Supporters Panel Notes of Meeting

[essex canary 491]

15 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

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.

Good to read the first paragraph and it seems like an achievement to have got Zoe on board on this issue. The Notes of Meeting whilst mentioning that Zoe will feedback further don't come across in quite the same way as you have expressed it here.

The remit of the Supporters Panel of another Club reads as follows:

'The Panel was formed to represent the views and interests of fans by bridging the gap between them and the Board of Directors. Our remit is to canvass opinion from fans on all aspects of the Club and to present these to the Board at regular meetings in order to bring about positive improvements and to enhance communication and transparency.'

Which raises the question as to why the NCFC OSP remit isn't similar?

Many other clubs have expressed a view on the Crouch Report. Leeds United described it as 'Marxist collective agriculturalism'. Laughable in the light of their recent history, they clearly don't feel they are in any danger of relegation at any point in future. Cambridge United are encouraging all fans to write to their MPs to ask for the report to be adopted in full as a package. Doesn't Norwich City have an opinion? Perhaps it could canvass fans particularly on issues which are particularly relevant to our Club given how we operate? Examples include the definition of the Golden Share and the proposal for independent and rotational Directors? Abortive work is one issue but the initiative is labelled as 'fan-led'. As such shouldnt the Club be encouraging and facilitating fan feedback?

Edited January 29, 2022 by essex canary

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

54 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Good to read the first paragraph and it seems like an achievement to have got Zoe on board on this issue. The Notes of Meeting whilst mentioning that Zoe will feedback further don't come across in quite the same way as you have expressed it here.

The remit of the Supporters Panel of another Club reads as follows:

'The Panel was formed to represent the views and interests of fans by bridging the gap between them and the Board of Directors. Our remit is to canvass opinion from fans on all aspects of the Club and to present these to the Board at regular meetings in order to bring about positive improvements and to enhance communication and transparency.'

Which raises the question as to why the NCFC OSP remit isn't similar?

Many other clubs have expressed a view on the Crouch Report. Leeds United described it as 'Marxist collective agriculturalism'. Laughable in the light of their recent history, they clearly don't feel they are in any danger of relegation at any point in future. Cambridge United are encouraging all fans to write to their MPs to ask for the report to be adopted in full as a package. Doesn't Norwich City have an opinion? Perhaps it could canvass fans particularly on issues which are particularly relevant to our Club given how we operate? Examples include the definition of the Golden Share and the proposal for independent and rotational Directors? Abortive work is one issue but the initiative is labelled as 'fan-led'. As such shouldnt the Club be encouraging and facilitating fan feedback?

Maybe it's because they're all different, and it's just that your personal preference is for a panel to be as described in the example you've cherry-picked?

Cambridge United are an excellent example of positive fan engagement; @Lessingham Canary and I have mentioned them as a broad-brush example of best practice.

The pace of change can often be glacial, and I'm patient enough to play the long game. I know a lot of people will judge us on the here and now, and I can live with that, but I'm looking our two-year tenure in its entirety and striving to build trust with the club with a view to being as productive as we can (and future panels) in the longer term.

Personally, I'd like to see the club have a public opinion on the Crouch Report, especially as our self-funding model is actually the best example in the PL of how a club can be run without the boom-or -bust tactics employed by many clubs chasing the golden egg. There are a lot of elements of the Crouch Report that NCFC is already doing well, and if the report is implemented in full (as I personally believe it should be), I think we'd be held in a much more positive light nationally.

The club's standpoint, as evidenced in the minutes, is that they wish to see the Government's response to the report before they make any further comment/action. I think that's a shame, and I said as much at the last meeting, but I'm confident from the discussions I've had that the club feels positively about the report in essence, and will be open to embracing whatever the Government decides when it responds.

Playing the long game is frustrating, but as I said, we've got two years as a panel to make an impact.

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

Maybe it's because they're all different, and it's just that your personal preference is for a panel to be as described in the example you've cherry-picked?

Cambridge United are an excellent example of positive fan engagement; @Lessingham Canary and I have mentioned them as a broad-brush example of best practice.

The pace of change can often be glacial, and I'm patient enough to play the long game. I know a lot of people will judge us on the here and now, and I can live with that, but I'm looking our two-year tenure in its entirety and striving to build trust with the club with a view to being as productive as we can (and future panels) in the longer term.

Personally, I'd like to see the club have a public opinion on the Crouch Report, especially as our self-funding model is actually the best example in the PL of how a club can be run without the boom-or -bust tactics employed by many clubs chasing the golden egg. There are a lot of elements of the Crouch Report that NCFC is already doing well, and if the report is implemented in full (as I personally believe it should be), I think we'd be held in a much more positive light nationally.

