Supporters Trust Survey

[Wurzel City]

I have heard several times that the supporters trust is proposing to survey Bristol Citys support.

This idea first apppeared some six.....? Months ago but still there is no sign.

Saturday out came a well produced and interesting [it was trust people] supporters trust newsletter but what an opportunity missed to include canvassing of City fans.

I am curious to know what is exactly happening because on the trusts website the clubs catering is once again mentioned which would be to some a peripheral matter but to others maybe it is important. My point would be how is the trust really going to know what really concerns us the fans if they are not asking.

[Wurzel City]

Tompo, Lukejones, thatcham red, just asking like

[tompo]

Tompo, Lukejones, thatcham red, just asking like

Don't worry I've seen the post and will be replying. Hopefully today, but if not tomorrow.

[Guest]

It would be interesting to do a survey, even if just on here to get peoples views on things;

[tompo]

[Wurzel City]

[Milo]

[Guest]

[Milo]

Please excuse me for being thick but in a post last week when I said the fans saw the Trust as "yes" men this was frowned upon, your statement above confirms that you are.

My feeling and a few others, I pressumme, is that we don't want you to be yes men or a protest group but a voice for the fans; not asking for you to walk up and down outside the board room with protest banners but niether should you be kissing feet.

Your statement that you will survey your members to see how they view things is therefore not fully representitive of fans views; (unless every fan donates a £1 a month of course and joins your club)

The club must still visit this and other sites and be aware of fans feelings on subjects e,g that badge,shirt; whether they choose to act on anything is governed by money only;

The trusts aims are to be admired but I feel I already have "shares" in my club after 40yrs of support and hurt.

This is not ment to be confrontational feel free to ignore or respond

I went to a Supporters Direct Conference a couple of weeks back where at one point the Chairs of both the Foxes Trust (Leicester City) and the Wednesdayites (Sheff Weds Trust) spoke.

The man from Leicester said that one of their biggest challenges is being seen as 'yes men' becaue they have developed a good working relationship where they have access to directors and can discuss fans views both formally and informally with directors to help shape policy. They are seen as being too close but know that they are having an influence the way they go about things.

The guy from Sheffield said that a couple of seasons ago they were getting so frustrated about the state of their Club that they organised a black balloon release at a match. The Trust organisers were banned from the ground indefinately and have only been allowed back in now. As a result of their stand the Club cut off all communication with the Trust. For example, they wanted to do a bucket collection for their Academy but the Club wouldn't allow them to do so in the ground so they got council permission to collect on the pavements outside the ground. The cheque they subsequently sent to the Club was returned to them torn up in tiny shreds.

Now I don't know enough about the differing situations at those two Clubs to comment too greatly but I would say that members of the Foxes Trust were being better represented than members of the Wednesdayite Trust.

I am passionate about the way in which fans are treated at our Club and have been for many years. Some people may recall that I used to be a relatively active poster on this site a couple of years ago and that I was vocal and critical about how the Club was run both from the perspective of how we are treated as fans and my concerns about mounting financial losses. When I started hearing about what Supporters Trusts are I became involved because I was frustrated and concerned and thought that this was a way fans could collectively make a difference.

What I also realised was that those involved with the Trust had all of a sudden moved from being faceless dissenting voices from behind our computers into people who, if we were to negotatiate effectively with the Club, had to first build a relationship so that we could then explain how we felt and influence decisions.

For what it's worth, I believe that this is a two-way process with the Club. In other words, if the Trust are professional, business-like, organised, co-operative and high profile then we become difficult to ignore. Why shouldn't the Club want to listen and work with fans who act in this manner and who are collectively investing in the football club? And if they did ignore an organisation that behaved in this manner, who are capable of producing newsletters to inform fans, who have access to journalists in the local press, radio and TV then questions would be asked. So behaving in this manner improves our chances of having meaningful discussions and of our opinions being respectfully listened to.

In the example here where you accuse us of being 'yes men', I fail to see the benefit of making the issue of delaying the release of a survey one to jeopardise the relationship over. If the Club said that we were never to survey all fans then I would agree with you but that isn't the case. When you're in an under-dog position, which because of the size and age of the Trust we are, you have to pick and choose which issues are important that you're going to fight on. In my opinion, agreeing to delay the issue of a survey is fine and not worth having a fight. Time will tell which issues are important to fight on and the clock should tick from the point when the Trust has first got itself at board meetings - which we will be doing very shortly.

