A Special Thank You To....

[RedLionLad]

How many people responded to your survey. Am I right to recall it was 96 people? Less than 1% of our average crowd.

As this was highlighted as the key issue in your survey I trust you will be contacting the club to register your support for those fans disgruntled at being moved?

Again it would be interesting to know how many answered the survey. If it was 96 then your 29% relates to 28 people. It would appear that these 28 people have successfully managed to annoy significantly more STHs in the affected areas.

Sounds like you have your own grievances to take up with the club then. Rest assured I shall take these up with the club on your behalf forthwith. However, you knew it was being considered and didn't think it was worth raising on a forum with 2,000+ members, instead deciding to rely on your survey of 96 people. There are 742 people online as I compose this reply but 96 people in a survey is enough.

I didn't say that the Trust was to blame for the Premier seating "fiasco". I stated that our treatment now is worse than it was during that fiasco. The difference now being that the ST was involved in the process this time.

Well, you knew about it and chose not to consult anyone before converting a survey of 96 people into percentages to give it more credibility, when stating that 30% of fans want unreserved seating. The club has now acted upon the information you provided them with and many people are unhappy as a result.

Very well put. I look forward to the response.

[CityDuke14]

Of those who expressed a preference, 71% of supporters would like to see unreserved seating against 29% who would not.

No, not 29%

29 people! Or was it 28.xxx

The survey was completed by 97 people. Brilliant.

Totally and utterly wrong. You're not even close.

I have been affected by this as well, as my season ticket is for Atyeo HZ30

I am on the Trust board.

I know what was discussed and the how the conclusions were drawn. This is a blatent attempt by the club to shift the blame elsewhere. I'll be standing by the Trust, but will not be re-newing my season ticket.

[Dave L]

Had we been forewarned then arrangements could have been made to stay together as groups.

This seems to be the crux of the matter.

For years posters on here have complained about the lack of atmosphere in the stadium and how it isn't possible for like minded fans who want to sing and make a noise to get together. Now the club have tried to do something about it and IMO it's a good move. Unfortunately this means that individuals like Madger and HZ are being asked to move to another part of the stand, just as those in the Williams last year who were moved to accommodate the Premier Club. I have sympathy for them - I know I wouldn't like to be moved away from my mates in the Dolman who I've also got to know from sitting in the same place for 10 years, but I think this is one of those examples were the needs of the greater good (a decent atmosphere in the Stadium) unfortunately have to come first.

But it's a great shame that those in H block and other areas weren't consulted in advance. I would suggest the following solution:

All those who are having to move should be given the opportunity to move in blocks wherever possible, so that they can still sit next to their mates.

The club should offer a discount on next season's ticket / a free shirt etc as an acknowledgement of the inconvenience caused.

[Barrs Court Red]

Totally and utterly wrong. You're not even close.

I have been affected by this as well, as my season ticket is for Atyeo HZ30

I am on the Trust board.

I know what was discussed and the how the conclusions were drawn. This is a blatent attempt by the club to shift the blame elsewhere. I'll be standing by the Trust, but will not be re-newing my season ticket.

You know how it works. The scapgoat has alread been made, and the sneering types like cheshire Red will make lots of posts about how the Supporters Trust is self important, self appointed and not a voice to the fans yadda yadda yadda.

I always wonder why the same tag isn't applied to the fans commite that 1) Still exists 2) has never done anything of note.

Actually, thinking about it I have a good idea why.

[cheshire_red]

Totally and utterly wrong. You're not even close.

I have been affected by this as well, as my season ticket is for Atyeo HZ30

I am on the Trust board.

I know what was discussed and the how the conclusions were drawn. This is a blatent attempt by the club to shift the blame elsewhere. I'll be standing by the Trust, but will not be re-newing my season ticket.

Oh sorry, it was 96 people not 97, but that was as close as I could have got whilst being wrong!

So how am I wrong? How have the Trust got this right, do pray tell and then I can apologise.

[cheshire_red]

You know how it works. The scapgoat has alread been made, and the sneering types like cheshire Red will make lots of posts about how the Supporters Trust is self important, self appointed and not a voice to the fans yadda yadda yadda.

I always wonder why the same tag isn't applied to the fans commite that 1) Still exists 2) has never done anything of note.

Actually, thinking about it I have a good idea why.

Sneering, where am I sneering? Or is that you sneering at me for pointing out the fact the survey was completed by less than 100 people?

