Jump to content
essex canary

Supporters Panel Notes of Meeting

Recommended Posts

These are now available on the Club website.

No comment on the process of next seasons pricing or away members schemes.

Very limited comment on the Crouch Report.

A lot of discussion on Supporter Engagement being different from Customer Services. OK perhaps in the sense that the former is supposed to be broader whilst the latter is more individual or complaint focused. Nonetheless if supporters feel they are not getting appropriate responses from Customer Services, is it not then a Supporter Engagement matter?

I don't feel engaged by these Notes of Meeting. I don't think they are adding any value.

 

Share this post


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

These are now available on the Club website.

No comment on the process of next seasons pricing or away members schemes.

Very limited comment on the Crouch Report.

A lot of discussion on Supporter Engagement being different from Customer Services. OK perhaps in the sense that the former is supposed to be broader whilst the latter is more individual or complaint focused. Nonetheless if supporters feel they are not getting appropriate responses from Customer Services, is it not then a Supporter Engagement matter?

I don't feel engaged by these Notes of Meeting. I don't think they are adding any value.

 

Poor customer service is probably the single issue about which the panel has been most vocal in the first six months. As a result, a senior Board member (ZW) is now directly addressing the issue of poor customer services by pledging to improve the club's customer services provision in a formal, minuted document.

There was plenty of discussion around the Crouch Report, but the salient point to take away is that nothing could or would be actioned until the Government had issued its response to the report. @Lessingham Canary and myself, as chair and vice-chair, have done many hours of background reading, not only of the report itself but of other clubs' provisions in terms of supporter engagement for comparison.

It was felt at this stage it would be futile to try to action anything in the report; time is a rare enough commodity without putting lots of work into something that may need to be substantially revisited and/or scrapped once the Government has issued a response. We do, however, have an excellent working knowledge of the report in its current form, so will be well placed to make judgements quickly once the report is finalised and able to be actioned.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minutes below, and here: https://www.canaries.co.uk/club/fans/supporters-panel-meeting-20-1-22

Supporters Panel Meeting 20/01/2022

CLUB
 

Attendees

Norwich City Football Club Representatives:

Zoe Ward (ZW) - Business & Project Director

Sam Hall (SH) - Legal & Governance Director

Greg Pillinger (GP) - Head of Operations & Projects

Lynette Hannant (LH) – Head of Supporter Services and Junior Development

Supporter Panel:

Gordon Anderson (GA), Matt Colley (MC), Adam Buffin (AB), Beverley Burkill (BB), Brian Folkard (BF), Cillian O’Grady (CO), James Brighton (JB), Johnathon Byrne (JBy), Jon Myhill (JM), Marie Fuller (MF), Ryan Blumenthal (RB)

Apologies:

Emily Wilford

1 . Intro to Zoe Ward, Business & Project Director and Sam Hall, Legal & Governance Director

ZW provided an organisational update including the Exec Committee’s direct reports.

Stuart Webber is responsible for the Football Department, including Head Coach, Assistant Sporting Director, Medical Services, Performance & Nutrition, Football Development, Recruitment, Performance Analysis, Data, Strategy & Innovation, and Communications. 

Zoe Ward is responsible for Commercial, Legal & Governance, Finance, Academy, Club Secretary, Venue Management, People & Culture, Operations & Projects and is also a Trustee of the Community Sports Foundation.

2 . OSP presentation and feedback

GA shared the Panel’s collective views of their first 6 months in situ. General feedback is that the purpose of the Panel would benefit from further clarification and GA requested thought be given to an MoU or constitution which should be available on the club website. SH stated that there is already a Terms of Reference for the Supporter Panel which sets out the role of this Panel and that he would re-circulate this to the Panel and undertake a review to ensure that it is reflective of the Panel’s remit.

MF further suggested that each Panel member should represent a specific area and / or topic, again made clear on the club website. ZW said that this would be considered.

ZW explained that she had also reviewed this area of the Club. She explained that there was a clear distinction between supporter engagement and customer services, and that these would be two separate functions going forward. She also explained that Supporter Services has historically sat in the Commercial department but on review it is not felt it is a commercial function so it will move to Legal & Governance. This move also aligns with the sentiments of the Crouch Report.

