A Special Thank You To....

[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.

If you took a random sample of 100 out of 20000 and got 70/30 male female split, then it's very likely the whole population is near a 70/30 male female split and weighting would be skewing results.

[bh_red]

I sit in G block almost right next to H Block, because of this stupid system I'm no doubt going to have to put up with an overflow of people wanting to sit in H block trying to take my seat,

system was fine before with Reserved stickers on seat, why bloody change it, fair enough some peopel may want unreserved seating but surely that's what the EAST END is for!

[Colemanballs]

If you took a random sample of 100 out of 20000 and got 70/30 male female split, then it's very likely the whole population is near a 70/30 male female split and weighting would be skewing results.

Doesn't that depend largely on how the sample was selected and whether or not you can be sure that your sample is indeed random? I can't recall how the survey was publicised but a guess would be that, for example, there would be a disproportionately large percentage of ST members who responded compared to the overall fan base.

[reddoc]

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.

Thanks for that, might have a proper read later. Know certain rules apply to sample size etc re medical trials and submission of , presumably to satisfy a certain confidence interval, wish I hadn't started this now but thanks to you and Loderingo for answering my question.

Just to add to the general season ticket price debate think the club have to be very careful when people such as myself who are lucky enough not to worry about being financially compromised by the increase feel that someones having a laugh at my expense. Nobody likes to be made to look foolish , and I'm going to feel like a complete tw&t when I hand over my cash this year as I know I'm being shafted.

[Loderingo]

If you took a random sample of 100 out of 20000 and got 70/30 male female split, then it's very likely the whole population is near a 70/30 male female split and weighting would be skewing results.

I was talking about the general population of the UK being 50-50. Of course the City fanbase is going to be majority male. A better example would be age. I would guess that the ST membership are significantly younger than City fans as a whole (due it being promoted on the internet). Say 10% of City fans are 65+ and 5% of people taking the survey (ST members) are 65+ then you have to weight up the 65+ section of the population so that they are representative of the whole population of City fans

[reddoc]

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.

Thanks for that, might have a proper read later. Know certain rules apply to sample size etc re medical trials and submission of , presumably to satisfy a certain confidence interval, wish I hadn't started this now but thanks to you and Loderingo for answering my question.

Just to add to the general season ticket price debate think the club have to be very careful when people such as myself who are lucky enough not to worry about being financially compromised by the increase feel that someones having a laugh at my expense. Nobody likes to be made to look foolish , and I'm going to feel like a complete tw&t when I hand over my cash this year as I know I'm being shafted.

[Nibor]

Doesn't that depend largely on how the sample was selected and whether or not you can be sure that your sample is indeed random?

Entirely.

I can't recall how the survey was publicised but a guess would be that, for example, there would be a disproportionately large percentage of ST members who responded compared to the overall fan base.

It was ST Members only so yes it wasn't a true random sample of the whole fanbase.

Even if you went through and made sure all your demographical groups were represented in the same proportions it still wouldn't be truly a good sample of the whole fanbase because the very fact that groups those samples altogether (that they were motivated enough to join the ST) may well be linked to their views on issues.

I was just making the point that 96 isn't an unreasonable size for a sample of a population the size of our fanbase.

[Nibor]

I was talking about the general population of the UK being 50-50. Of course the City fanbase is going to be majority male. A better example would be age. I would guess that the ST membership are significantly younger than City fans as a whole (due it being promoted on the internet). Say 10% of City fans are 65+ and 5% of people taking the survey (ST members) are 65+ then you have to weight up the 65+ section of the population so that they are representative of the whole population of City fans

See the other reply above.

If you want your sample to truly represent a population it has to be randomly selected from the whole population otherwise all bets are off.

Weighting like you discuss is used when for some reason you can't do the random selection properly and it affects the quality of results.

[Loderingo]

See the other reply above.

If you want your sample to truly represent a population it has to be randomly selected from the whole population otherwise all bets are off.

Weighting like you discuss is used when for some reason you can't do the random selection properly and it affects the quality of results.

I work in MR and we generally use weighting as standard. Partly this is to reconcile the demographics (we have allsorts of standard demographic information on the UK population) and partly linked in with base sizes but we also use it to account for mode effect (whether the survey is online, CATI, face to face, mixed mode etc). i guess the ST survey was mixed mode...

Going back to my original point, none of this matters unless you ask the right question in the first place. The question that should be asked was:

1a) Would you be in favour of introducing unreserved seating? Y/N

1b [To Season ticket holders only] Would you be prepared to move seats to make way for unreserved seating? Y/N

[Guest Orj]

To the best of my knowledge from studying A-Level statistics, Nibor is quite correct in what he says about how the numbers extrapolate from a small sample. As has also been pointed out, however, it assumes a broadly similar demographic spread.

One important point that appears to have been missed, however, is how the respondents to the question may have been predisposed.

As far as I am aware, approximately a third of the respondents to the survey weren't Season Ticket Holders. To my mind, that is going to skew the response significantly. Putting yourself in the position of a non-STH, would you argue in favour of denying yourself a chance at one of the better seats if you arrived at the match a little early?

A much fairer way to have canvassed a response to this question, when you want to consider the response in terms of whether or not you are going to upset your STH base, would have been to seperate out their responses from those of the non-STHs. Without doing so, the survey, to my mind is fatally flawed.

Put another way, 96 people were surveyed. Of those surveyed, let's assume that 32 of the respondents were non-STHs. (I don't know the precise figures so if somebody would like to fill in the blanks with definitive figures, I would be interested to see what they are.)

Assuming that all respondents would have responded in the way that is most favourable to them personally, almost all of those 32 would likely have responded in favour of unreserved seating. For the sake of argument, that figure would likely have been around 28.

I guess you can probably see where I am going with this now. Essentially, it is my belief that comfortably over 90%, if not 100%, of the STHs surveyed probably responded in favour of reserved seating.