[swindlered]

How many people responded to your survey. Am I right to recall it was 96 people? Less than 1% of our average crowd.

As this was highlighted as the key issue in your survey I trust you will be contacting the club to register your support for those fans disgruntled at being moved?

Again it would be interesting to know how many answered the survey. If it was 96 then your 29% relates to 28 people. It would appear that these 28 people have successfully managed to annoy significantly more STHs in the affected areas.

Sounds like you have your own grievances to take up with the club then. Rest assured I shall take these up with the club on your behalf forthwith. However, you knew it was being considered and didn't think it was worth raising on a forum with 2,000+ members, instead deciding to rely on your survey of 96 people. There are 742 people online as I compose this reply but 96 people in a survey is enough.

I didn't say that the Trust was to blame for the Premier seating "fiasco". I stated that our treatment now is worse than it was during that fiasco. The difference now being that the ST was involved in the process this time.

Well, you knew about it and chose not to consult anyone before converting a survey of 96 people into percentages to give it more credibility, when stating that 30% of fans want unreserved seating. The club has now acted upon the information you provided them with and many people are unhappy as a result.

The Trust put forward a set of proposals to the club which contained a number of caveats and stated the need to correspond further with fans. The one firm proposal which was put forward - for an East End season ticket - was done because that was a definite win-win situation for fans.

A survey of 96 fans is as adequate as 10,000 if the views proposed are representative of the wider fanbase. If before you received your letter today someone had asked you are you in favour of unreserved seating what would your answer have been? Personally I wouldn't have created it in the way that the club have gone about it but its no fun bringing friends & family to games and then watching them disappear to another area of the stand to watch the game. The decision to create an unreserved seating area is to be applauded. The way it has been implemented is not.

The Trust cannot survey the fans for every idea that the club puts forward to it in conversation. Inevitably many of the ideas will not see the light of day and depending on when the conversation took place it could have been a breach of confidentiality. What should have happened is for BCFC to consult with the fans following its decision to press ahead with the scheme. That none took place is not the Trusts fault and it was unaware of the clubs decision to move fans from H block.

As one of the Trusts board members also sits towards the rear of block H I imagine he is going apesh*t right now too.

[Steve Watts]

Oh sorry, it was 96 people not 97, but that was as close as I could have got whilst being wrong!

So how am I wrong? How have the Trust got this right, do pray tell and then I can apologise.

Please cast your votes... maybe the club can listen to another poll instead...

Poll on unreserved seating.

[dezgimed]

I think its down to karma...

[Ian M]

This seems to be the crux of the matter.

For years posters on here have complained about the lack of atmosphere in the stadium and how it isn't possible for like minded fans who want to sing and make a noise to get together. Now the club have tried to do something about it and IMO it's a good move. Unfortunately this means that individuals like Madger and HZ are being asked to move to another part of the stand, just as those in the Williams last year who were moved to accommodate the Premier Club. I have sympathy for them - I know I wouldn't like to be moved away from my mates in the Dolman who I've also got to know from sitting in the same place for 10 years, but I think this is one of those examples were the needs of the greater good (a decent atmosphere in the Stadium) unfortunately have to come first.

However, having just created one with room for 1000 in the East End (where we're told all the singers want to be) why upset long term STHs in other areas of the ground?

But it's a great shame that those in H block and other areas weren't consulted in advance. I would suggest the following solution:

All those who are having to move should be given the opportunity to move in blocks wherever possible, so that they can still sit next to their mates.

The club should offer a discount on next season's ticket / a free shirt etc as an acknowledgement of the inconvenience caused.

Unfortunately that wouldn't help me as I have no way of contacting those who sat near me last season. I can't even ask the club to help me get into contact with these people as that would break data protection laws. Well unless I paid them as that would make me an "interested 3rd party".

[Milo]

The club has now acted upon the information you provided them with and many people are unhappy as a result.

I'm very angry about how the Trust has been used here. It is not acceptable for the Club to consult the Trust, for us to tell the Club that uprooting existing season ticket holders is a bad idea, for us to be led to believe this wouldn't happen and then for them to do what we disagree with but state the consultation as if it implied agreement.

[cheshire_red]

I'm very angry about how the Trust has been used here. It is not acceptable for the Club to consult the Trust, for us to tell the Club that uprooting existing season ticket holders is a bad idea, for us to be led to believe this wouldn't happen and then for them to do what we disagree with but state the consultation as if it implied agreement.

