1. Person with the issue emails appropriate person / department. 
  2. Appropriate person / department replies directly. 

Depending on the question info is shared on the forum (like the Away memberships following a discussion with Danny previously)

Seems ludicrous that when one of he main gripes has been poor comms at the club and the suggested process has more steps in it, and hence potential for delay / chinese whispers and the like. 

@FeedthewolfTo be clear this is not a personal criticism just my observations. 

I hear what you're saying, and it may not be feasible for either Caroline or me to continue doing it this way.

I'm going to ask in my email if there's a way of streamlining the process, or, indeed, whether we can/should encourage people to contact departments directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Feedthewolf said:

I hear what you're saying, and it may not be feasible for either Caroline or me to continue doing it this way.

I'm going to ask in my email if there's a way of streamlining the process, or, indeed, whether we can/should encourage people to contact departments directly.

Wouldn't that then remove the need for the OSP and defeat the object of their existence? 

  I think its more getting a clear definition of boundaries and responsibilities. 

Some items require more debate / discussion (as the club has done before with away membership (albeit that one was after getting it wrong), and others are of a more personal / individual nature. 

However as seems to be consistant, better comms would alleviate a lot of the calls to the club. If only they posted general things (like how to use your season ticket, as it appears to have changed this season) on the socials, that would reduce the traffic and free up space for more specific queries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

Wouldn't that then remove the need for the OSP and defeat the object of their existence? 

  I think its more getting a clear definition of boundaries and responsibilities. 

Some items require more debate / discussion (as the club has done before with away membership (albeit that one was after getting it wrong), and others are of a more personal / individual nature. 

However as seems to be consistant, better comms would alleviate a lot of the calls to the club. If only they posted general things (like how to use your season ticket, as it appears to have changed this season) on the socials, that would reduce the traffic and free up space for more specific queries. 

I need to get back to the day job now, but I've taken this on board. Will keep you all apprised of developments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

On point 3, I've already said we're going to wait until the new year to discuss away memberships; the die has been cast for this season, so we need to see it in action before we can analyse it.

On point 4, I'm happy to take on board any other opinions on the subject of the AGM; having never been to one and not having a great deal of knowledge of the finer points of this process (including your comments regarding shareholders), I don't feel well positioned to reply with any authority. If @Lessingham Canary and/or @ncfcstar have any opinions I'd welcome them, and similarly those of any other shareholders who have any thoughts about your suggestions.

Thanks Wolfie.

I realise that perhaps the horse has bolted for this year re the away ticketing issue. Just to note though that my London based friend only had 4 matches that met his criteria in 201819 but potentially has 8 this season. Based on 201819 he will be in Group 3. The question arises as to how many of the 8 he then gets and how that translates into his ranking going into 202223?

The earlier comment in this thread concerning whether an agreement signed by Steve Stone in 2018 is still valid or otherwise clearly demonstrates why there ought to be a clear statement about Supporter Consultative arrangements in the Annual Report.

Even if effective fan share ownership is a challenge questions ought to be asked about the cost of the current set up. I don't think there is any other club quite like ours in this regard. Burnley is the closest example I am aware of but their numbers are about one quarter of ours whilst the largest investment in their case is about 20 times the smallest compared to our 250 times in the NCFC 2002 share issue. What is the cost of maintaining around 5,000 shareholders each owning 4 shares in terms of inheritance transfers, Companies House declarations, Annual Report and AGM servicing et?. In comparison anyone owning 1,000 shares is doing them a big favour in relative terms which is why I am so annoyed about the petty attitudes to away membership and lack of inheritance benefits. If they streamlined this they might even find enough money to be able to staff the Ticket Office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Feedthewolf said:

I need to get back to the day job now, but I've taken this on board. Will keep you all apprised of developments.

Appreciate that Wolfie and your replies, as always. 

As I said just my observations (and nothing personal), others may, and are entitled to their views, which may be different of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Seems a bit long winded. 

  1. We mention on a forum,   
  2. OSP rep picks it up, 
  3. OSP emails club rep   
  4. Club rep sends to appropriate person at club,
  5. App person provides answer to club rep 
  6. club rep emails OSP rep 
  7. OSP updates forum 

Which depending on the reply is then open for a further discussion. 

Or 

  1. Person with the issue emails appropriate person / department. 
  2. Appropriate person / department replies directly. 

Depending on the question info is shared on the forum (like the Away memberships following a discussion with Danny previously)

Seems ludicrous that when one of he main gripes has been poor comms at the club and the suggested process has more steps in it, and hence potential for delay / chinese whispers and the like. 