If the ST were looking to tell the club if they were likely to upset the STH base, they should have done this kind of statistical analysis before presenting them with potentially misleading figures which say something very different to what the reality may very well be.

[swindlered]

If the ST were looking to tell the club if they were likely to upset the STH base, they should have done this kind of statistical analysis before presenting them with potentially misleading figures which say something very different to what the reality may very well be.

The Trust and Club were both aware that the size of the sample was small. The Trust never purported to be representing the views of 20,000 fans but the survey was an outline document for discussion and its likely that a sample of 100 people would be suitable to canvas general opinions of city fans.

People make out like the results of the survey are somehow completely out of kilter with reality when the likelihood is that a larger sample will show the same results. As mentioned on another thread we can't do a comparitive exercise now due to some of the hysteria being whipped up but i'd be surprised if a survey of otib in six months didn't confirm a lot of the results.

The reality is that unreserved seating is a positive move. However because STH's have been sh*t on people are associating that with unreserved seating when the real way to look at it is the benefits that will emerge with the creation of the East End season tickets.

The Trust is having its AGM on the 29th May. If people want to come and voice their concerns then that would be the perfect place.

[Chivs]

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.

It's time for the ST to stand up and deliver then.

Someone within BCFC is using the Trust to "imply" support for a controversial decision. Note the use of the words "in consultation with". This is a deliberate attempt by the club to suggest the ST are in agreement without actually saying it in a "legal sense".

If the ST want to keep their (hard won and well earned) credibility they need to take this up with the club forthwith. Otherwise, you are on a slippery slope.

I assume that all your meetings with the club are minuted and that you can publish the relevant meeting minutes here.

Good Luck. We need you to be absolutely resolute on this.

[Guest Orj]

The Trust and Club were both aware that the size of the sample was small. The Trust never purported to be representing the views of 20,000 fans but the survey was an outline document for discussion and its likely that a sample of 100 people would be suitable to canvas general opinions of city fans.

People make out like the results of the survey are somehow completely out of kilter with reality when the likelihood is that a larger sample will show the same results. As mentioned on another thread we can't do a comparitive exercise now due to some of the hysteria being whipped up but i'd be surprised if a survey of otib in six months didn't confirm a lot of the results.

The reality is that unreserved seating is a positive move. However because STH's have been sh*t on people are associating that with unreserved seating when the real way to look at it is the benefits that will emerge with the creation of the East End season tickets.

The Trust is having its AGM on the 29th May. If people want to come and voice their concerns then that would be the perfect place.

Did you actually read my post before replying to it, swindlered?

I acknowledged that there was nothing theoretically wrong with the sample size when I said "Nibor is quite correct in what he says about how the numbers extrapolate from a small sample." And yet, you attempt to counter my argument about the predisposition of those surveyed and how they weren't a representative cross-section by telling me that "the likelihood is that a larger sample will show the same results."

Furthermore, you attempt to muddy the waters by bringing the EE into the discussion when it is actually an irrelevance to the point I am attempting to make.

As far as I can determine, the ST have stated that ~30% of those surveyed are in favour of unreserved seating. My point is that ~30% of those surveyed were not STHs and, as such, are therefore likely to offer the response which serves their interests best. Namely, that they are not in favour of reserved seating.

When you convert reserved seating into unreserved seating, you aren't going to upset non-STHs because they don't have any entitlement to a specific seat anyway. The only people you are at risk of upsetting are those who are currently STHs.

Moving the argument on a stage, it seems perfectly logical to me that one of 2 approaches should have been taken to ensure that the figures weren't misconstrued in a way that is contrary to the interests of STHs.

The first option is to explicitly point out to the club, when presenting them with the figures, that the demographic isn't representative of the demographic whom they are at risk of upsetting.

The better option would have been to data-mine your survey responses and to filter out the responses to the question of unreserved seating from non-STHs, leaving the responses from STHs exclusively.

It would seem, unless you can advise me otherwise, that neither of these things took place and, as such, that the figures you presented weren't really a useful reference when coming to a decision on this issue. More than that, there is probably an argument that they were a positively counterproductive reference because, had you mined the data as I suggest you ought to have, you may well have discovered that you were going to alienate almost all of the STHs in the blocks affected. That discovery, in turn, may very well have led to a different outcome in the decision making process.

[cider head]

I think the club missed the point on why people wanted the unreserved area to be in the East End. The point was that it was the only area of the ground where there were no other ticket holders, so people who want to sing would be able to congregate together without annoying long-term season ticket holders in other areas of the ground who don't want to be part of it and feeling they are being forced out of the areas where they have sat for many years. This situation with season ticket holders in Ateyo block H and Williams block F geting all upset about being forced out of their seats was exactly what the East End campaigners and the Supporters Trust were trying to avoid I believe.

spot on

[CityDuke14]

Did you actually read my post before replying to it, swindlered?

I acknowledged that there was nothing theoretically wrong with the sample size when I said "Nibor is quite correct in what he says about how the numbers extrapolate from a small sample." And yet, you attempt to counter my argument about the predisposition of those surveyed and how they weren't a representative cross-section by telling me that "the likelihood is that a larger sample will show the same results."

Furthermore, you attempt to muddy the waters by bringing the EE into the discussion when it is actually an irrelevance to the point I am attempting to make.

As far as I can determine, the ST have stated that ~30% of those surveyed are in favour of unreserved seating. My point is that ~30% of those surveyed were not STHs and, as such, are therefore likely to offer the response which serves their interests best. Namely, that they are not in favour of reserved seating.

When you convert reserved seating into unreserved seating, you aren't going to upset non-STHs because they don't have any entitlement to a specific seat anyway. The only people you are at risk of upsetting are those who are currently STHs.

Moving the argument on a stage, it seems perfectly logical to me that one of 2 approaches should have been taken to ensure that the figures weren't misconstrued in a way that is contrary to the interests of STHs.

