Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
William Darby

Has the club learnt anything today?

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anytwat"]

I trust you see the problem of not knowing who is on these working groups!

[/quote]Your leeeeeda - John Tilson (who was on the SCG for far longer than I) knows who was on which working group before the SCG was disbanded as we were all circulated the current standings.LQ-Enterprises thanks you for you continued (if somewhat stalkerish) questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is what the SCG was really like then doing away with it probably did everyone a favour[:O]

I always imagined it as a friendly gathering of City fans working with the club to get the fans a fair deal. Now I think it was probably more like Dallas and Dynasty rolled into one....

Seems to me the club are trying to maximise income wherever possible. 10 quid for kids seems really expensive. I don''t go to the friendlies so I''d ask if there were many kids there? The Gillingham game is kids for a quid and that''s a competetive game, not a friendly.That''s definitely the one I''d choose to take the kids to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I write as an ex member of the SCG albeit only for the latter 3 years. I was allocated to the "Home matchday experience group"and tried to always contribute positively including being involved in a mystery shopper exercise.

When the SCG was disbanded these groups were supposed to continue but I certainly have not been contacted either to say thank you and goodbye or to invite me to participate in the new regime.

To my uncertain knowledge this and other groups have not met and one is left to wonder if amid the clamour to disband the SCG the baby was thrown out with the bathwater,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Felixfan"]I write as an ex member of the SCG albeit only for the latter 3 years. I was allocated to the "Home matchday experience group"and tried to always contribute positively including being involved in a mystery shopper exercise. When the SCG was disbanded these groups were supposed to continue but I certainly have not been contacted either to say thank you and goodbye or to invite me to participate in the new regime. To my uncertain knowledge this and other groups have not met and one is left to wonder if amid the clamour to disband the SCG the baby was thrown out with the bathwater,[/quote]

I think you have it more or less spot on Dave and when Mr McNally attends the NCISA AGM i shall flag this whole matter up on the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not wish to unduly prolong this thread but the number of visits shows that it has touched a nerve. It would be very sad if a club like Norwich famed for it''s level of consultation became disconnected with it''s supporters and fanbase.

The SCG worked very well for many years with dedicated volunteers but did need refoming and refreshing and I realised this shortly after I was appointed,and with others put forward ideas for a more updated and representative forum. The Cullum saga highlighted this need and in fact was the catalyst for change.

The number of issues raised on this board show that the current system is not working and NCISA is right to take this forward. It is vital then that all supporters with any ideas for a new system of consultation make sure their views are known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]And people wonder why fans don''t take NCISA entirely seriously [:O] [/quote]

This is me and not NCISA posting Shack and it is my opinion of Lisa Q not official policy.Have you met the woman? no thought not.[;)]

[/quote]You are the NCISA chairman (I think, sorry if I have got your position wrong) and most posters know that. You simply cannot bully people in a personal capacity and then expect posters to forget that when you are acting in an official NCISA capacity. Put simply, if you can''t control your mouth then you are not suited to the position that you currently hold.[/quote]

The sound of a nail being hit perfectly on its head!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken at great length this morning to Richard Gough and as an ex member of the SCG i must say i somewhat still confused about about whether there are sub committees,working groups,focus groups or consultative groups covering a range of topics.However there is no such body called Pricing but there have been meetings involving some former members of the SCG and some fans who volunteered their services to what Richard said could be called Season Ticket Strategy.They have met two or three times but not since the launch of 2010/11 prices but it was since the SCG was disbanded.

I therefore apologise to Lisa for intimating she was on the "Pricing" committee,however she has attended the Season Ticket Strategy meetings.

I will leave it to everybody to make what they will of the difference between Pricing and Season Ticket Strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well... I''ve just had a quick SCG search on this message board and it seems folk on their wanted input on all kinds of things. I assumed it was set up to help the club make the right decisions on issues like ticketing, pricing, disabled issues and the like. But it seems issues like Peter Cullum, the hiring and firing of managers and even team tactics have also been in the remit! I can''t imagine McNally and Lambert putting up with such a state of affairs, can anyone else?