That has put a different slant on things, so the ST has been used?

it gets worse.

[Ian M]

The Trust put forward a set of proposals to the club which contained a number of caveats and stated the need to correspond further with fans. The one firm proposal which was put forward - for an East End season ticket - was done because that was a definite win-win situation for fans.

A survey of 96 fans is as adequate as 10,000 if the views proposed are representative of the wider fanbase. If before you received your letter today someone had asked you are you in favour of unreserved seating what would your answer have been?

Obviously I would have been against it but you miss the point. I would have been enabled to do something about it and arrange the transfer of our group to another area. As a result of not being told, the matchday experience of myself and many others will be diminished next season.

Personally I wouldn't have created it in the way that the club have gone about it but its no fun bringing friends & family to games and then watching them disappear to another area of the stand to watch the game. The decision to create an unreserved seating area is to be applauded. The way it has been implemented is not.

The Trust cannot survey the fans for every idea that the club puts forward to it in conversation. Inevitably many of the ideas will not see the light of day and depending on when the conversation took place it could have been a breach of confidentiality. What should have happened is for BCFC to consult with the fans following its decision to press ahead with the scheme. That none took place is not the Trusts fault and it was unaware of the clubs decision to move fans from H block.

As one of the Trusts board members also sits towards the rear of block H I imagine he is going apesh*t right now too.

That's strange.

Thatcham Red said "The last conversation with the club suggested that unreserved seating in the Ateyo wasn't going to happen."

That suggests you were aware it was an option so dialogue did take place and you were aware it was an option, albeit an unlikely one.

[RedTop]

What I do not understand is this:

One of the prime reasons why people argued for the East End was that it enabled fans to sit together in unreserved seating because this was impossible without disturbing current season ticket holders in the Atyeo. The fact that it would mean ST holders were forcibly removed from their seats to another part of the ground was actually one of the most credible reasons for reopening the East End.

The club has now done that. So surely there is no longer any real need to create another unreserved seating area in the Atyeo, thus pissing off fans - some of whom are now saying they will not renew their season tickets.

It doesn't seem to make any sense, and it does not appear that any attempt to explain the reasoning behind thd decision has been made.

As regards mixing reserved and unreserved, it's worked fine for decades in the Dolman. Those with STs take their seats, those who don't have STs have to sit in seats without ST holders in them. There used to be an S on the back of a seat so that those who did not have STs knew where to sit. I don't think that happens any more, but what tends to happen is that if someone sits in an ST holder's seat, someone nearby will lean over and let them know, so that they know they might have to move if the ST holder comes in later.

That system has worked fine. I would certainly be very peeved if we were moved without warning because I know how being surrounded by the same faces year in year out etc is to the experience. If/when - and I know it will happen some day - the Dolman is replaced, then I know there will be some around me who I'll want to be sat close to. We've grown up together in those seats. They knew me when I was a 7yo lad, and it feels like home surrounded by them.

I feel very sorry for Madger and co, and it's surely not too late for the club to reverse the decision, particularly if it was based on a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the views that the ST put forward. With an unreserved area in the EE, surely common sense will prevail, or the club will explain exactly why another unreserved area is needed.

[Nibor]

Of those who expressed a preference, 71% of supporters would like to see unreserved seating against 29% who would not.

No, not 29%

29 people! Or was it 28.xxx

The survey was completed by 97 people. Brilliant.

You can mathematically prove that a random sample size of 96 from a population of 20,000 will get you a confidence interval of less than 10%.

That means that because 71% of the sample say A, you can be 99% certain that if you'd asked all 20,000 the real number that said A would be 71% +/-9.06.

Complaining about the sample size is irrelevant.

[cheshire_red]

Fair point Nibor, all ST members though if I remember correctly. Just pointing out facts, not complaining.

[dezgimed]

You can mathematically prove that a random sample size of 96 from a population of 20,000 will get you a confidence interval of less than 10%.

That means that because 71% of the sample say A, you can be 99% certain that if you'd asked all 20,000 the real number that said A would be 71% +/-9.06.

Complaining about the sample size is irrelevant.

Surely not, if the 96 people were all 'Robboreds' sort, thus not a true representation of BCFC fans?

Most statistics are made up, 67% of all people know that..