CO and BF confirmed that customer service is still not at its best.

ZW agreed that this was the case and that the Club was looking to improve its customer service provision going forward.

ZW explained that she saw the Supporter Panel being used for supporter engagement and not complaints or individual matters. Its primary function should be for consultation and feedback. Examples such as safe standing and the club crest have shown how this can work productively. 

ZW said it would be good to understand areas of particular interest to the Panel so the Club can make the best use of their expertise.

MC agreed the Panel should not be a conduit for individuals to complain. This should be directed to supporter services.

BB also suggested that the Panel has its own set of values. It was agreed that this would be looked at.

GA said that he saw the initial Panel as setting the blueprint for future Panels.

ZW suggested that future meetings can commence with a brief overview of club areas, and sharing the club strategy will be beneficial to the Panel. ZW said that the Finance Director can attend the next Panel meeting to provide an overview of the club’s financial model.

ZW referred to the Panel’s feedback which suggested that smaller working groups could be formed to work on specific club projects, e.g. ED&I. It was felt that this was a really good idea and SH further shared the role of the Stadium Sanction Panel and the implementation of supporter bans. The club has seen a significant rise in discrimination cases. This was an example where the Panel’s input would be really valuable.

JM asked if Premier League guidelines had been issued. SH confirmed that the Premier League has produced a “Commitment” which encourages a 3-season ban for a first discriminatory offence.

CO commented that the behaviour was much worse at away games.

GA commented that there will be a need for consistency for bans.

BF referenced the Crystal Palace match in terms of a toxic atmosphere and potential for crowd trouble.

CO informed the meeting that he was working with Manchester United to assist with their social media policing. GA, JB, JBy and MF agreed that the club should do more to police social media. SH said that this is difficult because of the anonymity of social media and the amount of resource this would take, but said that any direct discriminatory abuse of club staff would be acted upon.

GP explained the process for away fans whereby the away club is contacted and implements a ban for their own supporters.

MC referenced home fans mimicking the Munich disaster to the Manchester United fans, and how easy it was to identify the perpetrators. SH explained this was progressing through the Sanction Panel process at the moment.

SH explained that a person does not have to have committed a criminal act for the club to issue a ban if the behaviour of the fan goes against club values.

Actions:

SH to re-share the Terms of Reference with the Panel.

Actions:

Anthony Richens, Finance Director to attend next Panel meeting.

BF asked what is deemed “offensive”? Educating fans is the preferred option to issuing bans. The context of bans requires robust communications.

GA reiterated that football should be inclusive – to stamp out any form of discrimination. SH stated that this discussion reflects how nuanced the sanction process can be. In order to ensure that the sanctions being given out by the club reflect the views of supporters, SH asked the Panel to take some time to collate and consider fans’ views in order to inform the club of the appropriate level of sanction for a variety of offences.

SH asked for any Panel members interested in joining a working group to discuss this issue to contact him or Lynette.

Actions:

SH to set up working group to discuss sanctions

3 . Fan Led Review of Football Governance – Tracey Crouch Review

ZW advised the Panel that the Premier League has set up a Fan Led Review Advisory Group comprising of Chairs / Directors / CEOs of 7 clubs. ZW is sitting on this group.

Current position:

·         Government going through the report and recommendations to understand what they mean and how they may be implemented.

·         Government and football bodies evaluating any unintended consequences that may arise as a result of the report.

A lot of work needed by Government and the football bodies to work through the recommendations; Premier League looking at how they can implement some recommendations immediately / in the near future.

ZW said that the Panel would be kept up-to-date on all developments on the Crouch Report.

4 . Safe standing

GP explained that a trial will be running until the end of season with Cardiff, Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham identified as the trial clubs for licensed standing.

GP, DC and LH are part of the working group and are working with the SGSA and SAG with the Snake Pit, Lower Barclay and away section of the South Stand being identified as potential areas for rail seating.

Next steps will be fan feedback, particularly whether this would enhance supporter experience, considering this would be a club spend with no return, or whether this money could be better spent elsewhere. A survey will be sent to fans in due course. GP said that he would take on board all the learnings from the trial and that, if the trial is successful and safe standing is legalised and if there was a desire by supporters, then the club would target implementation of safe standing by no earlier than the start of season 2023/24.