In fact, as a shareholder it''s really quite concerning. At the AGM each year Shareholders are invited to question the board/manager on these things and while only Glen Roeder missed our stint as England Manager the end result is always the same. Our views are politely listened to and rightly ignored. If the club did indeed take on board the views of an unelected group of "fans spokesmen" over that of it''s own sharehoders then I for one am glad the SCG has been binned forever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="GMF"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]And people wonder why fans don''t take NCISA entirely seriously [:O]
[/quote]

This is me and not NCISA posting Shack and it is my opinion of Lisa Q not official policy.Have you met the woman? no thought not.[;)]

[/quote]

You are the NCISA chairman (I think, sorry if I have got your position wrong) and most posters know that. You simply cannot bully people in a personal capacity and then expect posters to forget that when you are acting in an official NCISA capacity. Put simply, if you can''t control your mouth then you are not suited to the position that you currently hold.
[/quote] The sound of a nail being hit perfectly on its head![/quote]

I hope GMF my little spat with Lisa Q calling me a liar has been put into perspective by my last post.I do not really think that what is obviously a play on words warrants calling me a liar do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tangy, I think you''ve missed the point.

You''re partly right, there is a communications issue, but the problem is with the Club, not the individuals who have either volunteered or been asked to join the revised version of the SCG.

In simple terms this is because it would seem that there have been no meeting and, furthermore, the Club certainly hasn''t provided any further details as promised some nine months ago, when the initial announcment of the revised consultation process was made.

Perhaps you should consider redirecting you issues over this point to the Club as this current war of words does nothing to enhance your credabilty as a NCISA committee member!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well, well, well... I''ve just had a quick SCG search on this message board and it seems folk on their wanted input on all kinds of things. I assumed it was set up to help the club make the right decisions on issues like ticketing, pricing, disabled issues and the like. But it seems issues like Peter Cullum, the hiring and firing of managers and even team tactics have also been in the remit! I can''t imagine McNally and Lambert putting up with such a state of affairs, can anyone else?

In fact, as a shareholder it''s really quite concerning. At the AGM each year Shareholders are invited to question the board/manager on these things and while only Glen Roeder missed our stint as England Manager the end result is always the same. Our views are politely listened to and rightly ignored. If the club did indeed take on board the views of an unelected group of "fans spokesmen" over that of it''s own sharehoders then I for one am glad the SCG has been binned forever.

 

[/quote]

Do you have anything positive to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Positive about what?

I can''t see anything much positive on this thread. Would you rather I''d start a slanging match and get all hysterical?

If you were on the SCG you could maybe tell me where my negative comments are wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Positive about what?

I can''t see anything much positive on this thread. Would you rather I''d start a slanging match and get all hysterical?

If you were on the SCG you could maybe tell me where my negative comments are wrong?

 

[/quote]

About how you see the cosultative process in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know I''m not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I don''t have a scoobies what you are asking me to see? If I have posted something that''s wrong then point it out to me. I''m always happy to discuss and learn but I find it hard to learn from throw away lines thrown in my direction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John. Thanks for your reply. I don''t condone the use of such words, although, having re-read parts of this thread, it does seem that LQ was initially talking about the days of the SCG and you were talking about post SCG days. However, it''s not really about who''s right and who''s wrong, as neither of you have covered yourselves in glory over this little spat.

The point raised by Shack Attack does, IMHO, still apply.

However, what''s obvious is that the Club, having announced the changes to the Consultation process last October, haven''t followed up on their promise to provide further details. Furthermore, they''ve not confirmed details of any subsequent meetings or the make up of the groups that may have met. The Club is at fault here and they need to get their act together quickly on this one and recover the lost ground, otherwise the fans faith in the revised process will disappear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
---What has emerged is this:

When the SCG was disbanded the club promised there would still be five

specific working groups that would meet four time a year. It seems that

simply hasn''t happened. There MAY (although even this is by no means

certain) have been the odd meeting of one or two groups, but the system

that was promised has not been delivered. Since it was the club''s job to

set up these groups and call meetings that has to be the result of a

decison by the club, either before the system was announced, or at the

time, or shortly afterwards.