[phantom]

I understand the reasons why the ST are not doing their own survey, but the only point I would like to make is how reflective of the Bristol city fan base do the club think the survey is going to show.

What I mean is 733 fans were surveyed, that is less than 6% of the home fans (12865) at the Scunthorpe game.

Put this against the 30,000 (potential fan base) we took to the Mill Stad that represents less than 3% of our support !

If the club think that is indicative of our support they are being very naive.

I am concerned that as the ST is being held back (?) from completing their own survey, this may restrict the ST to being more re-active to situations and pro-actively dealing with any issues before they grow. (Hope that makes sense)

[tompo]

[Milo]

I understand the reasons why the ST are not doing their own survey, but the only point I would like to make is how reflective of the Bristol city fan base do the club think the survey is going to show.

What I mean is 733 fans were surveyed, that is less than 6% of the home fans (12865) at the S****horpe game.

Put this against the 30,000 (potential fan base) we took to the Mill Stad that represents less than 3% of our support !

If the club think that is indicative of our support they are being very naive.

I am concerned that as the ST is being held back (?) from completing their own survey, this may restrict the ST to being more re-active to situations and pro-actively dealing with any issues before they grow. (Hope that makes sense)

The Football League have convinced the Club that the manner by which they obtained the responses was a random sample and that the results would therefore be indicative of the entire fan base. It's a bit like a poll at election time when you take a sample that is random and apply the results to the nation as a whole - it's not fool proof but should give a good indication.

We're not being held back from surveying members so we can still get a good indication of how fans feel.

[Dan C]

I went to a Supporters Direct Conference a couple of weeks back where at one point the Chairs of both the Foxes Trust (Leicester City) and the Wednesdayites (Sheff Weds Trust) spoke.

The man from Leicester said that one of their biggest challenges is being seen as 'yes men' becaue they have developed a good working relationship where they have access to directors and can discuss fans views both formally and informally with directors to help shape policy. They are seen as being too close but know that they are having an influence the way they go about things.

The guy from Sheffield said that a couple of seasons ago they were getting so frustrated about the state of their Club that they organised a black balloon release at a match. The Trust organisers were banned from the ground indefinately and have only been allowed back in now. As a result of their stand the Club cut off all communication with the Trust. For example, they wanted to do a bucket collection for their Academy but the Club wouldn't allow them to do so in the ground so they got council permission to collect on the pavements outside the ground. The cheque they subsequently sent to the Club was returned to them torn up in tiny shreds.

Now I don't know enough about the differing situations at those two Clubs to comment too greatly but I would say that members of the Foxes Trust were being better represented than members of the Wednesdayite Trust.

I am passionate about the way in which fans are treated at our Club and have been for many years. Some people may recall that I used to be a relatively active poster on this site a couple of years ago and that I was vocal and critical about how the Club was run both from the perspective of how we are treated as fans and my concerns about mounting financial losses. When I started hearing about what Supporters Trusts are I became involved because I was frustrated and concerned and thought that this was a way fans could collectively make a difference.

What I also realised was that those involved with the Trust had all of a sudden moved from being faceless dissenting voices from behind our computers into people who, if we were to negotatiate effectively with the Club, had to first build a relationship so that we could then explain how we felt and influence decisions.

For what it's worth, I believe that this is a two-way process with the Club. In other words, if the Trust are professional, business-like, organised, co-operative and high profile then we become difficult to ignore. Why shouldn't the Club want to listen and work with fans who act in this manner and who are collectively investing in the football club? And if they did ignore an organisation that behaved in this manner, who are capable of producing newsletters to inform fans, who have access to journalists in the local press, radio and TV then questions would be asked. So behaving in this manner improves our chances of having meaningful discussions and of our opinions being respectfully listened to.