[kevinmabbuttshair]

" There's lies, damn lies, and statistics"

[swindlered]

Obviously I would have been against it but you miss the point. I would have been enabled to do something about it and arrange the transfer of our group to another area. As a result of not being told, the matchday experience of myself and many others will be diminished next season.

That's strange.

Thatcham Red said "The last conversation with the club suggested that unreserved seating in the Ateyo wasn't going to happen."

That suggests you were aware it was an option so dialogue did take place and you were aware it was an option, albeit an unlikely one.

My question was if I asked you this morning 'are you in favour of unreserved seating would you have said yes'? Not 'are you in favour of unreserved seating if it involves relocating or are you in favour of an unreserved seating block. The original question was just a simple one to gauge fans basic view on unreserved seating. Not to do with the ramifications of creating it.

The creation of unreserved seating is a good thing. The relocation of ST holders with no consultation is a bad thing. I'd be surprised if both of those statements weren't backed up by a survey of all fans.

Thatcham Reds comment also implies that dialogue did take place and that it was an idea of the clubs that the Trust was aware of. I'll stand by my original comments that in the circumstances it was not the Trusts responsibility to relay a private conversation with the club back to the fans. Having informed the club of the need to talk with affected fans then that responsibility lay with the club.

[Milo]

That suggests you were aware it was an option so dialogue did take place and you were aware it was an option, albeit an unlikely one.

It was suggested to us a couple of weeks ago, we commented on the problems that would result and argued against it. The next we knew on that decision was this morning having been led to believe it was unlikely to proceed. We had no chance to look into how the change might be effectively managed or to argue a final decision. After the furore last year with Premiership seating this decision needed alot of careful consideration and we've not been invited for any input on the process nor had we been led to believe we should be proactive on this issue.

Does the Trust think an unreserved seating area is a good idea? Yes - see suggestion re East End season ticket

Does the Trust think fans should be turfed out of seats to achieve that? No.

Stu's in meetings all afternoon (and I'm off for a meeting now too). We'll pick up on this issue later this afternoon / early evening. Hopefully there's something we can do to reverse the decision. I certainly understand your anger Ian. I think the idea of unreserved seating was well-intentioned but for me personally, the East End Season Ticket filled that gap in the short term. I'd like to see a reversal of the decision and some serious consultation processes put in place for next season and for when the new stand is built.

[cheshire_red]

In a UK survey it was found that 50% of people in the UK are of less than average intelligence. Yes, more than likely I am.

[Nibor]

Surely not, if the 96 people were all 'Robboreds' sort, thus not a true representation of BCFC fans?

Most statistics are made up, 67% of all people know that..

That's why statistics never state 100% certainty, to allow for the chance of getting a disproportionate number of Robboreds in the sample

Basically, if you want to be 100% certain you have to ask 100% of the population.

If you accept a lower certainty you can get a provable level of confidence by asking less than the total population.

[CityDuke14]

The Trust put forward a set of proposals to the club which contained a number of caveats and stated the need to correspond further with fans. The one firm proposal which was put forward - for an East End season ticket - was done because that was a definite win-win situation for fans.

A survey of 96 fans is as adequate as 10,000 if the views proposed are representative of the wider fanbase. If before you received your letter today someone had asked you are you in favour of unreserved seating what would your answer have been? Personally I wouldn't have created it in the way that the club have gone about it but its no fun bringing friends & family to games and then watching them disappear to another area of the stand to watch the game. The decision to create an unreserved seating area is to be applauded. The way it has been implemented is not.

The Trust cannot survey the fans for every idea that the club puts forward to it in conversation. Inevitably many of the ideas will not see the light of day and depending on when the conversation took place it could have been a breach of confidentiality. What should have happened is for BCFC to consult with the fans following its decision to press ahead with the scheme. That none took place is not the Trusts fault and it was unaware of the clubs decision to move fans from H block.

As one of the Trusts board members also sits towards the rear of block H I imagine he is going apesh*t right now too.

Damn right he's going apesh*t. I have already contacted the media dept and had my details removed from the database.

To be told I have to move and pay an additional 39%(rounded to the nearest .5%) is bad enough. But reading the deceitful letter, implying the Trust are to blame and sending it to a Trust Board member, just proves to me they don't care how they upset, or how they do it.

Customer care is one thing they obviously don't have in their remit.

[BB.]

Couple of questions:

How did people manage before there was reserved seating?

If memory serves me correct, there was more chance of sitting with your friends and a better atmosphere...