@FeedthewolfTo be clear this is not a personal criticism just my observations. 

I think this process is fine for topics which are clearly affecting a lot of people as we're seeing with the ticket office - it gives us as the OSP and the club a defined route to provide updates to multiple people/the wider fanbase in one hit.

Where this process fails is if people bring up small issues which they expect a response to from the OSP/club, when they could contact the club themselves about it, not picking on your particularly @Greavsy but the bottles/paper cups thing would probably be a good example of that.  This is the sort of thing which, in my opinion, wouldn't make the agenda for the next meeting in September - and if it did the meeting would probably still be taking place when it came round to having the following meeting in the new year!

I don't want to pull up the drawbridge, but there obviously has to be a line where the OSP get involved and don't just become a conduit for minor complaints, which does add unnecessary red tape to what would otherwise be a simple conversation between a fan/customer and the club.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ncfcstar said:

I think this process is fine for topics which are clearly affecting a lot of people as we're seeing with the ticket office - it gives us as the OSP and the club a defined route to provide updates to multiple people/the wider fanbase in one hit.

Where this process fails is if people bring up small issues which they expect a response to from the OSP/club, when they could contact the club themselves about it, not picking on your particularly @Greavsy but the bottles/paper cups thing would probably be a good example of that.  This is the sort of thing which, in my opinion, wouldn't make the agenda for the next meeting in September - and if it did the meeting would probably still be taking place when it came round to having the following meeting in the new year!

I don't want to pull up the drawbridge, but there obviously has to be a line where the OSP get involved and don't just become a conduit for minor complaints, which does add unnecessary red tape to what would otherwise be a simple conversation between a fan/customer and the club.

Thanks @ncfcstar

As I have said before....... 

3 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I think its more getting a clear definition of boundaries and responsibilities. 

Maybe we could have some guidance in what constitutes a simple conversation between club / fan and a OSP issue.

As until it's discussed you potentially won't know how big an issue it is or how many others have had the same issue. 

IE at my turnstyle there was a slight queue but nothing more than usual, however others experienced delays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Even if effective fan share ownership is a challenge questions ought to be asked about the cost of the current set up. I don't think there is any other club quite like ours in this regard. Burnley is the closest example I am aware of but their numbers are about one quarter of ours whilst the largest investment in their case is about 20 times the smallest compared to our 250 times in the NCFC 2002 share issue. What is the cost of maintaining around 5,000 shareholders each owning 4 shares in terms of inheritance transfers, Companies House declarations, Annual Report and AGM servicing et?. In comparison anyone owning 1,000 shares is doing them a big favour in relative terms which is why I am so annoyed about the petty attitudes to away membership and lack of inheritance benefits. If they streamlined this they might even find enough money to be able to staff the Ticket Office.

You are advocating a lower limit on the number of shares a fan can own in Norwich City plc? Or failing that some kind of ticketing perk system that rewards those holding large stakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we have some sort of scheme to support less well off fans? I think years ago unemployed people got a reduction but my memory is a little vague. With the way our game has gone over the premiership years in particular, lower paid and unemployed true fans are edged out by more affluent folk. Maybe whistling in the wind here as our nation edges further away from equity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, corbs said:

Do we have some sort of scheme to support less well off fans? I think years ago unemployed people got a reduction but my memory is a little vague. With the way our game has gone over the premiership years in particular, lower paid and unemployed true fans are edged out by more affluent folk. Maybe whistling in the wind here as our nation edges further away from equity. 

Isn't that unfortunately the way of the world / life these days? 

Very sad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Mrs, hand driers in the ladies loos in the City stand, snakepit end,  4 cubicles, 3 wash hand basins but only one rather feeble drier….a cause for much wailing and wringing of hands!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Van wink said:

From the Mrs, hand driers in the ladies loos in the City stand, snakepit end,  4 cubicles, 3 wash hand basins but only one rather feeble drier….a cause for much wailing and wringing of hands!

Reminded me of the 12 days of Christmas Winky..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ricardo said:

I would like to register for the auto cup ticket scheme but phone queue is full whatever time or day I tried last week. Still the same this morning.

Same problem so I tried to register  via an e mail request but no reply. I don’t understand why we cannot select this as an option on our online account. Why do we need to call ticket office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ricardo said:

I would like to register for the auto cup ticket scheme but phone queue is full whatever time or day I tried last week. Still the same this morning.