5 . AOB

BB advised Borussia Dortmund recently ran a fan competition to design a kit for season 23/24. BB suggested it would help the supporters feel more involved.  ZW advised that the kit design process has quite strict parameters to work within but that we would see what opportunity there may be.

MF would like a general review of female leisurewear.

JB requested South Stand taps be upgraded to push or sensor taps in current Covid climate (currently old turning taps).

CO offered to focus on growing the global fanbase, specifically Ireland due to the current Irish International players. RB also requested Josh Sargent to be used to market to USA fans. BB also agreed to assist with promoting Global Canaries.

Date to be agreed for visit to The Nest.

Season ticket renewal was discussed, with all ST holders to be contacted by 11th February 2022 to advise them of the details of their renewal.

Actions:

ZW / Sam Jeffery, Commercial Director

GP to review

ZW / Sam Jeffery

LH

6 . Date of next meeting

Panel and club agreed that 3 meetings per season is not enough – agreed to move to quarterly. Original date of next meeting was Thursday, May 12th at 6.30pm. Agreed to find suitable date in April.

Actions:

LH / to discuss dates with GA & MC

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"SH explained that a person does not have to have committed a criminal act for the club to issue a ban if the behaviour of the fan goes against club values."

 

I think the club needs to be especially careful in this area.

Example, someone (or more) clearly went against club values (please show me wheree these values are formally codified?) by making a commercial partnership with BK8, yet we are unaware of any sanction taken against those who were responsible.

Meanwhile, apparently, supporters that mock other football fans are subject to sanction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

"SH explained that a person does not have to have committed a criminal act for the club to issue a ban if the behaviour of the fan goes against club values."

 

I think the club needs to be especially careful in this area.

Example, someone (or more) clearly went against club values (please show me wheree these values are formally codified?) by making a commercial partnership with BK8, yet we are unaware of any sanction taken against those who were responsible.

Meanwhile, apparently, supporters that mock other football fans are subject to sanction.

@NewNestCarrow Maybe a read of the supporters charter on the club website will explain ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lessingham Canary said:

@NewNestCarrow Maybe a read of the supporters charter on the club website will explain ? 

The Fans Charter does nothing to clarify what is (and what isn't) acceptable.

I would guess that shouting "F...Off Ipswich" during a match is deemed unacceptable, yet I can bet you £10,000 that not a single fan has ever been santioned for such "discriminatory" behaviour.

I maintain that the person (or persons) that signed off the BK8 deal did far more damage to the club's reputation than any individual seen mocking fans of another club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

yet we are unaware of any sanction taken against those who were responsible.

Didn't a couple of people "leave their jobs" shortly after that?

I'm glad we're getting progress on the South Stands taps, that was keeping me up at night. That, and the pedestrianisation of the city centre and how people will maintain access to Dixons.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Didn't a couple of people "leave their jobs" shortly after that?

I'm glad we're getting progress on the South Stands taps, that was keeping me up at night. That, and the pedestrianisation of the city centre and how people will maintain access to Dixons.

#accidentalpartridge

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Has greavsy signed off on these minutes yet please?

Only if Doxon of D*ck Green approves. 

Share this post


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

Only if Doxon of D*ck Green approves. 

Trawling for bites tut tut.

Share this post


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

Monkey  see  , , Monkey do  . 

Great input to the thread and i am sure essex will appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

The Fans Charter does nothing to clarify what is (and what isn't) acceptable.

I would guess that shouting "F...Off Ipswich" during a match is deemed unacceptable, yet I can bet you £10,000 that not a single fan has ever been santioned for such "discriminatory" behaviour.

I maintain that the person (or persons) that signed off the BK8 deal did far more damage to the club's reputation than any individual seen mocking fans of another club.

Happy to give a little more context on what was discussed at the meeting. I was interested in the nuances of what constitutes discriminatory behaviour, and the difference between where that sits in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the club.