The club's standpoint, as evidenced in the minutes, is that they wish to see the Government's response to the report before they make any further comment/action. I think that's a shame, and I said as much at the last meeting, but I'm confident from the discussions I've had that the club feels positively about the report in essence, and will be open to embracing whatever the Government decides when it responds.

Playing the long game is frustrating, but as I said, we've got two years as a panel to make an impact.

Thanks Wolfie. I agree with all of that. Credit to you for your patience. 'Dynamism' is though one quality that could perhaps aid the Club's success.

Just a couple of other points. I thought you had alluded to the fact in another thread that the OSP had input into home pricing both season ticket and casual for next season? The Minutes don't appear to reflect that and surely the content of any representations the OSP made isn't confidential?

I understood at the AGM that the Club are committed to another review of the Away members scheme. I am surprised then that this doesn't appear to have been discussed at this meeting. Does the OSP know how and when this will be taken forward ? Such a review could also perhaps discuss context and circumstance in terms of behaviour at away games

[Jim Smith 2,314]

So just so I’m clear has there been consultation with the supporters panel over proposed season ticket pricing? 
 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Jim Smith

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Ps. I’m also disappointed that the atmosphere at games such as Palace seems to be being attributed without question of deteriorating “supporter behaviour” when the majority (not all) of it is intrinsically linked to dissatisfaction with the club. 

[essex canary 491]

On 29/01/2022 at 11:27, Feedthewolf said:

Maybe it's because they're all different, and it's just that your personal preference is for a panel to be as described in the example you've cherry-picked?

Cambridge United are an excellent example of positive fan engagement; @Lessingham Canary and I have mentioned them as a broad-brush example of best practice.

 

I am struggling to navigate the Canaries website to find the OSP Remit (still not easy despite the redesign). From memory I thought it fell short of the last 2 sentences of section 7.20 of the Crouch Report that it should demonstrate an 'Engage and Consult' ethos and provide transparency to the wider fan base?

My view was that Cambridge United's more accessible version appeared to be closer to the Crouch Report criteria.

Interesting also to read about a potential Memorandum of Understanding. How would that dovetail with the Canaries Trust MoU?

[Greavsy 2,412]

having be vocal about the OSP and the issuance of the minutes I now have a little time to post some of my views. 

I genuinely have no personal issue with Wolfie or anyone on the panel, and am appreciative of the time and effort they all freely give. However, We are all entitled to our opinions and the right to share them on here. 

Generally, Im disappointed with the OSP as my understanding was that there would be fan consultation on non footballing issues which wasnt being provided by the other bodies (ie the trust - not picking on the trust, just an example), an alternative approach. I accept the OSP is young ish (it is 25% into its reign) so its a learning process, but having read the minutes, but initial comments I feel are still valid, in that its a collective, voted for by fans (I indeed was part of that process) but controlled by the club itself. 

From the minutes, and in the absence of anything from the OSP members, its just a vehicle the club appear to use to say we have consulted the representative bodies in this matter. Box ticking it would appear. 

I appreciate that some things cannot be discussed in public, and if topics where thrown open to the floor then there would be a plethora of differing views and little progress made. However a little background in to the thought process would help us all understand the bigger picture. 

Having read the minutes I am disappointed there is no mention re season tickets, or any reference to a conversation therewith, other than when we are likely to hear as was alluded to in previous comments. I also agree that the OSP is not the place for fans to raise complaints - but that was (pink-un wise) only done when a request was made for anything we wished to be raised. Maybe someone was misled or they misunderstood there. That said, im pleased the taps are being sorted in the south stand. The refurbished W/Cs in the upper river end (sorry im old school) whilst not of the twist type, are not no touch either, which would be better in these Covid / post Covid times (if we ever get to such a place) 

It also disappoints me when OSP members post saying they wont comment on the minutes as its not their place (understandably) then then do multiple times. 

As has been said we all share one common theme, which is our support of NCFC, and whilst we all show support in different ways I hope we can be united in our common goals, if not the path to their achievement. OTBC 

To repeat, in closing, I have nothing but respect for ALL the OSP members, and their time freely given, but reserve the right to comment publicly on the meetings and their output. This is a public discussion forum after all.  

Edited January 31, 2022 by Greavsy

[hogesar 9,618]

On 29/01/2022 at 14:28, Jim Smith said:

Ps. I’m also disappointed that the atmosphere at games such as Palace seems to be being attributed without question of deteriorating “supporter behaviour” when the majority (not all) of it is intrinsically linked to dissatisfaction with the club. 