The first option is to explicitly point out to the club, when presenting them with the figures, that the demographic isn't representative of the demographic whom they are at risk of upsetting.

The better option would have been to data-mine your survey responses and to filter out the responses to the question of unreserved seating from non-STHs, leaving the responses from STHs exclusively.

It would seem, unless you can advise me otherwise, that neither of these things took place and, as such, that the figures you presented weren't really a useful reference when coming to a decision on this issue. More than that, there is probably an argument that they were a positively counterproductive reference because, had you mined the data as I suggest you ought to have, you may well have discovered that you were going to alienate almost all of the STHs in the blocks affected. That discovery, in turn, may very well have led to a different outcome in the decision making process.

Try reading post #25 By Thatcham Red.

You'll find that responses taken into account were from STH's

[Guest Orj]

Try reading post #25 By Thatcham Red.

You'll find that responses taken into account were from STH's

I've just re-read it and it absolutely doesn't say that at all. You've clearly read thatcham red's post just as well as swindlered read mine.

I'm now starting to understand how this whole farce has come about:

Firstly, 1 ST board member read my post and countered it with an argument that I had already conceded while failing to actually respond to the point that I was clearly trying to make.

Then, another ST board member replied to me by telling me to read a third ST board member's post because it apparently contradicts my point when, if you actually read it properly, you realise that it doesn't do that at all.

It rather calls into question the merit of bothering to do the survey in the first place if those at the top of the tree within the ST can't even get their ducks in a row or, it would seem, apply a bit of logic to extrapolate some valuable meaning from the data they have collected.

[lukejones2]

[Guest Orj]

[swindlered]

That is an entirely misrepresentative way to structure your sentence. The 2 clauses separated by '....' were entirely independent of one-another and to imply that the second is a subset of the first by joining them up as you have is to completely redefine their meaning.

That said - I've just spotted a fundamental flaw in my argument which undermines it completely so I might as well 'fess up and get my climbdown over with now.

My argument was based on ~30% of all respondents to your survey being non-STHs and a similar ~30% of your respondents being in favour of unreserved seating. What I've actually done, in fact, is get my reserved and unreserved figures the wrong way around.

Therefore, using the same logic as I did earlier would suggest that over half of STHs are in favour of unreserved seating.

So, in short, it would appear as though I was talking complete b***ocks. Sorry.

Speaking from my discredited position, I still feel, however, that there is a separate statistical breakdown that should have been applied to the figures.

The wording of the crucial clause is "Of those who expressed a preference, 71% of supporters would like to see unreserved seating against 29% who would not." It would certainly have been useful to state the number of individuals who did express a preference and, furthermore, it would have been better still to state what percentage of STHs respondents who expressed a preference were in favour of unreserved seating. Depending on the total number of respondents who did express a preference, I'm sure the final figure that I asked for would have been the most useful in determining what scale of a backlash to expect from STHs in the affected blocks.

Fair point. Like I've said above - it would appear I've been talking shite.

No thanks. As I've stated before, I'm ideologically opposed to the notion of a democratically elected group of individuals running a competitive organisation such as a football club. If you were a social club/fundraising organisation/political activist group without aspirations to become the majority shareholder of BCFC in the future, I could very possibly be swayed but as long as that remains one of your objectives, the ST is an organisation that I would prefer not to play a part in.

I realise that you have not stated this but to clear up a popular misconception, the Trust has never said it wants to run the football club and this is not one of its aims. One of the main aims of the Trust is to purchase a sufficient share in the club to ensure that fans views are represented to the board and to have a veto on major decisions such as ground movements. If say the Trust had a 20% share (picking numbers out of a hat) do you think the current farce on season tickets would have come about. Yes it has some influence over the club at present but all major decisions are taken by the BCFC hierarchy.

Whatever peoples views on the current state of the Trust the only way that fans views will ever be fully represented is to be able to talk to the board as an equal and without the back-up of a significant share purchase and a democratic fans organisation with significant membership that will not happen.

On a side note the issue with unreserved seating concerns all fans both STH's and non-STH's and therefore any survey in my mind ought to contain both. If the question then becomes one of how it should be implemented and involves the movement of STH's then the pay on the day fans ought to be cut out. A lot of people have been confusing the issue and therefore why the survey is valid despite its small sample. Its also naive to think that the club were not aware of the drawbacks of the survey.

Given your grounding in stats you'll realise that an organisation with an active membership of some 20 volunteers is unlikely to possess all the skills to conduct its operations effectively. For the Trust to improve and to become what it can be it needs the help of individuals such as yourself. You don't have to be a member to offer to help and maybe if you got involved and saw first hand how much effort and thinking goes into the trust then maybe your perceptions might change. If after that they don't then you've validated your current argument.

[Fodbarmyarmy]

Not sure if this is already known or not but on the original subject of the ST holders being kicked out for non reserved areas - there is apparently a second letter being sent out which I think will placate all parties - I guess it will say the ST holders can buy the same seats if they wish

[lukejones2]

That is an entirely misrepresentative way to structure your sentence. The 2 clauses separated by '....' were entirely independent of one-another and to imply that the second is a subset of the first by joining them up as you have is to completely redefine their meaning.

No thanks. As I've stated before, I'm ideologically opposed to the notion of a democratically elected group of individuals running a competitive organisation such as a football club. If you were a social club/fundraising organisation/political activist group without aspirations to become the majority shareholder of BCFC in the future, I could very possibly be swayed but as long as that remains one of your objectives, the ST is an organisation that I would prefer not to play a part in.

Orj

To respond to the first point, I don't think it is misrepresentative. The first comment describes the respondents of the survey, and the second one of their answers. Perhaps one of us is misunderstanding the other here?