Sam's comment was simply to underline that a law of the land does not have to be broken in order for the club to revoke someone's permission to enter the stadium. The minutes go on to say that the the club is looking to initiate a panel to collectively discuss and make decisions on individual cases of disorder/discrimination. We were all agreed that this is an extremely nuanced and complex matter which will require careful consideration. 

Personally speaking (and not as a member of the panel), I agree with your comments about the BK8 deal. As someone else has already posted, the two most senior figures who we presume would have been involved in signing that deal both left the club shortly afterwards. The club didn't make any direct, official correlation between these departures and the fallout of the BK8 affair, but one would have to describe the timing as a remarkable coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Happy to give a little more context on what was discussed at the meeting. I was interested in the nuances of what constitutes discriminatory behaviour, and the difference between where that sits in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of the club.

Sam's comment was simply to underline that a law of the land does not have to be broken in order for the club to revoke someone's permission to enter the stadium. The minutes go on to say that the the club is looking to initiate a panel to collectively discuss and make decisions on individual cases of disorder/discrimination. We were all agreed that this is an extremely nuanced and complex matter which will require careful consideration. 

Personally speaking (and not as a member of the panel), I agree with your comments about the BK8 deal. As someone else has already posted, the two most senior figures who we presume would have been involved in signing that deal both left the club shortly afterwards. The club didn't make any direct, official correlation between these departures and the fallout of the BK8 affair, but one would have to describe the timing as a remarkable coincidence.

@FeedthewolfThe additional detail is appreciated.

It is an interesting time when football is clamping down on "discriminatory" behaviour while, at the same time, reintroducing standing primarily because a vocal minority refuse to abide by ground regs and sit at games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing about the ticket office opening hours or about how long they take to answer the phone, IF we get through next week and get a home draw…………..,,.l

Share this post


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

@FeedthewolfThe additional detail is appreciated.

It is an interesting time when football is clamping down on "discriminatory" behaviour while, at the same time, reintroducing standing primarily because a vocal minority refuse to abide by ground regs and sit at games.

I'm not sure I completely agree with your logic here.

It's surely a positive thing that we're clamping down on discrimination, irrespective of whether people are sitting or standing? Nobody is suggesting that anything that could be considered in any way discriminatory should be punished, as per your 'F*** off Ip****h' example (although I note you didn't censor the most offensive word in that statement!). That's at one end of the dichotomy, and at the other end you have explicit racist abuse... it's just a case of striving to be as fair and consistent as possible with the 'grey areas' in the middle.

I absolutely love standing up at the football, and having been to a 'safe standing' match in Austria last year I thought it was a really positive experience that would enhance matchdays for a significant proportion of our fans. The Taylor Report (quite rightly, in my opinion) took terracing away after the Hillsborough disaster, but if we can offer a standing environment that is guaranteed to be safe, I think that's a winner. 

I'm not sure there's any real correlation between discriminatory behaviour and a desire to stand/refusal to sit, or did I misinterpret your point?

Share this post


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

 

I'm not sure there's any real correlation between discriminatory behaviour and a desire to stand/refusal to sit, or did I misinterpret your point?

In attending the Watford match last week my wife got an elbow in the head from somewhat more youthful male fans who were perhaps just over exuberant but also persistently standing. These people would perhaps benefit from safe standing as would those clients who wish to sit. If Clubs aren't prepared to enforce the all seater rules then they should regard safe standing as obligatory and perhaps more so for away supporters than home supporters? This is a point about Health and Safety for supporters.

Share this post


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

In attending the Watford match last week my wife got an elbow in the head from somewhat more youthful male fans who were perhaps just over exuberant but also persistently standing. These people would perhaps benefit from safe standing as would those clients who wish to sit. If Clubs aren't prepared to enforce the all seater rules then they should regard safe standing as obligatory and perhaps more so for away supporters than home supporters? This is a point about Health and Safety for supporters.

Sorry to hear about that, sounds most unpleasant. I hope your wife is okay now. 

I believe that there would be an obligation for clubs to also offer a proportionate amount of safe standing for away fans if the scheme goes ahead and clubs decide to execute it. That's why, in the minutes, the club has earmarked Snakepit, Lower Barclay and away areas of the South Stand as the potential places to install it.