In the example here where you accuse us of being 'yes men', I fail to see the benefit of making the issue of delaying the release of a survey one to jeopardise the relationship over. If the Club said that we were never to survey all fans then I would agree with you but that isn't the case. When you're in an under-dog position, which because of the size and age of the Trust we are, you have to pick and choose which issues are important that you're going to fight on. In my opinion, agreeing to delay the issue of a survey is fine and not worth having a fight. Time will tell which issues are important to fight on and the clock should tick from the point when the Trust has first got itself at board meetings - which we will be doing very shortly.

I don't think he is so much accusing you of being a 'yes man' but more so it come across like that.

The club are kind of holding you over a barrel IMHO where they don't want you to do something at this moment in time so you say OK just so you don't compromise your relationship with them

It wasn't a question of 733 fans being surveyed. The FL survey was open to all fans of all clubs in the FL and a total of 43,000 fans responded.

Over half of the responses came from fans of clubs in the Championship and 733 City fans responded.

On that basis there is no guarantee that issuing a survey to every City fan would generate any more responses. However, there are practical and logistical reasons that make a wide scale distribution of a survey to the entire City fan base without the support of the club difficult. If someone can suggest an effective way of doing it that is economical in terms of both costs and manpower then I would be more than happy to listen.

I don't claim to be an expert on market research but I have been speaking to plenty of people who are. The majority of surveys comprise of questions being asked to a sample of the larger population. If you saw an opinion poll that says, for example, 89% of voters don't trust Tony Blair it does not mean that they have asked 89% of voters whether or not they trust Tony Blair. The likelihood is that several hundreds or possibly thousands of voters would have been asked out of a total of something like 30 million voters. Perhaps this is not the best example but the numbers asked would be considerably less than the 3% of City fans who responded to the FL survey.

I like to think that the Trust does have its finger on the pulse when it comes to dealing with issues without the need for surveys. For example, we arranged a meeting the club over the treatment of fans in G Block (still need confirmation from G Blockers that they want to proceed) and we are still trying to resolve the issue of away travel for juniors. As was pointed out in the very first post in this thread a lot of people appeared to be unhappy with various aspects of the catering on Saturday. This has been picked up on. The decision to lead the fight to do something about the Wedlocks also came about as a result of hearing that the pub had reportedly been sold.

If anyone feels the need to raise a particular issue then they can always do so by contacting the Trust in a variety of ways. Contact details can be found here.

http://www.bristolcityst.org.uk/general/contactus.shtml

Why could you not include the survey in the newsletter? I read previously that the survey has already been written and re-written. It would be at a extra cost for the newsletter but you would save in the long term. I receive many newsletters in the post, Some are monthly some are 6 monthly and some are yearly. The 6 month and the yearly ones often include things like surveys. It just makes sense for them to include it in there and not send them out separately as they would be paying twice the cost. Maybe this is something you can think about when you do your newsletter next year?

I would have to disagree with you where you say you have your fingers on the pulse. I haven't seen anything where the Trust is dealing with the important issues. For example, Smoking, Why isn't there a block in the Ayteo for smoking? I am being forced to pay extra just so I can smoke at the match, Surely that isn't right? On Saturday I anted to sit in A block Dolman but at half past 1 it was sold out so I had to sit in the Williams which I would prefer not to. So there is obviously a lack of smoking areas in the stadium.

What about the East End? Nearly every fan on here wants in reopened for home fans' as it will much improve our match day experience and will make me walk out of Ashton GAte feeling like it was money well spent as I enjoyed myself in our traditional home end.

What about the catering? I am fed up with paying ridiculous prices for poor quality and lack of choice as are many others.

They are the real issues yet the supporters trust don't seem to be dealing with them. Maybe the working party don't see them as important, Maybe they do. But if the fans' think it is important then the trust should be trying to resolve these issues even if the working party members don't personally find them important.

[Guest]

I went to a Supporters Direct Conference a couple of weeks back where at one point the Chairs of both the Foxes Trust (Leicester City) and the Wednesdayites (Sheff Weds Trust) spoke.

The man from Leicester said that one of their biggest challenges is being seen as 'yes men' becaue they have developed a good working relationship where they have access to directors and can discuss fans views both formally and informally with directors to help shape policy. They are seen as being too close but know that they are having an influence the way they go about things.