You may be able to sort this out by way of the Live Chat facility, which opens at 9.30am UK time. I used it  successfully last week to put my seat on buyback, having encountered a full phone queue several times. I went from third in the Chat queue to being dealt with in five or so minutes.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Van wink said:

From the Mrs, hand driers in the ladies loos in the City stand, snakepit end,  4 cubicles, 3 wash hand basins but only one rather feeble drier….a cause for much wailing and wringing of hands!

Much wringing of hands……..problem solved ! 😉

Failing that just wipe ‘em on your leg or not bother at all. I’ve heard from reliable sources that not bothering is not exclusively a male habit 🤨

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Much wringing of hands……..problem solved ! 😉

Failing that just wipe ‘em on your leg or not bother at all. I’ve heard from reliable sources that not bothering is not exclusively a male habit 🤨

Yeah but did you leave the seat up which is also exclusively a male habit Graham ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cathedral lounge is now so archaic and the toilet facilities are really abysmal for the amount of fan folk who use it.....If I'm desperado for a half-time tiddle it's quicker for me to go down into the lower concourse gents urinal than queue or make my way through the plethora of beverage swiggin' biscuit bandits to reach the lounge loo....It's the same when vacating at full-time, much quicker to go out the ground level lower exit points and out onto the road.....Heaven forbid the problems that may occur if there's a serious incident and we have to evacuate down the stairs from the Cathedral lounge, as it also merges with the lower lounge downstairs exit.....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

You are advocating a lower limit on the number of shares a fan can own in Norwich City plc? Or failing that some kind of ticketing perk system that rewards those holding large stakes?

I know that when £25,000 worth of shares are transferred in an inheritance situation, a legal fee is paid to a lawyer firm for the work. 

I am presuming that the same situation then applies to the many transfers of £100 worth of shares which take place each year. If so it isn't viable as only the lawyers will be benefitting possibly quite substantially. It would surely be cheaper for the Club to buy back the shares or encourage the owners to increase their holdings to a suitable minimum viable level.

As an incentive the Club could offer £1 per share held off the price of season tickets or memberships and operate with a much more manageable shareholder base going forward so as to retain say 80 per cent of the money with 20 per cent of the numbers.

Whilst inclusiveness is important it must be viable. Other positive spinoffs could be an opportunity to get the 20 per cent loss back plus some by adding some newer or younger shareholders at the increased minimum threshold and perhaps a small overall increase in minority holdings which could help finance some ground improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, corbs said:

Do we have some sort of scheme to support less well off fans? I think years ago unemployed people got a reduction but my memory is a little vague. With the way our game has gone over the premiership years in particular, lower paid and unemployed true fans are edged out by more affluent folk. Maybe whistling in the wind here as our nation edges further away from equity. 

You could try writing to the Board of Directors mentioning the Times interview of 2016 referring to the fans being treated so badly.

You could then point out that MK Dons - a team that unlike NCFC do not benefit from huge TV receipts - are offering season tickets at £10 per match. You could also add that 2 years ago Norwich City made a great fanfare involving Jake Humphrey about pegging home casual prices at £30 per match before this season increasing them to an average £44.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, essex canary said:

I know that when £25,000 worth of shares are transferred in an inheritance situation, a legal fee is paid to a lawyer firm for the work. 

I am presuming that the same situation then applies to the many transfers of £100 worth of shares which take place each year. If so it isn't viable as only the lawyers will be benefitting possibly quite substantially. It would surely be cheaper for the Club to buy back the shares or encourage the owners to increase their holdings to a suitable minimum viable level.

As an incentive the Club could offer £1 per share held off the price of season tickets or memberships and operate with a much more manageable shareholder base going forward so as to retain say 80 per cent of the money with 20 per cent of the numbers.

Whilst inclusiveness is important it must be viable. Other positive spinoffs could be an opportunity to get the 20 per cent loss back plus some by adding some newer or younger shareholders at the increased minimum threshold and perhaps a small overall increase in minority holdings which could help finance some ground improvements.

I have an answer in mind but I need you to clarify one point first, if you would, which is raised by the ambivalent phrase 'cheaper for the club'.  I am not clear for whom it is cheaper.

Are you saying that if, for example, I bequeath my shares to a member of my family then the club has to pay a legal fee, even though it is not involved in the transaction? And if so then how large a fee.