In response to the second point "you were a social club/fundraising organisation/political activist group without aspirations to become the majority shareholder of BCFC in the future, I could very possibly be swayed" well - that is exactly what we are. We have no aim to be the majority shareholder of Bristol City Football Club. None at all. IF the club goes t1ts up then we would hope to be in a position to help any recovery but I don't foresee that happening and I think we have a very stable leadership at the club. It would be wrong for the Trust or the football club for the Trust to be looking to take a majority interest and we absolutely recognise that. So maybe you can be swayed? Of course, personal choice. No pressure etc etc.

[lukejones2]

That is an entirely misrepresentative way to structure your sentence. The 2 clauses separated by '....' were entirely independent of one-another and to imply that the second is a subset of the first by joining them up as you have is to completely redefine their meaning.

That said - I've just spotted a fundamental flaw in my argument which undermines it completely so I might as well 'fess up and get my climbdown over with now.

My argument was based on ~30% of all respondents to your survey being non-STHs and a similar ~30% of your respondents being in favour of unreserved seating. What I've actually done, in fact, is get my reserved and unreserved figures the wrong way around.

Therefore, using the same logic as I did earlier would suggest that over half of STHs are in favour of unreserved seating.

So, in short, it would appear as though I was talking complete b***ocks. Sorry.

Speaking from my discredited position, I still feel, however, that there is a separate statistical breakdown that should have been applied to the figures.

The wording of the crucial clause is "Of those who expressed a preference, 71% of supporters would like to see unreserved seating against 29% who would not." It would certainly have been useful to state the number of individuals who did express a preference and, furthermore, it would have been better still to state what percentage of STHs respondents who expressed a preference were in favour of unreserved seating. Depending on the total number of respondents who did express a preference, I'm sure the final figure that I asked for would have been the most useful in determining what scale of a backlash to expect from STHs in the affected blocks.

Fair point. Like I've said above - it would appear I've been talking shite.

No thanks. As I've stated before, I'm ideologically opposed to the notion of a democratically elected group of individuals running a competitive organisation such as a football club. If you were a social club/fundraising organisation/political activist group without aspirations to become the majority shareholder of BCFC in the future, I could very possibly be swayed but as long as that remains one of your objectives, the ST is an organisation that I would prefer not to play a part in.

[Guest Orj]

I realise that you have not stated this but to clear up a popular misconception, the Trust has never said it wants to run the football club and this is not one of its aims.

A popular misconception? Can I suggest that both you and Luke take this up with the figurehead, ex-Chairman and de-facto spokesman of your organisation, as it seems to be an issue on which your opinions are diametrically opposed to his.

When trying to whip up support for his idea, he penned an article which was published on www.bristolcitynet.co.uk which stated the following:

"And eventually, as the funds keep coming in, the balance of power shifts until the day when Bristol City is owned by the Bristol City Net Centre readers, by the Supporters Club, by the Yellow Subbers, by the season ticket holder, by the part-timer, by the read-about-it-in-the-paper fan, by us.

Is ownership simply a pipedream? Brentford and Bournemouth Supporters Trusts already control their clubs. Barcelona and Real Madrid are owned by the fans. We often ask ourselves why a super-rich benefactor doesn't pump money in to the club while ignoring the power of numbers if we join together. Assuming the 40,000 supporters in Cardiff last May earned the regional average salary of £22,205 (source. Payfinder.com) we have an income of nearly £900 million every year. Individually, there's not many of us that compare to the wealth of the club's board of directors but collectively our income dwarves theirs. But let's be honest, in the absence of a crisis, the day when the Supporters own Bristol City football club is many years away, but even great oaks start as acorns."

Perhaps the misconception isn't a popular one but an internal one between the members of the ST board who have very different ideas about where they see themselves and their organisation in the future.

One of the main aims of the Trust is to purchase a sufficient share in the club to ensure that fans views are represented to the board and to have a veto on major decisions such as ground movements. If say the Trust had a 20% share (picking numbers out of a hat) do you think the current farce on season tickets would have come about.

I do think that it is entirely possible, yes. The statement which you have published on www.bristolcitynet.co.uk today contains some vaguaries which, to my mind, leave the crucial questions unanswered - but I'll come on to that later.

Perhaps the question should be turned on you as I do find the premise on which your question appears to be based to be rather presumptuous. It seems to suggest that if the Trust had a bigger shareholding, bad decisions or mistakes would not be made. My question in response to you is, if the ST had a 20% shareholding, do you think that bad decisions and mistakes would cease to be made?

Yes it has some influence over the club at present but all major decisions are taken by the BCFC hierarchy.

The inconsistency of the messages that your organisation puts out is emormous. When something popular happens in which you have been involved, you are keen to tell the world about it and talk up your involvement where the opportunity presents itself. For a crude example, see Marie Day's reminder on the facilitator role you played in relation to the EE campaign.

You yourself have said that you have "some influence over the club at present but all major decisions are taken by the BCFC hierarchy."

And yet, only yesterday, your Acting Chairman said "I, the Trust or anyone to do with the Trust have no influence over what the club decides, because frankly, it was not our decision."

Furthermore, if it truly is the case that you have no influence over what the club decides, why on earth do you bother in the first place.

We all know the actual truth which is that you do have some influence over the decisions that the club makes. You currently don't have as much influence as you'd like to have but you certainly do have some.

Unfortunately, despite the above clearly and obviously being the case, when an unpopular decision is taken by the club, you seek to distance yourselves from it and to play down the influence which you have.

You can't have it all ways.

Whatever peoples views on the current state of the Trust the only way that fans views will ever be fully represented is to be able to talk to the board as an equal and without the back-up of a significant share purchase and a democratic fans organisation with significant membership that will not happen.

My first issue with this statement, and it is one that ST board members often rudely overlook when they makes these kind of statements, is that the implied logic of what you are saying is that the current board isn't comprised of fans. Steve Lansdown has done more for this club in the last few years, in terms of time, effort and finance than anyone involved in the ST has. It might not fit nicely with your marketing but, whether you acknowledge it or not, the fact is that BCFC is currently owned by the fans. You'd do well to remind yourselves of that every once in a while as your repeated inferences otherwise are both rude and ungrateful towards one of our fellow fans.