It's a tough one about enforcing all-seater rules. Ultimately, there simply aren't enough stewards and police at matches to be able to adopt a heavy-handed approach; I'm sure there were occasions where one fan was singled out and ejected for persistent standing in the Barclay/Snakepit, leading to some skirmishes and confrontations. It's unfortunate, but football will always be a tribal experience that some people want to enjoy in a louder and rowdier fashion than others. Safe standing should offer a solution of sorts, and certainly minimise unfortunate occurrences like the one you mentioned.

Share this post


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

Sorry to hear about that, sounds most unpleasant. I hope your wife is okay now. 

I believe that there would be an obligation for clubs to also offer a proportionate amount of safe standing for away fans if the scheme goes ahead and clubs decide to execute it. That's why, in the minutes, the club has earmarked Snakepit, Lower Barclay and away areas of the South Stand as the potential places to install it.

It's a tough one about enforcing all-seater rules. Ultimately, there simply aren't enough stewards and police at matches to be able to adopt a heavy-handed approach; I'm sure there were occasions where one fan was singled out and ejected for persistent standing in the Barclay/Snakepit, leading to some skirmishes and confrontations. It's unfortunate, but football will always be a tribal experience that some people want to enjoy in a louder and rowdier fashion than others. Safe standing should offer a solution of sorts, and certainly minimise unfortunate occurrences like the one you mentioned.

Thanks Wolfie I generally agree but perhaps the Club can appreciate that the issues cannot be boiled down to narrow financial options as the minutes appear to imply.

Share this post


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

Thanks Wolfie I generally agree but perhaps the Club can appreciate that the issues cannot be boiled down to narrow financial options as the minutes appear to imply.

The cost (and fact that there is no revenue to gain from implementing safe standing) is a factor, as is fan experience, which is also mentioned. To me, the summary of that point implies that if the feedback from supporters is favourable, the club would look to go ahead regardless:

GP said that he would take on board all the learnings from the trial and that, if the trial is successful and safe standing is legalised and if there was a desire by supporters, then the club would target implementation of safe standing by no earlier than the start of season 2023/24. 

The survey itself offers a positive opportunity for fan engagement too, if it's executed well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Has greavsy signed off on these minutes yet please?

Greavsy  is dealing with more important matters at the moment. 

Nice to know im being missed! 😉 (and the usual suspects reacting on posts about me, as is typical from them) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Greavsy  is dealing with more important matters at the moment. 

Nice to know im being missed! 😉 (and the usual suspects reacting on posts about me, as is typical from them) 

Admittedly, my maths skills are poor but putting 2 and 2 together from your posts from the last day or so, I hope everything is ok, Greavsy. 👍

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Admittedly, my maths skills are poor but putting 2 and 2 together from your posts from the last day or so, I hope everything is ok, Greavsy. 👍

Appreciate the post Duncan. 

Not been the best couple of days, hopefully turned a slight corner today. 

Apologies and hope you understand but can't / won't share details on here. 

Share this post


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

Appreciate the post Duncan. 

Not been the best couple of days, hopefully turned a slight corner today. 

Apologies and hope you understand but can't / won't share details on here. 

And nor should you. As I said, hope everything is ok and sending best wishes. 👍

Share this post


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

And nor should you. As I said, hope everything is ok and sending best wishes. 👍

Appreciated and respect. 🤜 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Appreciated and respect. 🤜 

Hadn't  done the 2+2 that Duncani had, now  I've seen seen it,  forum bullshoite  forgotten,  best wishes Greavsyo.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a point of order @Feedthewolf , the Taylor Report did not insist upon all-seater stadiums. What it said was that all clubs shall assess the risks within the areas accomodating fans, and put measures in place to safeguard fans' safety. Standing in seated areas has always been an infringement of clubs' rules (as we know) and the turning of a blind eye has been pragmatic but surprising.

On the question of trialling rail seating which accomodates 'safe standing', at Man City this season we all stood in rail seating, many people without even realising it. It clearly and indisputably reduces the risks of crushing, with no attendant added risks. To all intents and purposes the 'trial' can be regarded as complete.

 

  • Thanks 1

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...