Does this matter? The club will almost certainly say, when it gets round

to acknowledging this state of affairs, that it consults fans in other

ways. But there is consultation and consultation. The parts of the

process that the club put in place when the SCG itself was disbanded

(the webchats and extra supporters'' forums) are all very well. But by

their nature they are superficial, and don''t allow for serious

discussion. A question is asked and a response given which may not be

satisfactory and beg all sorts of follow-ups. But on the questioning has

moved to a different topic.

At least with the SCG (having been a regular reader of its minutes, which were mainly devoted to relevant issues and not to stuff outside its remit) it

was obvious there was time for a proper debate, with NCFC staff

sometimes being put on the spot and having to justify their views.

Did this ever have any real effect on club policy? A question best

answered by those who served. But what is clear is that the one form of consultation in which fans were best able to put forward sustained arguments has either

been scrapped or put into very cold storage, at a time when there are

signs (to put it no higher) of a shift away from the club''s stated aim

of affordable family football.

One only has to look elsewhere on this board to see twinges of

discontent - Jim Smith''s post about the prices for the Watford game, for

example, or the thread on hikes in refreshment prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the rhetoric on this thread ( and others ) it does appear to me that many have ( had ) a strong desire for the club to toughen up without losing its soft underbelly. Life, business and politics is not quite like that. Many business leaders and politicians provide assurances to placate the masses and, once made, earnestly devote themselves to their own agenda. My own view is that the "new" NCFC have an agenda to get back into the Premiership and realise that a lot of "niceness" will need to be pushed aside in the process. Of course, most football fans will want their cake and eat it. It''s the nature of the beast. For the better or worse it looks like the current agenda at Carrow Road is full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. As always, time will tell if it''s the right approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple, I think your post sums the position up perfectly.

Perhaps the Club should, at worst, be aware of these twinges of discontent, at best, try to acknowledge these and maybe offer some feedback to try to justify their decisions?

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]For all the rhetoric on this thread ( and others ) it does appear to me that many have ( had ) a strong desire for the club to toughen up without losing its soft underbelly. Life, business and politics is not quite like that. Many business leaders and politicians provide assurances to placate the masses and, once made, earnestly devote themselves to their own agenda. My own view is that the "new" NCFC have an agenda to get back into the Premiership and realise that a lot of "niceness" will need to be pushed aside in the process. Of course, most football fans will want their cake and eat it. It''s the nature of the beast. For the better or worse it looks like the current agenda at Carrow Road is full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. As always, time will tell if it''s the right approach.[/quote]Farragut successfully ignoring the torpedos, or the Charge of the Light Brigade?!Yankee, you may be right in your assessment, but in that case the logical - and the practical - thing for the club to do is drop any pretence of caring what the fans think. Don''t just scrap the SCG and its remnants. Scrap everything - the webchats, the fans'' forums, the meetings with NICA, Capital Canaries, the official site messageboard, replying to emails etc etc etc. Be honest about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they care enough about what the fans think to keep all those things PC, but not enough to set up new committees etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]For all the rhetoric on this thread ( and others ) it does appear to me that many have ( had ) a strong desire for the club to toughen up without losing its soft underbelly. Life, business and politics is not quite like that. Many business leaders and politicians provide assurances to placate the masses and, once made, earnestly devote themselves to their own agenda. My own view is that the "new" NCFC have an agenda to get back into the Premiership and realise that a lot of "niceness" will need to be pushed aside in the process. Of course, most football fans will want their cake and eat it. It''s the nature of the beast. For the better or worse it looks like the current agenda at Carrow Road is full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. As always, time will tell if it''s the right approach.[/quote]Farragut successfully ignoring the torpedos, or the Charge of the Light Brigade?!Yankee, you may be right in your assessment, but in that case the logical - and the practical - thing for the club to do is drop any pretence of caring what the fans think. Don''t just scrap the SCG and its remnants. Scrap everything - the webchats, the fans'' forums, the meetings with NICA, Capital Canaries, the official site messageboard, replying to emails etc etc etc. Be honest about it.[/quote]If the club was totally honest. I wouldn''t be surprised if they''d say,"I no longer wish to work with that tosser and that tosser".  IMO they don''t want the hassle. It''s more trouble than it''s worth (if this thread is anything to go by).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted this morning, do a quick search on this forum for SCG and you may be in for a shock. I expected to find some threads about pricing, ticketing, disabled issues, and so on. But there were none. What I did find was threads about discussions with the board over sacking the manager, the managers relationship with players, the style of football played, discussing who should be the next manager, discussions about player discipline, and discussions about potential takeovers and the way the board should be running the club.