Or are you saying that the club does not bear a cost through such intra-family transactions but that it would somehow be cheaper for the potential inheritor if they didn't inherit because this small tranche of shares had already been bought back by the club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I have an answer in mind but I need you to clarify one point first, if you would, which is raised by the ambivalent phrase 'cheaper for the club'.  I am not clear for whom it is cheaper.

Are you saying that if, for example, I bequeath my shares to a member of my family then the club has to pay a legal fee, even though it is not involved in the transaction? And if so then how large a fee.

Or are you saying that the club does not bear a cost through such intra-family transactions but that it would somehow be cheaper for the potential inheritor if they didn't inherit because this small tranche of shares had already been bought back by the club?

I am saying that I know for a fact that when 1,000 shares were transferred in a particular inheritance situation that the Club paid a legal fee that they said was necessary. Whether transacting 4 shares in such a situation requires the same legal intervention I could not be certain but why wouldn't it? If such a fee is payable I wouldn't have thought the client would be wiling to pay it for inherting something worth only £100 which leaves the question as to whether a legal fee has been paid by the Club where redemption would have been cheaper for them. Even if no such fee has been paid the Club still faces its own staff costs in processing the transaction, Companies House submissions etc not to mention AGM and Annual Report servicing costs. In any one family share ownership this situation could also repeat over time. It cannot be viable below a certain minimum share level.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I am saying that I know for a fact that when 1,000 shares were transferred in a particular inheritance situation that the Club paid a legal fee that they said was necessary. Whether transacting 4 shares in such a situation requires the same legal intervention I could not be certain but why wouldn't it? If such a fee is payable I wouldn't have thought the client would be wiling to pay it for inherting something worth only £100 which leaves the question as to whether a legal fee has been paid by the Club where redemption would have been cheaper for them. Even if no such fee has been paid the Club still faces its own staff costs in processing the transaction, Companies House submissions etc not to mention AGM and Annual Report servicing costs. In any one family share ownership this situation could also repeat over time. It cannot be viable below a certain minimum share level.

 

.

Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify that. But if the club pays a fee for transactions in which it is not directly involved then it will also presumably pay a fee for buying up small tranches from shareholders. So that would not be cheaper for the club.

I can see that it might save money for the seller - or the potential buyer - of a small tranche if they sold to the club, which then paid this legal fee, rather than selling to that potential other fan.

But as to your main point, that it is financially unviable for someone who inherits a small tranche because the legal fee will be close to or even more than the value of the shares, I think that rather misunderstands why people buy, and also are willing to inherit, NCFC shares.

It is for most a symbolic or sentimental attachment and mere money doesn't come into the equation. Your 'viability' concept is irrelevant. Added to which it is just a very bad idea to want to reduce the number of small shareholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a few years ago I split my shareholding into 3. So instead of me having 25 I now have 9 and my children have 8 each. Far better for us to enjoy having something together rather than them inheriting when I'm dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify that. But if the club pays a fee for transactions in which it is not directly involved then it will also presumably pay a fee for buying up small tranches from shareholders. So that would not be cheaper for the club.

I can see that it might save money for the seller - or the potential buyer - of a small tranche if they sold to the club, which then paid this legal fee, rather than selling to that potential other fan.

But as to your main point, that it is financially unviable for someone who inherits a small tranche because the legal fee will be close to or even more than the value of the shares, I think that rather misunderstands why people buy, and also are willing to inherit, NCFC shares.

It is for most a symbolic or sentimental attachment and mere money doesn't come into the equation. Your 'viability' concept is irrelevant. Added to which it is just a very bad idea to want to reduce the number of small shareholders.

Interesting. You seem to be saying then that every time 4 NCFC shares change hands post death the Club will bill the inheritor for all costs of the transfer and that each and every inheritor regardless of their own personal commitment to the Club fully pays up. Even if a significant number of people are willing to do that, I would be very, very surprised if absolutely everyone would.

I doubt whether the Club fully identifies and passes on the costs anyway. For example how does it pass on the staff costs involved in sending returns to Companies House for 7,000 shareholders, servicing the AGM etc. 

Why is running a Football Club with 7,000 individual shareholders a good idea. Sure to some extent there is safety in numbers but that is surely far more efficiently and effectively delivered through the kind of Fan Trust ownership models that the likes of Exeter and AFC Wimbledon operate which could still be a feature of any NCFC model going forward and to a certain extent is already in place through the  Canaries Trust and '1957' Trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...