The guy from Sheffield said that a couple of seasons ago they were getting so frustrated about the state of their Club that they organised a black balloon release at a match. The Trust organisers were banned from the ground indefinately and have only been allowed back in now. As a result of their stand the Club cut off all communication with the Trust. For example, they wanted to do a bucket collection for their Academy but the Club wouldn't allow them to do so in the ground so they got council permission to collect on the pavements outside the ground. The cheque they subsequently sent to the Club was returned to them torn up in tiny shreds.

Now I don't know enough about the differing situations at those two Clubs to comment too greatly but I would say that members of the Foxes Trust were being better represented than members of the Wednesdayite Trust.

I am passionate about the way in which fans are treated at our Club and have been for many years. Some people may recall that I used to be a relatively active poster on this site a couple of years ago and that I was vocal and critical about how the Club was run both from the perspective of how we are treated as fans and my concerns about mounting financial losses. When I started hearing about what Supporters Trusts are I became involved because I was frustrated and concerned and thought that this was a way fans could collectively make a difference.

What I also realised was that those involved with the Trust had all of a sudden moved from being faceless dissenting voices from behind our computers into people who, if we were to negotatiate effectively with the Club, had to first build a relationship so that we could then explain how we felt and influence decisions.

For what it's worth, I believe that this is a two-way process with the Club. In other words, if the Trust are professional, business-like, organised, co-operative and high profile then we become difficult to ignore. Why shouldn't the Club want to listen and work with fans who act in this manner and who are collectively investing in the football club? And if they did ignore an organisation that behaved in this manner, who are capable of producing newsletters to inform fans, who have access to journalists in the local press, radio and TV then questions would be asked. So behaving in this manner improves our chances of having meaningful discussions and of our opinions being respectfully listened to.

In the example here where you accuse us of being 'yes men', I fail to see the benefit of making the issue of delaying the release of a survey one to jeopardise the relationship over. If the Club said that we were never to survey all fans then I would agree with you but that isn't the case. When you're in an under-dog position, which because of the size and age of the Trust we are, you have to pick and choose which issues are important that you're going to fight on. In my opinion, agreeing to delay the issue of a survey is fine and not worth having a fight. Time will tell which issues are important to fight on and the clock should tick from the point when the Trust has first got itself at board meetings - which we will be doing very shortly.

I understand what you are saying; but again do not understand why you or anybody has to tread on eggshells and say what there supposed to say not what they want to say.

Many of us have differing opinions on different issues, its not about having a argument about whatever; it is about saying how you feel; if that mean the poo hits the fan then so be it.

This club is a business and will base decisions on monetry gains i.e badge;shirt;prem seats etc.

[Milo]

I understand what you are saying; but again do not understand why you or anybody has to tread on eggshells and say what there supposed to say not what they want to say.

Many of us have differing opinions on different issues, its not about having a argument about whatever; it is about saying how you feel; if that mean the poo hits the fan then so be it.

This club is a business and will base decisions on monetry gains i.e badge;shirt;prem seats etc.

I agree entirely and if this was an issue on which we disagreed we would say so. It's not about standing on egg shells or about being held over a barrel - it's about deciding on what issues you want to be concerned about.

In this instance I know, because I have been assured by Steve Lansdown, that there will be a point where we do a fan-wide survey. SL had agreed to this and it was in the fine tuning of this process when Colin Sexstone asked us to wait.

He asked us to wait for the reasons stated. The Club also see the benefit of surveying fans and they are happy that the Trust can help gather information in this regard. If we decided to survey everyone on our own we would compromise the Club's ability to subsequently survey. We willingly agreed to the request to delay because we could see the sense in it.

You're saying it's not about having arguments but if we say No when we actually agree we would simply be behaving like a protest group. I don't see why we should say No when we mean Yes simply because we fear fans might see us as Yes men. If doing the right thing means we've got to spend time explaining the decision then we're happy to do so.

As for DanC's comments about issues on Smoking, East End and Catering, in order for us to address these issues we have to be in a position to do so. In my first meetings with Steve Lansdown last year it was clear that he would be receptive to a well-organised and professional Supporters Trust. We have known for some time that the Trust would be included in board meetings after having firstly established a democratically elected board which we did in May. Without an elected board the individuals involved in running the Trust had no mandate to say that they represented fans, a fact that was pointed out to us by some fans on internet forums. True to his word, we have received a written invitation to attend board meetings from the start of this season and the Trust has accepted the invitation.