Now I''m amazed this went on. These SCG members didn''t have to be shareholders. They didn''t even have to be elected. They were just there, supposedly representing the fans interests. Well from what I''ve seen on this little search none of these threads even remotely represented me.

Felix - you asked if I had anything positive to say. Well maybe you can give me some positives from your experience on the SCG to help me on the way. Tell me what qualifications were needed for fans who were consulted about these things which are surely not part of the SCG remit. Why not go the whole hog and not have a CE or Football Manager. Just consult with a few unelected fans and run the club on hot air.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just consult with a few unelected fans and run the club on hot air.

Nutty for president then[:D]

Why make the assumption that every SCG members views and discussion has to be posted on this site?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty

I did not reply to you as you seem to have a pre-conceived and distorted impression of the SCG and you have still not contributed anything positive as to a future consultative process.

I will however try and help you from my own experiences as you suggest.

Firstly - Because I am a passionate fan, ST and shareholder I responded to a request on the official site for new members of the SCG. I sent as requested a brief summary of how I thought I could contribute- was interviewed by a club official and two SCG members and was invited to join and was allocated to the "Home matchday experience" sub group.

A reason for wanting to participate was because living in Felixstowe and travelling to games with several people from Suffolk and Nort Essex we felt a bit isolated and I sort of became an unofficial conduit/spokesman for them which they appreciated.It also kept me in touch with various issues of which I was not aware.

Like all SCG members I neither received nor asked for any expenses or preferential treatment only wanting to do what I thought was best for fellow supporters.

I am an ideas person and have often aired my personal views about the future of the club as I see it as you may have seen on threads over the years.

The SCG was not perfect and as I have said before I did put forward my views as to the future set up,but make no mistake,like Parliament most of the dull nitty gritty work was done in sub committees. The headline issues you raise were only part of general discussions at the end of meetings and as you would expect were inevitable when dedicated fans got the opportunity to discuss these with club officials and Board members. Call it a privilege if you like but do not let it jaundice your opinion of the process.

Sorry if I have gone on too long,but like others I am now concerned that we have no consultation process and I invited you as an obvious fan to put forward positive ideas rather than slagging off the past.I trust that you can respond in this spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Butler"]

Just consult with a few unelected fans and run the club on hot air.

Nutty for president then[:D]

Why make the assumption that every SCG members views and discussion has to be posted on this site?

[/quote]

Did I make the assumption that every SCG member posts on this site? Strange you should make that assumption because I personally know SCG members who never post on this site.[:S]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one and only true supporters voice - that will really make the club sit up and listen......NCISA? SCG?....as if the board care.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Felix - If you read through this thread you will see that I did have, and still do have huge respect for folk on the SCG who have looked after the fans interests over the relevant issue, what you describe as the nitty gritty work done in sub-committees.  I am also a very community minded positive thinking person. I''m a "make something happen" kind of person. You are obviously proud of what you achieve with the SCG and feel my criticisms are out of line.

You don''t believe we should look back for answers to help move forward but I think we should. The old board spent hours and hours listening to fans points of view. They would even stand out in the rain outside football grounds all over the country listening to fans points of view often coupled with bad language and abuse. Anybody who travelled away during the clubs decline since 2005 can testify to this. It so much became the norm that dissappointed fans would leave the grounds with their rant ready knowing dear old Roger or whoever would be there. All this listening didn''t get them anywhere. In fact quite the opposite because for many fans they lost all respect for them.

Now I doubt Bowkett and McNally have the time or inclination to do this. They are here on a mandate to get Norwich back competing at the level they feel we should be. They won''t do that by carrying on with the failed policies of the previous board. They probably feel an hour listening to fans rant is an hour wasted. They probably feel that affordable family football will hold them back. Folk cry out for the club top put football first then complain when community is put second. Reserve team games are moved to the afternoon or to Colney and the same people who want football first moan. Prices go up to a level nearer that which the clubs we want to compete with charge and folk moan. We want the best of both worlds and that can''t be done.