I also have issues with the idea that a democaratic fans organisation can offer full representation. You will never find an issue on which all fans are agreed so all you are able to do in reality is represent the majority viewpoint or take decisions which are unpopular with your electorate. Either way, you are going to upset some of the fans who you are supposed to be trying to represent. A democratic fans organisation is not a perfect solution to the issue of fans representation. In my opinion, it doesn't even come close. There are so many flaws in the model, to my mind, that I think that when it is trying to mix it in the decision making process, it may very well do more harm than good.

On a side note the issue with unreserved seating concerns all fans both STH's and non-STH's and therefore any survey in my mind ought to contain both. If the question then becomes one of how it should be implemented and involves the movement of STH's then the pay on the day fans ought to be cut out. A lot of people have been confusing the issue and therefore why the survey is valid despite its small sample.

I think it is you who is getting confused. My figures were incorrect meaning that my argument was ultimately wrong but I stated "A much fairer way to have canvassed a response to this question, when you want to consider the response in terms of whether or not you are going to upset your STH base, would have been to seperate out their responses from those of the non-STHs."

Its also naive to think that the club were not aware of the drawbacks of the survey.

I think it is naive to present figures without interpreting and mining those figures properly and presenting them in a structured and meaningful way. If you are going to represent the fans, you have an obligation to present the data you have to the club in a clear and unequivocal way, irresepective of whether or not you assume that the club have deduced the drawbacks of the survey.

Given your grounding in stats you'll realise that an organisation with an active membership of some 20 volunteers is unlikely to possess all the skills to conduct its operations effectively. For the Trust to improve and to become what it can be it needs the help of individuals such as yourself. You don't have to be a member to offer to help and maybe if you got involved and saw first hand how much effort and thinking goes into the trust then maybe your perceptions might change. If after that they don't then you've validated your current argument.

My argument is valid without first getting involved and seeing things first hand. Taking you argument to the Nth degree, should I get involved with the BNP before deciding that I don't agree with what they stand for? Essentially, my overarching issue with the ST is that they will ultimately always have to pander to the masses - a position which is in direct contradiction with the single-minded, occasionally ruthless decisiveness needed in order to be successful in a competitive field such as football.

Democracy may be the closest thing we have to a decent model in the field of politics, where the ideological objective is to raise standards for the masses and to co-operate and work together with our international peers for the common good. Football, however, is an altogether different beast from politics and allowing every man and his dog to play an active part in the decision making process will never, in my opinion, lead to anything other than bobbing along achieving perpetual mediocrity. The kind of calculated gamble that occasionally needs to be taken in order to allow a football club to achieve beyond its means and gain a competitive advantage that it probably has no right to gain requires a decision to be taken by an individual or a small group of like-minded individuals - not a commitee meeting, a consultation, a referendum, a reappraisal and a then decision which ultimately ends up not pleasing everybody anyway. Will a club run by an ST ever take a punt on a big name player on the off-chance that it might reap disproportionate rewards? I doubt it. Will a commitee of individuals take several unpopular but necessary decisions in the course of the 3 months leading up to the ST elections when they know full well that taking those decisions will almost certainly lead to their demise as board members? Again, I doubt it.

Finally, I said I'd come back to what I perceive to be the vague wording of the ST statement on www.bristolcitynet.co.uk.

The section of the statement that I am interested in reads:

"The Trust was contacted by the Club for our response, late in the day, on some ideas they were considering for season tickets and asked us for suggestions. The topic of introducing unreserved areas was raised and the Trust felt that while a section of unreserved seating was a good idea that as it would result in upheaval of season ticket holders the negatives outweighed the positives. The Trust recommended and encouraged an unreserved season ticket for the East End."

My first question is a general one and it is to ask what form your response took. Was it a verbal or written communication? Also, were the other board members consulted before the response was submitted to the club?

More specific questions concern the second and third sentences of the quoted statement.

You said "The topic of introducing unreserved areas was raised and the Trust felt that while a section of unreserved seating was a good idea that as it would result in upheaval of season ticket holders the negatives outweighed the positives."

For the ST to 'feel' this is one thing. To make that feeling absolutely clear to the club when offering your response is something entirely different. Did you clearly and explicitly state in your response to the club that the ST's position is that introducing unreserved seating in areas where STHs currently sit was something you objected to?

You also said "The Trust recommended and encouraged an unreserved season ticket for the East End."

Did you recommend and encourage unreserved seating in the East End only and qualify that by saying that this was the only area where you encouraged it whilst registering an objection to unreserved seating elsewhere within the ground?

[Milo]

That article, written by me, pre-dates the formation of the Trust.

In early meetings when the objectives of the Trust were being debated, the issue of ownership was discussed and it was agreed that this should not form an objective of the Trust for a whole host of reasons.

I'm happy to confirm that I personally believe that fans owning a significant chunk, even the majority chunk, of a football club is a good thing and supporters of Real Madrid - including their President - will tell you the same.

However, in setting out to rubbish an organisation you should look at the facts, not the comments of individual members and falsely apply them to that organisation. The facts about our aims are as stated on our website and in our constitution.

[swindlered]

Perhaps the question should be turned on you as I do find the premise on which your question appears to be based to be rather presumptuous. It seems to suggest that if the Trust had a bigger shareholding, bad decisions or mistakes would not be made. My question in response to you is, if the ST had a 20% shareholding, do you think that bad decisions and mistakes would cease to be made?

If the Trust had a larger share-holding then yes I do think that there would be more consultation with fans and less mistakes. If such a situation did arise then its likely that the position of fan director would be put to vote amongst the masses and may well not come from the ST board at all. In fact in order to be objective it may be advisable that that was a pre-requisite. In your view how should the incidence of bad decisions and mistakes be reduced?