All the blocks are now in place for us to be able to constructively represent fans. That doesn't mean that we'll advocate the world according to DanC because there will be fans who disagree with the points you make (for example some fans want AG as an entirely non-smoking venue). Surveys of members and the FL survey will help us form our views and these will be built on following a wider survey of the fan base in the not too distant future.

In summary, we'll say "Yes" when we can understand and agree with a decision looking at it from the fans perspective and we'll say "No" when we don't. Not only that, but we'll do everything possible to influence decisions before they're made so that we have a happier life as fans.

[Wurzel City]

[STFC_awaitsabuse]

Wasn't sure if I should add anything, being one of those fans from another club. But I have had a few dealings with the Trust at STFC without being a member.

FWIW, a survey that included responses from 733 would be deemed more than adequete in any researchers book. The BARB (where all find out how many people watch each programme) only survey about 1500 people in the UK, and Multi National companies base their advertising spend based on it's results. To get results from 733 people out of 15000 or so population (your support) is pretty damned thorough. I've seen companies using as little as 100 people as a sample with customer base sizes of over 13,000,000.

The question over is it representative is a fair one though. provided you can show that the ST is largely representative of the fan base as a whole, then you will be ok, but simply for PR reasons you might be better off broadening the base you work from.

The point about working with as opposed to against the club is a good one. ST's that have been proactive in their involvement with clubs have tended to do very well and have ended up having a big influence over the running of the club - Chesterfield and Brentford might be 2 of the best examples to hold up here. Be careful how you portray that image though.

[Wurzel City]

Wasn't sure if I should add anything, being one of those fans from another club. But I have had a few dealings with the Trust at STFC without being a member.

FWIW, a survey that included responses from 733 would be deemed more than adequete in any researchers book. The BARB (where all find out how many people watch each programme) only survey about 1500 people in the UK, and Multi National companies base their advertising spend based on it's results. To get results from 733 people out of 15000 or so population (your support) is pretty damned thorough. I've seen companies using as little as 100 people as a sample with customer base sizes of over 13,000,000.

The question over is it representative is a fair one though. provided you can show that the ST is largely representative of the fan base as a whole, then you will be ok, but simply for PR reasons you might be better off broadening the base you work from.

The point about working with as opposed to against the club is a good one. ST's that have been proactive in their involvement with clubs have tended to do very well and have ended up having a big influence over the running of the club - Chesterfield and Brentford might be 2 of the best examples to hold up here. Be careful how you portray that image though.

My point about the 733 was not the sample size but about the very conservative & narrow nature of questions used. 733 will provide accurate results with Citys fan base but it must be open to not just those who are members of the trust. If 2000 want to take part then so be it

This is my opinion only but the City supporters trust is being perceived as being pro club [Lansdown] & some are waiting to see if the trust can affect BCFC which prevents Fans from joining. So using the trust as represenative of City support does not work.

Work with the club of course. But be prepared to critisise, critism is good & can be constructive.

Do not use the club to do a survey when they can vet the questions as Mr Chairman said there is no point asking questions about certain topics if nothing is going to be done about it, Mr Chairman thinks the atmosphere at the Gate is fine, Mr Chairman thinks it is only a badge so how would you get any critical questions past this bloke?

[STFC_awaitsabuse]

I would agree. that perception is key and using the Club to distribute may not be the perfect route to achieve the correct perception.

The ST at STFC had the opposite problem (similar to Sheff Weds) of being seen as to anti at one point. It has worked it's socks off I think to work more closely with the club, but carried out it's own survey (to help the club with plans to redevelop the ground) using the clip board outside the ground approach. As such the survey is being widely accepted by all sides I think.

I think you suggest there is a difference from being statistically sound, and being perceived as being so. It's tough and time consuming, but doing a survey seperate to the club would indeed achieve both I think.

[leedsred]

I understand the reasons why the ST are not doing their own survey, but the only point I would like to make is how reflective of the Bristol city fan base do the club think the survey is going to show.