But that's been evidenced across all clubs - since coming back from the pandemic there have been a higher % of arrests etc. And considering some of the behaviour included racism directed at Idah, I don't think dissatisfaction with the club is even vaguely relevant, unless we want to give racists an excuse now.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

4 hours ago, hogesar said:

But that's been evidenced across all clubs - since coming back from the pandemic there have been a higher % of arrests etc. And considering some of the behaviour included racism directed at Idah, I don't think dissatisfaction with the club is even vaguely relevant, unless we want to give racists an excuse now.

There was no racism directed towards Idah from the Norwich support at Palace except for one individual who was identified by those around him immediately and removed from the crowd at the time and as i understand it just the one individual on Twatter after the game.

That is two instances too many as i am sure we all agree but it is a very, very tiny number ( two in fact ) when we have a support of over 2,000 at every away game and no doubt several thousand who use Twatter.

All about context hoggy.

Edited January 31, 2022 by TIL 1010

[TIL 1010 4,722]

4 hours ago, Greavsy said:

having be vocal about the OSP and the issuance of the minutes I now have a little time to post some of my views. 

I genuinely have no personal issue with Wolfie or anyone on the panel, and am appreciative of the time and effort they all freely give. However, We are all entitled to our opinions and the right to share them on here. 

Generally, Im disappointed with the OSP as my understanding was that there would be fan consultation on non footballing issues which wasnt being provided by the other bodies (ie the trust - not picking on the trust, just an example), an alternative approach. I accept the OSP is young ish (it is 25% into its reign) so its a learning process, but having read the minutes, but initial comments I feel are still valid, in that its a collective, voted for by fans (I indeed was part of that process) but controlled by the club itself. 

From the minutes, and in the absence of anything from the OSP members, its just a vehicle the club appear to use to say we have consulted the representative bodies in this matter. Box ticking it would appear. 

I appreciate that some things cannot be discussed in public, and if topics where thrown open to the floor then there would be a plethora of differing views and little progress made. However a little background in to the thought process would help us all understand the bigger picture. 

Having read the minutes I am disappointed there is no mention re season tickets, or any reference to a conversation therewith, other than when we are likely to hear as was alluded to in previous comments. I also agree that the OSP is not the place for fans to raise complaints - but that was (pink-un wise) only done when a request was made for anything we wished to be raised. Maybe someone was misled or they misunderstood there. That said, im pleased the taps are being sorted in the south stand. The refurbished W/Cs in the upper river end (sorry im old school) whilst not of the twist type, are not no touch either, which would be better in these Covid / post Covid times (if we ever get to such a place) 

It also disappoints me when OSP members post saying they wont comment on the minutes as its not their place (understandably) then then do multiple times. 

As has been said we all share one common theme, which is our support of NCFC, and whilst we all show support in different ways I hope we can be united in our common goals, if not the path to their achievement. OTBC 

To repeat, in closing, I have nothing but respect for ALL the OSP members, and their time freely given, but reserve the right to comment publicly on the meetings and their output. This is a public discussion forum after all.  

Excellent post Greavsy and may i add that it appears the minutes have only been published on here and on the not so easy to locate Club website.

A push of the button could surely circulate them by e-mail to most on the club database or how about the Club Facebook page and a link to them on Twatter ?

The profile of the OSP who represent us needs to be raised .

Edited January 31, 2022 by TIL 1010

[hogesar 9,618]

22 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Excellent post Greavsy and may i add that it appears the minutes have only been published on here and on the not so easy to locate Club website.

For anyone who struggles to find them on the club website, it literally requires one single click from the homepage. Hover over club on the main menu and choose Supporter panel.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

8 hours ago, Greavsy said:

having be vocal about the OSP and the issuance of the minutes I now have a little time to post some of my views. 

I genuinely have no personal issue with Wolfie or anyone on the panel, and am appreciative of the time and effort they all freely give. However, We are all entitled to our opinions and the right to share them on here. 

Generally, Im disappointed with the OSP as my understanding was that there would be fan consultation on non footballing issues which wasnt being provided by the other bodies (ie the trust - not picking on the trust, just an example), an alternative approach. I accept the OSP is young ish (it is 25% into its reign) so its a learning process, but having read the minutes, but initial comments I feel are still valid, in that its a collective, voted for by fans (I indeed was part of that process) but controlled by the club itself. 