The inconsistency of the messages that your organisation puts out is emormous. When something popular happens in which you have been involved, you are keen to tell the world about it and talk up your involvement where the opportunity presents itself. For a crude example, see Marie Day's reminder on the facilitator role you played in relation to the EE campaign.

As an organisation we're all volunteers who are geographically separated. Rightly or wrongly theres not the time to take a co-ordinated PR view on everything that we respond too. Would our time be more constructively spent doing a group consultation exercise or responding as we are best able and concentrating on areas where we can add value to the club?

You yourself have said that you have "some influence over the club at present but all major decisions are taken by the BCFC hierarchy."

And yet, only yesterday, your Acting Chairman said "I, the Trust or anyone to do with the Trust have no influence over what the club decides, because frankly, it was not our decision."

Furthermore, if it truly is the case that you have no influence over what the club decides, why on earth do you bother in the first place.

We all know the actual truth which is that you do have some influence over the decisions that the club makes. You currently don't have as much influence as you'd like to have but you certainly do have some.

Agreed. Its what we do with that influence that matters and when things go wrong we should be bought to account. In this case its my belief that we're as much victims as those in H block. The difference being that whilst they've now got their seats back, we get to spend x amount of time undoing the reputational damage.

Unfortunately, despite the above clearly and obviously being the case, when an unpopular decision is taken by the club, you seek to distance yourselves from it and to play down the influence which you have.

You can't have it all ways.

My first issue with this statement, and it is one that ST board members often rudely overlook when they makes these kind of statements, is that the implied logic of what you are saying is that the current board isn't comprised of fans. Steve Lansdown has done more for this club in the last few years, in terms of time, effort and finance than anyone involved in the ST has. It might not fit nicely with your marketing but, whether you acknowledge it or not, the fact is that BCFC is currently owned by the fans. You'd do well to remind yourselves of that every once in a while as your repeated inferences otherwise are both rude and ungrateful towards one of our fellow fans.

Why have you bought Steve L into this as in no way was my comment derogatory of him? I agree with you in that I think that Steve L is a good chairman under who the club has prospered and whom I think will continue to be chairman for many years to come. To a degree your argument is correct in that the club is owned by the fans but its an autocracy and not a democracy. Following that logic we may as well revert to a dictatorship.

I also have issues with the idea that a democaratic fans organisation can offer full representation. You will never find an issue on which all fans are agreed so all you are able to do in reality is represent the majority viewpoint or take decisions which are unpopular with your electorate. Either way, you are going to upset some of the fans who you are supposed to be trying to represent. A democratic fans organisation is not a perfect solution to the issue of fans representation. In my opinion, it doesn't even come close. There are so many flaws in the model, to my mind, that I think that when it is trying to mix it in the decision making process, it may very well do more harm than good.

If the democratic model is so flawed then what do you propose that its replaced with. The aim of the Trust should be to represent fans in the best way possible. If we're following a flawed model then we won't achieve that and should change our focus.

I think it is you who is getting confused. My figures were incorrect meaning that my argument was ultimately wrong but I stated "A much fairer way to have canvassed a response to this question, when you want to consider the response in terms of whether or not you are going to upset your STH base, would have been to seperate out their responses from those of the non-STHs."

I think it is naive to present figures without interpreting and mining those figures properly and presenting them in a structured and meaningful way. If you are going to represent the fans, you have an obligation to present the data you have to the club in a clear and unequivocal way, irresepective of whether or not you assume that the club have deduced the drawbacks of the survey.

My argument is valid without first getting involved and seeing things first hand. Taking you argument to the Nth degree, should I get involved with the BNP before deciding that I don't agree with what they stand for? Essentially, my overarching issue with the ST is that they will ultimately always have to pander to the masses - a position which is in direct contradiction with the single-minded, occasionally ruthless decisiveness needed in order to be successful in a competitive field such as football.

What would you rather have. Success on the pitch that alienates all of the traditional ones but replaces them with 45 year old businessmen a la Chelsea or a club where the views of the fans are taken into account and traditional supporters are not priced out of attendance? I agree that there is much substance to your quote on success.

Democracy may be the closest thing we have to a decent model in the field of politics, where the ideological objective is to raise standards for the masses and to co-operate and work together with our international peers for the common good. Football, however, is an altogether different beast from politics and allowing every man and his dog to play an active part in the decision making process will never, in my opinion, lead to anything other than bobbing along achieving perpetual mediocrity. The kind of calculated gamble that occasionally needs to be taken in order to allow a football club to achieve beyond its means and gain a competitive advantage that it probably has no right to gain requires a decision to be taken by an individual or a small group of like-minded individuals - not a commitee meeting, a consultation, a referendum, a reappraisal and a then decision which ultimately ends up not pleasing everybody anyway. Will a club run by an ST ever take a punt on a big name player on the off-chance that it might reap disproportionate rewards? I doubt it. Will a commitee of individuals take several unpopular but necessary decisions in the course of the 3 months leading up to the ST elections when they know full well that taking those decisions will almost certainly lead to their demise as board members? Again, I doubt it.

Agree again with much of what you have written and as I think i've mentioned before the best model for a club is where theres significant private investment but fans have enough power to veto major decisions. Fans don't want to see clubs bobbing along like Chesterfield or Notts County neither do they want to see their club emperilled like Carlisle & Wrexham. My view is that that model is the closest way to compromise on the two.

As a volunteer organisation its inevitable that mistakes will be made and its down to us to learn from them and not repeat them. I think that its unfair to be pilloried in the way that we have over the unreserved seating but thats my view and to a degree if you put yourself in the spotlight then you have to expect this.

I'd be happy to respond to any ideas that you may have on how the Trust can improve the way it operates.

[Guest Orj]

That article, written by me, pre-dates the formation of the Trust.