What I mean is 733 fans were surveyed, that is less than 6% of the home fans (12865) at the S****horpe game.

Put this against the 30,000 (potential fan base) we took to the Mill Stad that represents less than 3% of our support !

If the club think that is indicative of our support they are being very naive.

I am concerned that as the ST is being held back (?) from completing their own survey, this may restrict the ST to being more re-active to situations and pro-actively dealing with any issues before they grow. (Hope that makes sense)

I was going to stay out of this arguement but i thought i'd just add my voice to a couple of points raised.

Firstly above, I worked for a while at the Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football Research at Leicester Uni. They conduct the research for the Football League and the Premier League Fan Surveys. We spent hours and hours refining our search to ensure we had representative bodies for each club. The fact that it's only 6 percent of the home crowd at S****horpe's neither her nor there. Each age, gender, economic group, race would 've been carefully taken into consideration. And it cost the FL a lot of money!!

As for the idea to put out a forum survey/ ST survey I'd save your energy and time. Mainly because you'll never get a representitive figure, the club will dissmiss your findings as that annoying bunch on the internet, and finally as you've said Milo there'll be bigger fish to fry.

Anyway just my thoughts for what they're worth.

[Dan C]

As for DanC's comments about issues on Smoking, East End and Catering, in order for us to address these issues we have to be in a position to do so. In my first meetings with Steve Lansdown last year it was clear that he would be receptive to a well-organised and professional Supporters Trust. We have known for some time that the Trust would be included in board meetings after having firstly established a democratically elected board which we did in May. Without an elected board the individuals involved in running the Trust had no mandate to say that they represented fans, a fact that was pointed out to us by some fans on internet forums. True to his word, we have received a written invitation to attend board meetings from the start of this season and the Trust has accepted the invitation.

All the blocks are now in place for us to be able to constructively represent fans. That doesn't mean that we'll advocate the world according to DanC because there will be fans who disagree with the points you make (for example some fans want AG as an entirely non-smoking venue). Surveys of members and the FL survey will help us form our views and these will be built on following a wider survey of the fan base in the not too distant future.

In summary, we'll say "Yes" when we can understand and agree with a decision looking at it from the fans perspective and we'll say "No" when we don't. Not only that, but we'll do everything possible to influence decisions before they're made so that we have a happier life as fans.

So when will you be in a position to address issues like this? These issues are affecting fans' today not tomorrow. You can't just think they will go away like the club does because they wont.

I'm not asking you to advocate the world according to me, I am just stating that those are some of the big issues that are affecting fans' at the moment.

It's all alright to have poker nights and wine and cheesly nights to raise funds but you need to start dealing with the big issues asap. But maybe you are starting to think like the club where as if you can't make money on it it's not worth bothering with?

[Jay]

But maybe you are starting to think like the club where as if you can't make money on it it's not worth bothering with?

Personally, I find that comment unfair. Events such as poker nights, wine & cheeseley etc do not require the same amount of effort as addressing important issues such as smoking, East End, Wedlocks, etc. Alot (& I mean ALOT) of work goes on with the Supporters Trust and I'm not just refering to the Board members either. We have a fantastic bunch of people that, despite working full time, dedicate a massive amount of their free time to dealing with as much as possible. It's always going to be difficult to please everyone. We are well aware that our regular 'fun' events can falsly create an opinion where it looks as though we aren't concentrating on the more important issues, but, as previously mentioned, BCST is not run by one person alone, it's run by a number of dedicated fans. There are many that are dealing with the very real issues that many of us are unhappy with &, just because these projects are not always in the limelight does not mean that they are not being dealt with. BCST is currently working on ways of improving its communication with fans (the newsletter at last Saturday's home game being an example) and we hope to keep people more updated.

If, as a fan yourself, you are unhappy with certain issues, then feel free to get involved where you can. We will do our best to look at all issues raised but, at this moment, we are still a young society that is in need of more members (especially those that are willing to be active & help with the running of BCST) and need to continue to build strength.

I share your frustrations with some of the issues surrounding us fans but, unfortunately (yet realistically) we can not create 'instant whip' solutions to all issues. Money helps affords resources but to claim that we are only interested in 'money making' schemes is grossly inaccurate.