From the minutes, and in the absence of anything from the OSP members, its just a vehicle the club appear to use to say we have consulted the representative bodies in this matter. Box ticking it would appear. 

I appreciate that some things cannot be discussed in public, and if topics where thrown open to the floor then there would be a plethora of differing views and little progress made. However a little background in to the thought process would help us all understand the bigger picture. 

Having read the minutes I am disappointed there is no mention re season tickets, or any reference to a conversation therewith, other than when we are likely to hear as was alluded to in previous comments. I also agree that the OSP is not the place for fans to raise complaints - but that was (pink-un wise) only done when a request was made for anything we wished to be raised. Maybe someone was misled or they misunderstood there. That said, im pleased the taps are being sorted in the south stand. The refurbished W/Cs in the upper river end (sorry im old school) whilst not of the twist type, are not no touch either, which would be better in these Covid / post Covid times (if we ever get to such a place) 

It also disappoints me when OSP members post saying they wont comment on the minutes as its not their place (understandably) then then do multiple times. 

As has been said we all share one common theme, which is our support of NCFC, and whilst we all show support in different ways I hope we can be united in our common goals, if not the path to their achievement. OTBC 

To repeat, in closing, I have nothing but respect for ALL the OSP members, and their time freely given, but reserve the right to comment publicly on the meetings and their output. This is a public discussion forum after all.  

Evening, @Greavsy. I've got no problem with anything you've said here... except the one bit in bold, which I am presuming pertains to me, as I don't think either of the other reps have discussed the minutes on here?

If it's not pertaining to me then the following comment is irrelevant, but I never said I would not comment on the minutes! I said that I didn't want to comment until publication of the minutes, and I made sure that I made some time to discuss them on the day they were published. Feel free to point out if you think I have implied that somewhere else, as it certainly wasn't my intention.

Also, I totally agree with your statement "the OSP is not the place for fans to raise complaints - but that was (pink-un wise) only done when a request was made for anything we wished to be raised". I had suggested to Caroline that it might be a good idea to start the thread in the very early days of the panel, and she said I should go for it; with hindsight that was a mistake, and has caused me a lot of problems when people (quite fairly) observed that that line of communication appeared to have dried up. You lives and learns 🙂

I also agree with @TIL 1010 that the profile of the panel would benefit from being raised, and I will definitely keep that front of mind for the remainder of my time on the panel. Personally I don't think it'd be worth emailing the whole club database about it – I don't think a high enough proportion of fans would be interested enough to make it worthwhile – but social media posts on official channels would aid transparency.

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

So just so I’m clear has the supporters panel been consulted/canvassed for their views on proposed season ticket prices for next season? Sorry to labour the point but didn’t get an answer? 
 

 

[ncfcstar 287]

On 31/01/2022 at 11:54, Greavsy said:

That said, im pleased the taps are being sorted in the south stand.  

I know it's silly, and I know @TIL 1010 mocked it, but it was me who brought this up - at the end of the meeting by the way, as a passing comment.  I did think it was very strange that those taps were not 'covid safe' per se, especially in toilets used by hundreds if not thousands on a match day.  

[TIL 1010 4,722]

15 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

 

I also agree with @TIL 1010 that the profile of the panel would benefit from being raised, and I will definitely keep that front of mind for the remainder of my time on the panel. Personally I don't think it'd be worth emailing the whole club database about it – I don't think a high enough proportion of fans would be interested enough to make it worthwhile – but social media posts on official channels would aid transparency.

 

I suspect there are several thousand season ticket holders who do not use social media at all and as the OSP is there to represent the broad church of Norwich fans i don't quite accept your thought that it would not be worthwhile as not enough would be interested. How can they express any interest if they are unaware what is going on wolfie ?  Surely to grow and flourish the OSP needs to be made available to as many fans as possible not just those on social media. A click of the button at the NCFC end when communications such as season tickets and membership are circulated to include OSP newsletter and minutes is not a technical issue that would require much labour intensity from that end.

Anyway on another matter first Caroline and now Lynette hey wolfie. 😜

[Shining White 13]

5 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I know it's silly, and I know @TIL 1010 mocked it, but it was me who brought this up - at the end of the meeting by the way, as a passing comment.  I did think it was very strange that those taps were not 'covid safe' per se, especially in toilets used by hundreds if not thousands on a match day.  

Not wanting to speak for others, but... I doubt anyone is mocking a sensible point bring raised & implemented (Covid-safe facilities) rather they are pointing out this this seems to be all that has been achieved here 

Given the lengths the club went to in order to capture and understand the concerns re the away members scheme when first launched, and that supporter communications / relations are still viewed by the club as a point of improvement, then why on earth has this issue not been near the very top of the list for the OSP to discuss and address?