You're quite right. I alluded to that fact when I said that you were "trying to whip up support for (your) idea". I can't say that I've ever seen you make a statement subsequent to that article, either before or after the formation of the ST, stating that you no longer have aspirations for the ST to control the club.

In early meetings when the objectives of the Trust were being debated, the issue of ownership was discussed and it was agreed that this should not form an objective of the Trust for a whole host of reasons.

Just because it isn't one of your stated objectives doesn't mean that it isn't an aspiration. All it means to me is that it isn't explicitly recorded as one of your 5 stated aims.

Your aim "Position the fans as stakeholders in the Club" rather implies that ownership - at least, ownership to a degree - is an aspiration; especially when there is no obvious qualifying statement to make it clear at which point the ST will consider its stake to be sufficient.

Perhaps this statement needs some padding out to prevent these 'popular misconceptions' from occuring.

I'm happy to confirm that I personally believe that fans owning a significant chunk, even the majority chunk, of a football club is a good thing and supporters of Real Madrid - including their President - will tell you the same.

D'oh! You've done it again. Bristol City fans own a majority chunk of the football club here and now. Today.

As for the analogy of the big Spanish clubs, do you really think the model which you are proposing is even remotely similar to theirs? For one thing, they benefit from massive support from their local authorities - not least because the football clubs are intrinsically woven into the politics and sectarian organisations of their respective regions. Can you see Bristol City Council bailing us out when we are in millions of pounds worth of crippling debt by paying massively over the odds to buy our Leigh Woods training facility while offering us a patch of land in the City Centre to build a new state-of-the-art training centre?

The big Spanish clubs have a glorious history and have a high density of wealthy businessmen within their catchments who are keen to benefit from the local, national and international kudos that an association or presidency brings. We aren't remotely near to the likes of Madrid and Barca in that regard and just because a model works for them doesn't mean it would scale down for us.

Furthermore, their elections are a very different thing to that which would ever occur with BCFC. Suppose another SL figure came along and was interested in taking control of the club. Do you think he would dilute his influence by using the ST as a vehicle to assume control or do you think that he would just buy enough shares to take control of the club and then make autonomous decisions whether the members of the ST broadly agree with them or not? Nobody is going to stand in elections to become chairman of the ST on a promise of bringing in JA Reyes and Ronaldinho - there just isn't a reason for anyone to do that when they could just assume control of th club and do that anyway, without the ST poking their nose in and trying to tell them what to do.

However, in setting out to rubbish an organisation you should look at the facts, not the comments of individual members and falsely apply them to that organisation.

My aim isn't to 'rubbish the organisation' per se. As I've gone to some length to explain, I am opposed to the ideology of a Supporters Trust and I'm offering my reasons why.

You cite the stated aims of your organisation but if you actually take the time to read the 'Aims of the Trust' page in full, you'll find the following quote right at the top of the page:

"Supporters Trusts play a vital role at no fewer than 129 clubs nationwide. Most own a substantial shareholding and 12 own their clubs outright."

Quite evidently, the notion of ownership isn't a popular misconception at all. It is something which you allude to on your own website.

In your article which I quoted in my previous reply, you told how Supporters Direct, the organisation whose model you have used, are "A Government funded organisation specifically geared to help supporters get involved with their football club and to start to reclaim it as their own." I could very well be mistaken but I read 'reclaim(ing) it as their own' as meaning taking ownership of the club, as opposed to something metaphorical and insubstantive.

The facts about our aims are as stated on our website and in our constitution.

Indeed, they are. But that doesn't necessarily make them an exhaustive list of your aims/objectives/aspirations. It isn't one of your explicit aims to run 'Wine & Cheesley' evenings but it something that you have achieved. As far as I can ascertain, the Chairman-elect and figurehead of the ST published an article in the organisation's early days which implied ownership as a long-term aspiration. I haven't seen anything in any official statements since then which suggests anything contrary to that.

On a seperate note, swindlred advised me via PM that he won't be able to post any more replies until next week but, while he was gracious in his reply (which I'll reply to later), he appeared to overlook the questions which I asked at the end. The section in question, which I still think merits a definitive response, reads:

Finally, I said I'd come back to what I perceive to be the vague wording of the ST statement on www.bristolcitynet.co.uk.

The section of the statement that I am interested in reads:

"The Trust was contacted by the Club for our response, late in the day, on some ideas they were considering for season tickets and asked us for suggestions. The topic of introducing unreserved areas was raised and the Trust felt that while a section of unreserved seating was a good idea that as it would result in upheaval of season ticket holders the negatives outweighed the positives. The Trust recommended and encouraged an unreserved season ticket for the East End."

My first question is a general one and it is to ask what form your response took. Was it a verbal or written communication? Also, were the other board members consulted before the response was submitted to the club?

More specific questions concern the second and third sentences of the quoted statement.

You said "The topic of introducing unreserved areas was raised and the Trust felt that while a section of unreserved seating was a good idea that as it would result in upheaval of season ticket holders the negatives outweighed the positives."

For the ST to 'feel' this is one thing. To make that feeling absolutely clear to the club when offering your response is something entirely different. Did you clearly and explicitly state in your response to the club that the ST's position is that introducing unreserved seating in areas where STHs currently sit was something you objected to?

You also said "The Trust recommended and encouraged an unreserved season ticket for the East End."

Did you recommend and encourage unreserved seating in the East End only and qualify that by saying that this was the only area where you encouraged it whilst registering an objection to unreserved seating elsewhere within the ground?

[Milo]

Orj, in a weird kind of way I've enjoyed reading your arguments here even though I disagree almost entirely with them. The expression 'bit between the teeth' comes to mind. I'd be very happy to buy you a pint and have a good chat about it - I think I'd enjoy the debate . I hope you take me up on the offer - I'm happy to travel to your local. Not that I think I'd sway you, just that we could at least 'bury the hatchet'.