[thatcham red]

It's all alright to have poker nights and wine and cheesly nights to raise funds but you need to start dealing with the big issues asap. But maybe you are starting to think like the club where as if you can't make money on it it's not worth bothering with?

Dan, you're welcome to a view, and to be fair some of the points you've raised are valid about addressing fans views on salient topics. What I do take exception to is comments like this.

There have been some well constructed and thought through arguments placed on this thread to rationally explain the process the Trust is going through, the approach taken to building relationships and the practical and financial implications of conducting surveys in particular. Despite this, you sign off your post with a cheap dig at the Trust and suggest that we are only interested in making money.

Let me ask you this. If you believe that the Trust is going to be ineffectual in representing your views concerning the East End, catering etc, how are you proposing to get your voice heard on these issues? Rather than one voice singing in the darkness, wouldn't it be better to throw your weight behind an initiative being run by other like-minded supporters and try to collectively change things?

There is an open meeting every month, where these things are often debated. It's sometimes attended by non-trust members as well. The next one is on Tuesday 15 August, 7.30pm at the Ship & Castle.

I for one look forward to meeting you there or catching up for a pre-match pint sometime

[Milo]

[Nibor]

I agree that the subbers are every bit as important and relevant as every other group of fans. In many respects, it's the hard core like the subbers who stand to benefit the most from a Trust that wants to keep the Club for the fans - it's ironic that many appear unwilling to support it at this point. I think the Trust has to keep working hard at doing what it thinks is the right thing and rely on those suspicious minds being open ones too.

Ironic perhaps but easily understood.

The subbers are basically distrustful of the board because they've been on the end of these stupid letters, they're fed up with being treated like hooligans by stewards just for singing, and they don't think the club listens to them on matters they care about like the east end, standing, atmosphere and the whole plastic crap culture of modern football.

When the Trust works so closely with the club and therefore gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that their views are completely in harmony, and hasn't made any visible progress on the issues the subbers care about then it will be viewed with initial scepticism at the least. Guilt by association.

I appreciate the reality that setting the trust up in opposition isn't going to make progress, and that the survey which basically will be a big part of which view the trust takes isn't done, but you have to see both sides of it. Support us and give us some time and money and we might just agree with the board ain't going to wash with people who are already disillusioned.

If the Trust makes progress on the issues the subbers or any other group care about I doubt they will remain sceptical. If it doesn't I expect the apathy will increase.

As stated above, I believe the Trust membership is representative of a broad cross section of fans. It should appeal to every type of City fan. In many respects you've only got to look at the article in the newsletter about Trust board members to see that the board is representative of different ages, sex, working backgrounds and outlooks and I believe this is reflected in our wider membership.

It should be possible to get an indication of if the trust is representative of the whole fan base when you see the demographics that I presume are included in the FL survey. I wouldn't assume it is just because you have variety, it doesn't mean that the proportions are right. I'd hazard a guess that one or two of the bigger demographic groups in football (single middle aged and older men) are under represented proportionally.

Anyway, I know Tompo and others are working hard to make progress on the survey, it's a pity that it's held up but the reasons for this seem pretty sensible. Perhaps it's worth setting some deadlines, after all the survey seems pretty central to the other things you're doing.

[twaters]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I personally don't know why you bother ST. All your going to get is people arguing your points. This is exactly the reason Sexton and Lansdown quit the ask Steve section. You get people questioning everything you do and you cant win. You end up wasting alot of time going over and over the same old points when you know deep down you have done the best thing for the ST.

I'm not a member of the ST but am thinking of joining in the future so have no allegiances, I'm just saying what i see on this forum.

I don't particularly like Steve and got bloody annoyed when he would dodge my questions on the Ask Steve forum of the past. But i appreciate it must be infuriating when your constantly being quizzed about decisions that have had alot of thought gone into them, from people who have already made up their minds about you and want to "see" a fault.

[Milo]

Ironic perhaps but easily understood.

The subbers are basically distrustful of the board because they've been on the end of these stupid letters, they're fed up with being treated like hooligans by stewards just for singing, and they don't think the club listens to them on matters they care about like the east end, standing, atmosphere and the whole plastic crap culture of modern football.