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

11 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I know it's silly, and I know @TIL 1010 mocked it, but it was me who brought this up - at the end of the meeting by the way, as a passing comment.  I did think it was very strange that those taps were not 'covid safe' per se, especially in toilets used by hundreds if not thousands on a match day.  

I was not the only one if you look back and thatissue you mentioned applies all over the ground and i am yet to see any sanitiser dispensers, certainly in The City Stand toilets at least.

Edited February 1, 2022 by TIL 1010

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

I suspect there are several thousand season ticket holders who do not use social media at all and as the OSP is there to represent the broad church of Norwich fans i don't quite accept your thought that it would not be worthwhile as not enough would be interested. How can they express any interest if they are unaware what is going on wolfie ?  Surely to grow and flourish the OSP needs to be made available to as many fans as possible not just those on social media. A click of the button at the NCFC end when communications such as season tickets and membership are circulated to include OSP newsletter and minutes is not a technical issue that would require much labour intensity from that end.

 

I thought there was a suggestion around the time the OSP was formed of them potentially having their own website or dedicated page? Can that thought be taken forward?

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

I was not the only one if you look back and thatissue you mentioned applies all over the ground and i am yet to see any sanitiser dispensers, certainly in The City Stand toilets at least.

There have been other related issues such as hot water taps delivering at times stone cold or searing hot water so how about a broader look at Health and Safety on the subject of taps and sinks.

[ncfcstar 287]

22 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I thought there was a suggestion around the time the OSP was formed of them potentially having their own website or dedicated page? Can that thought be taken forward?

https://www.canaries.co.uk/club/fans/supporter-panel

[ncfcstar 287]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I was not the only one if you look back and thatissue you mentioned applies all over the ground and i am yet to see any sanitiser dispensers, certainly in The City Stand toilets at least.

Well I'd like to think that someone at the club has the common sense to check all the toilets if they are bothering to do the taps in the South Stand.  We'll see what the state of play is at the Palace game.

[essex canary 491]

15 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

https://www.canaries.co.uk/club/fans/supporter-panel

Thanks but rightly or wrongly I initially interpreted the intention as not just the formal stuff but a dedicated space where the Panel actively interacts with the fans?

[ncfcstar 287]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Thanks but rightly or wrongly I initially interpreted the intention as not just the formal stuff but a dedicated space where the Panel actively interacts with the fans?

In what sense?  What would we be interacting in regards to?  I don't think anyone is against that per se, but it really depends on what it would be used for and the club have made it clear that we are not to get involved in 'day to day' CS concerns.

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I was not the only one if you look back and thatissue you mentioned applies all over the ground and i am yet to see any sanitiser dispensers, certainly in The City Stand toilets at least.

Thank God the OSP were on top of it, already you've now confirmed that it is a far more widespread issue and one that needs rectifying. Well done guys. 👍 

[ncfcstar 287]

If I'm remembered for being the guy who sorted out the tap situation at Carrow Road, then I'll leave my position with my head held high 🙃

[essex canary 491]

1 hour ago, ncfcstar said:

In what sense?  What would we be interacting in regards to?  I don't think anyone is against that per se, but it really depends on what it would be used for and the club have made it clear that we are not to get involved in 'day to day' CS concerns.

In much the same way as this site is being used but taking on board Tilly's point that this site isn't used by everyone or clearly signposted whereas such a dedicated area would be commonly known as the 'go to' destination for interaction with the Panel to make it accessible and inclusive for all NCFC supporters?

[essex canary 491]

5 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

 

Anyway on another matter first Caroline and now Lynette hey wolfie. 😜

The job description is interesting.

I wonder if the outgoing post-holder feels, in the same way that the OSP does, that it is very challenging to meet expectations?

If so it would be good to know what could be done differently to help achieve a little less staff turnover.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The job description is interesting.

I wonder if the outgoing post-holder feels, in the same way that the OSP does, that it is very challenging to meet expectations?

If so it would be good to know what could be done differently to help achieve a little less staff turnover.

https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich-city-hunting-for-head-of-supporter-engagement-8659596

It states it is a new post but in my opinion it looks like a rebranding of a job title which we  know happens from time to time at Norwich City.

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

Wow, £38k a year ? 

[Greavsy 2,412]

1 minute ago, FenwayFrank said:

Wow, £38k a year ? 

Thats a lot of dough, for you Mr Bun?