But to answer your two main questions as best I can for now. Firstly, the Trust already owns shares in the Club. We've made it clear that the Trust as a democratic organisation made up of a wide cross-section of City fans wants to have a growing stake in the football club. It's the way in which our collective voice can be heard. If the aim was to become the outright owner (which I think is the bit you're mainly worried about - that's certainly the hook you used to get me involved) it would have said so on the tin. I can see you're enjoying the sport but I think most people will accept that the aim of the Trust is not to run Wine & Cheesley evenings but that by doing so it fulfills our aims in the 'community' and our aims in 'fundraising'. You're happy to trawl through anything to find written comments on other websites (rivals and otib for instance) that you think might back up your argument while ignoring the countless times it has been written that the Trust has no aim for outright ownership of the Club. Let me reassure you again - the Trust has no aim, no ambition, no intention of becoming the majority shareholder either in the short, medium or long term.

On the second issue of the exact process and what was exactly said or written, Stu's in the best place to answer your questions about how he communicated but whether he feels it's appropriate to publically divulge the minutiae is debateable. The Trust has explained our role and as the decision on unreserved seating in the Atyeo has been reversed I'm not sure what's to be gained other than pandering to a witch hunt. We want to maintain a professional and constructive relationship with the Club and I think our written statement clarifying our role is about as diplomatic as we can get without putting further strain on the relationship. You might just have to accept it and move on like the rest of us.

Let me know if you fancy that beer though - miles@bristolcityst.org.uk.

[Guest Orj]

Orj, in a weird kind of way I've enjoyed reading your arguments here even though I disagree almost entirely with them. The expression 'bit between the teeth' comes to mind. I'd be very happy to buy you a pint and have a good chat about it - I think I'd enjoy the debate . I hope you take me up on the offer - I'm happy to travel to your local. Not that I think I'd sway you, just that we could at least 'bury the hatchet'.

Thanks for the offer - I'll bear it in mind for the future but for now I'd prefer to have a healthy debate in a more public format to allow the discussion to be opened up and contributed to by others who feel inclined to do so.

But to answer your two main questions as best I can for now. Firstly, the Trust already owns shares in the Club. We've made it clear that the Trust as a democratic organisation made up of a wide cross-section of City fans wants to have a growing stake in the football club. It's the way in which our collective voice can be heard. If the aim was to become the outright owner (which I think is the bit you're mainly worried about - that's certainly the hook you used to get me involved) it would have said so on the tin. I can see you're enjoying the sport but I think most people will accept that the aim of the Trust is not to run Wine & Cheesley evenings but that by doing so it fulfills our aims in the 'community' and our aims in 'fundraising'. You're happy to trawl through anything to find written comments on other websites (rivals and otib for instance) that you think might back up your argument while ignoring the countless times it has been written that the Trust has no aim for outright ownership of the Club. Let me reassure you again - the Trust has no aim, no ambition, no intention of becoming the majority shareholder either in the short, medium or long term.

I don't dispute that there may very well be no intention from some individuals involved in the ST for the organisation to become the majority shareholder. That said, you, yourself, have implied that you think ownership by fans' groups is a positive thing and I am sure there are others involved in the ST who feel the same. That being the case, I hope you will understand that I will respectfully find your reassurance to be rather hollow for as long as there appear to be no mechanisms or consititutional statements that such an eventuality could never transpire. As the ST grows and its ambitions become more grand, there is nothing to stop the likes of those who believe in the Real Madrid model, or similar, from reneging on your reassurances and pressing ahead.

Given that you disagree almost entirely with my arguments (I'd be interested to know how and why you disagree with them as you've offered very little in the way of counter-argument to my concerns other than to state your disagreement), why does the ST's aim/ambition/intention on this issue appear to fall down on my side of the fence on this subject rather than yours? It seems to me to be rather a paradox to be told by one of the ST's thought-leaders that I am wrong only for it to transpire that the ST's intention is aligned with my beliefs. What are the reasons that the ST diluted your initial vision?

On the second issue of the exact process and what was exactly said or written, Stu's in the best place to answer your questions about how he communicated but whether he feels it's appropriate to publically divulge the minutiae is debateable. The Trust has explained our role and as the decision on unreserved seating in the Atyeo has been reversed I'm not sure what's to be gained other than pandering to a witch hunt. We want to maintain a professional and constructive relationship with the Club and I think our written statement clarifying our role is about as diplomatic as we can get without putting further strain on the relationship. You might just have to accept it and move on like the rest of us.

I'm not sure that demonising my efforts to understand what really happened in this fiasco by implying that I am on a witch hunt is an entirely appropriate direction in which to take the discussion. My reading of the events is that the club announced unreserved seating in several areas of the ground - a decision taken (they said) in consultation with the ST. There was a backlash against this decision from aggrieved STHs. The ST felt aggrieved at their stated involvement in making this decision and released a statement seeking to distance themselves from it and to shift responsibility for making the decision back onto the club.

It is at this stage of the proceedings that I have my concerns.

Since you have released a statement which attempts to shift the responsibility for this decision away from your organisation and onto the club, what harm would it do to your relationship with them if you were to clarify exactly what was written/said by your organisation when you made your representations? You'd only be clarifying a point that you have already made.

Let me know if you fancy that beer though - miles@bristolcityst.org.uk.

I've added you to my address book - who knows what the future may hold

[cheshire_red]

Since you have released a statement which attempts to shift the responsibility for this decision away from your organisation and onto the club, what harm would it do to your relationship with them if you were to clarify exactly what was written/said by your organisation when you made your representations? You'd only be clarifying a point that you have already made.

I've added you to my address book - who knows what the future may hold

I too have been waiting with great expectancy for this full and indisputable clarification.

Although the statement made by the ST on the net centre on Friday said an awful lot more than was previously admitted to by the ST Board on here, there is still the possibility of no smoke without fire.

However, the suggestion by a fair few that I published with the intention of being damned was mildly amusing...

[Milo]