When the Trust works so closely with the club and therefore gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that their views are completely in harmony, and hasn't made any visible progress on the issues the subbers care about then it will be viewed with initial scepticism at the least. Guilt by association.

I appreciate the reality that setting the trust up in opposition isn't going to make progress, and that the survey which basically will be a big part of which view the trust takes isn't done, but you have to see both sides of it. Support us and give us some time and money and we might just agree with the board ain't going to wash with people who are already disillusioned.

If the Trust makes progress on the issues the subbers or any other group care about I doubt they will remain sceptical. If it doesn't I expect the apathy will increase.

It should be possible to get an indication of if the trust is representative of the whole fan base when you see the demographics that I presume are included in the FL survey. I wouldn't assume it is just because you have variety, it doesn't mean that the proportions are right. I'd hazard a guess that one or two of the bigger demographic groups in football (single middle aged and older men) are under represented proportionally.

Anyway, I know Tompo and others are working hard to make progress on the survey, it's a pity that it's held up but the reasons for this seem pretty sensible. Perhaps it's worth setting some deadlines, after all the survey seems pretty central to the other things you're doing.

I agree with everything you've written about the subbers. I was hesitating putting the ironic bit in case it was interpreted as though I didn't understand their position which I do. I think there's a long list of reasons why some fans are suspicious; some have been due to inexperienced handling by the Trust and some are inevitable bi-products of seeking to build a relationship with the Club. I've felt for a while now that getting involved in theoretical arguments about the merits of the Trust is unlikely to work and that like you state the subbers and many others need to see evidence of action.

With regards to the demographics of the results, you could also be right. I've got the survey in front of me as I type (the one for the whole FL not City in particular) and it states the average age is 36 but with 47% of respondants in our league in the 16-34 bracket, 35% in 35-55 and only 18% 55+. That the average income of respondants should be £36K when the average wage in the UK is nearer £24K (from memory) and that 78% of respondants were in the AB and C1 socio-economic grouping suggests that the survey may not accurately reflect the typical 'grass roots' supporter. The methodology was based on supporters who had registered with the FLi websites (such as WWW.BCFC.CO.UK) so respondants had to have a computer (or do a job where they had access to one).

[lukejones2]

I agree with everything you've written about the subbers. I was hesitating putting the ironic bit in case it was interpreted as though I didn't understand their position which I do. I think there's a long list of reasons why some fans are suspicious; some have been due to inexperienced handling by the Trust and some are inevitable bi-products of seeking to build a relationship with the Club. I've felt for a while now that getting involved in theoretical arguments about the merits of the Trust is unlikely to work and that like you state the subbers and many others need to see evidence of action.

With regards to the demographics of the results, you could also be right. I've got the survey in front of me as I type (the one for the whole FL not City in particular) and it states the average age is 36 but with 47% of respondants in our league in the 16-34 bracket, 35% in 35-55 and only 18% 55+. That the average income of respondants should be £36K when the average wage in the UK is nearer £24K (from memory) and that 78% of respondants were in the AB and C1 socio-economic grouping suggests that the survey may not accurately reflect the typical 'grass roots' supporter. The methodology was based on supporters who had registered with the FLi websites (such as WWW.BCFC.CO.UK) so respondants had to have a computer (or do a job where they had access to one).

For me, the fact that it had to be computerised is possibly the biggest flaw with the sample. I found it amusing that, with all respondents having registered online with their club websites, less than 100% (although a higher percentage than would be accurate for a full cross section) admitted to reading their club websites.....

[phantom]

There is an open meeting every month, where these things are often debated. It's sometimes attended by non-trust members as well. The next one is on Tuesday 15 August, 7.30pm at the Ship & Castle.

I for one look forward to meeting you there or catching up for a pre-match pint sometime

How long do these meetings usaully last?

Might pop across after the ressies game against Rovers has finished.

[Jay]

How long do these meetings usaully last?

Might pop across after the ressies game against Rovers has finished.

The meeting starts at 7:30pm. We try to get things wound up by 10-10:30pm ish but it's not uncommon to exceeed that time depending on the agenda & topics discussed. Feel free to stay for as long or as little as you like.

Would be good to see you