It''s ok to rant and moan on the messageboard. That''s what it''s there for. But to expect to be able to take these complaints to the board and help shape club policy I reckon is a thing of the past. So Felix, I think you do need to look back, and view it from the clubs point of view. I reckon if we want more input into the clubs business we will have to put forward a plan that they don''t feel will hold them back.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]The old board spent hours and hours listening to fans points of view. They would even stand out in the rain outside football grounds all over the country listening to fans points of view often coupled with bad language and abuse. Anybody who travelled away during the clubs decline since 2005 can testify to this. It so much became the norm that dissappointed fans would leave the grounds with their rant ready knowing dear old Roger or whoever would be there. All this listening didn''t get them anywhere. In fact quite the opposite because for many fans they lost all respect for them.

Now I doubt Bowkett and McNally have the time or inclination to do this. They are here on a mandate to get Norwich back competing at the level they feel we should be. They won''t do that by carrying on with the failed policies of the previous board. They probably feel an hour listening to fans rant is an hour wasted.

It''s ok to rant and moan on the messageboard. That''s what it''s there for. But to expect to be able to take these complaints to the board and help shape club policy I reckon is a thing of the past. So Felix, I think you do need to look back, and view it from the clubs point of view. I reckon if we want more input into the clubs business we will have to put forward a plan that they don''t feel will hold them back.

 

 

[/quote]---But in that case, Nutty, the club should do the honest and logical thing and scrap all kinds of consultation.

Meanwhile, moving back to the question of these working groups (the

remnants of the SCG) that the club said nine months ago it wanted to

carry on, but which seem not to have continued to operate in practice,

although they might exist in theory.

I now have clarified what the situation is and the club''s position is.

It is that it had intended these groups to operate post the SCG, but

that as time went by it formed the opinion that the other forms of

consultation (webchats etc) were proving successful and there was in

effect no need for the working groups to operate. Instead there would be

- if need be - ad-hoc focus groups. This, I stress, in the club''s

position. What one makes of it is another matter.

But it explains one reason for the confusion. The club has in its mind

been making a distinction between what look like interchangeable terms -

"working groups" and "focus groups" - without making it plain there was

a difference and that the latter had - in theory - replaced the former.

It would have helped (to put it mildly) if the club had make that plain, because then it

would have been obvious the promised working groups had effectively been

scrapped. Instead, by not pointing out the difference and the shift, it looked for

all the world as if they were still meant to be operating.

The club is stressing that "the capacity to convene" focus groups remains

in place, and that is is willing to hear constructive arguments for a return to

working groups.. Again, that is the club''s position; what one makes of

it is another matter. The acknowledgement that the "capacity to convene" focus groups is there backs up what seemed to be the case - that these groups are not in practice operating. If they were actually operating there would be no need to point out that "capacity to convene".Finally, I believe that the near future the wording of relevant items on

the club''s website will be changed to reflect the situation more

clearly. As will my website story that laid bare the confusion in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

 


---

But in that case, Nutty, the club should do the honest and logical thing and scrap all kinds of consultation.


[/quote]

Probably not. We are the customers after all and I''m sure they want to keep us all happy. This is only my opinion but I believe there will be many more unpopular decisions made if the club carries on climbing back to where the board believe we should be. The web chats are informative and on record. But I take them as a way of communicating to the fans about what''s to come rather than a consultation process. This is what Bowkett had to say in May: -

 

"Standing back and looking at the finances of the club some 50% of our tickets sold are on some kind of concession or another. Over the next five years we will review the level and qualification of these concessions so that they are targeted more appropriately."

 

The only thing that surprises me about that is the willingness to do it over 5 years. Being impatient for success could well shorten that period.

 

At the AGM every year shareholders have the oppurtunity to "consult" with the board and first team manager. As I said earlier, only Glen Roeder missed our tenure as England manager in what was one of the more entertaining AGMs in recent years. But in reality all the rest treat our comments in the same way as Roeder did. They are just do so in a more respectful way.

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...