Also:

What happens if 200 people with tickets in other areas of the stand sit in H block, meaning there won't be enough seats in H block, will the stewards have to check everyone's ticket in the block one by one and ask them to move to their designated seat?

You need the whole stand unreserved or reserved seating or things can get confusing.

I think this decision will be overturned.

[reddoc]

You can mathematically prove that a random sample size of 96 from a population of 20,000 will get you a confidence interval of less than 10%.

That means that because 71% of the sample say A, you can be 99% certain that if you'd asked all 20,000 the real number that said A would be 71% +/-9.06.

Complaining about the sample size is irrelevant.

Got me curious now.. so you're saying that if 4 people had been asked and 3 had said yes you could reliably extrapolate that up to represent the views of the 20,000 mentioned. At what stage would the sample be considered too small to rely upon Nibor?

[reddoc]

You can mathematically prove that a random sample size of 96 from a population of 20,000 will get you a confidence interval of less than 10%.

That means that because 71% of the sample say A, you can be 99% certain that if you'd asked all 20,000 the real number that said A would be 71% +/-9.06.

Complaining about the sample size is irrelevant.

Got me curious now.. so you're saying that if 4 people had been asked and 3 had said yes you could reliably extrapolate that up to represent the views of the 20,000 mentioned. At what stage would the sample be considered too small to rely upon Nibor?

[CodeRed]

Couple of questions:

How did people manage before there was reserved seating?

If memory serves me correct, there was more chance of sitting with your friends and a better atmosphere...

Also:

What happens if 200 people with tickets in other areas of the stand sit in H block, meaning there won't be enough seats in H block, will the stewards have to check everyone's ticket in the block one by one and ask them to move to their designated seat?

You need the whole stand unreserved or reserved seating or things can get confusing.

I think this decision will be overturned.

why don't the club leave the current S/T's where they are - put a large RESERVED sticker on each S/T holders seat, and simply say that it's unreserved for all seats without a sticker on them

Simply deduct the number of existing S/t holders in block H from the total number od seats in block H and sell the remainder as unresrved S/T's

or is this too simple?

CodeRed

[Loderingo]

Got me curious now.. so you're saying that if 4 people had been asked and 3 had said yes you could reliably extrapolate that up to represent the views of the 20,000 mentioned. At what stage would the sample be considered too small to rely upon Nibor?

No. Generally in market research you would look for a minimum of 100 interviews. You can work out a confidence level based on the number of interviews and the size of the general population e.g. for political surveys they generally ask about 1000 people to represent the whole population of the UK. The other important factor is that you weight the data to represent the characteristics of the population e.g. if your 1000 people was made up of 30% men and 70% women you would need to weight up the men and weight down the women until you get the 50-50% of the real population.

So the 93 interviews were probably just about OK for the size of City's support but the question is how representative was the survey sample of the whole fanbase. For this you would need to get some data on the general demographics of City fans and you could then weight the data by age, gender, income, no. of games attendeed per year etc etc.

Of course if you ask the wrong question in the first place then none of this really matters...

[Steve Watts]

why don't the club leave the current S/T's where they are - put a large RESERVED sticker on each S/T holders seat, and simply say that it's unreserved for all seats without a sticker on them

Simply deduct the number of existing S/t holders in block H from the total number od seats in block H and sell the remainder as unresrved S/T's

or is this too simple?

CodeRed

'tis how it used to work before this past season, so no idea why it all of a sudden it wouldn't work now!

[Nibor]

Got me curious now.. so you're saying that if 4 people had been asked and 3 had said yes you could reliably extrapolate that up to represent the views of the 20,000 mentioned. At what stage would the sample be considered too small to rely upon Nibor?

The question isn't really what sample size would be too small, it's more how much confidence you want in your result.

There's a formula that relates sample size, population, confidence and a confidence interval.

Some maths detail is here if you're interested, it's to do with standard deviation and binomial distribution.

I'm certainly not pretending to understand all that I just have a vague and distant recollection of A-level stats maths and found an online calculator

The calculator says that with a population of 20,000 and a sample of 4, you could be 95% certain that your 75% result from the sample is within +/-42.43% of the full population's answer. So with a sample of 4 the best level of confidence you can get is "haven't the foggiest".

The overriding thing is that you're always talking about confidence (likelihood) not certainty because even if you ask 19,998 people and they all agree there's still a small chance the remaining two will be Robbored and Ashtonyate.