Let's not ignore the fact that the club did consult both the 20% and the 80% about 18 months ago, how frequently do you believe the club should be doing this?Stan A. Einstein wrote:My point is this, 80% of County supporters are not members of the trust. Now you can take views on this. Firstly that the 20% is the best that can be achieved. Secondly that those supporters who are not paying in are to blame. Or thirdly the club need to engage with the 80%.Amberexile wrote:You are right, it is only your opinion.Stan A. Einstein wrote:It is only my opinion but for me that's the problem.Amberexile wrote:
Yes, it seems the trust membership part is the only one that led to changes in an effort to raise more money for the running of the club.
Perhaps they didn't get the answers they were looking for elsewhere?
If you have a fans owned football club, and if you want those fans to make a financial commitment, whilst some fans might b e willing to fork out their hard earned when every sentence regarding how the club is run has to begin with perhaps, a sizeable proportion won't.
Only my opinion again that sizeable proportion is 80%.
However, we are getting off the real point.
That point being that the club set themselves a target for revenue raised by the scheme, they surveyed supporters, both members and non-members on how to best achieve this. They took the results from the survey and have reached the target they set themselves. All in all I would say they met their objectives.
I'm not sure doing this again would produce a similar yield.
Now I am not suggesting my point is the only one, or the only valid one. What I am saying is that in my view the club fail to engage with the supporters and as a consequence miss out.
Seriously, have you noticed how often your response to anything I write is either to not answer by ignoring, or by saying it is irrelevant or not really the point.
I don't think that our club engage with the supporters adequately. Having three monthly meetings is a start in the right direction. But to be effective the club need to engage with the critics not those who think everything is fine.
And that's my view.
By the way, the changes implemented following that consultation saw the number of people contributing fall but the total contribution increase almost three-fold so maybe it is less about how many contribute and more about how much? Ultimately, the club set a target and achieved it.
3 monthly(ish) open meetings, board members available to the public before most home matches, issued (albeit redacted) monthly board meeting minutes, countless hours of work in the community, what else would need to be added for you to be satisfied that the club is adequately engaging with supporters?
What would the club need to do for you to contribute?
How did you reply to the survey?
I do agree that the club needs to engage with critics, it also needs to know when to ignore them. It seems to do both pretty well in my opinion.