No, though I don't think anyone requested a copy (I assume we could have had one if we'd wanted one).
No need for them. They don't bother me but they have no place in a football stadium. imo. The 60's 70's 80's were far far tougher anyway. Maybe we should bring back fighting in the stands then ?
Cheers. If it was someone at the FWG that leaked it, they've been foolish, especially if they were part of a group and the club get to know, as they've not only ****ed up any remote chance that group could be involved in talks with the club, but prevented the release of the full document so that others could make more complete comments, and maybe get a better revised version.
Agreed. It also could allow the club to say **** you we wont bother talking to fans as thats what they do. All if though. But its piss poor if someone has.
Aye, I guess we'll never get to know the full story. Maybe Burns got it from elsewhere? I hope he did, or it's probably the end of the FWG, which I know some won't see as a bad thing, but I think it had its uses. If it was from there, it's a unneeded hurdle when trust is talked of.
It's not the end of the FWG, there may be some changes to the make-up, but there is a desire from both sides to see it continue.
If that turns out to be true, it's good news in my opinion. Although that does sound like it was someone there that was the initial source of the leak that stopped the full publication, and therefore restricted the input from fans to the revisions. They perhaps thought they were doing the right thing, but I feel it would have been better to use the time to put better arguments together and get more detail to a wider audience.
True. It only takes one individual and a lack of thought. To spin a positive out of it, I think the continuation of the FWG would be an unexpected and magnanimous gesture from the club that bodes well for the future. I think that should be recognised.
I don't know exactly who told who what and based on TOM's comments I think there's more to it than I'm aware of, but I assume if TOM knows, so do the club.
Agreed, it could have been used as an excuse to pull the plug, but it's not being, so fair play to them.
I don't think a witch hunt moves us forward. It was possibly someone mentioning it to family or a friend, where it then got passed down to Burns. Although he must have had confidence in them to publish it. If the club are happy to press on without pursuing it, I reckon we should leave it to the conscience of those involved.
I disagree. The club can't realistically run all ideas by the entire fan base and running ideas by a mixed bag of supporters has to be better than running it by none. If they can't discuss things in confidence, they're unlikely to discuss them at all. If all had gone to plan, we'd have heard the proposal, pointed out what we thought was wrong with it and hopefully seen some amendments before it was made public. Instead, it was made public with all its flaws and now many are pissed off with it. I've obviously got no idea if they'd have acted on the concerns of the FWG alone, or if it needed a backlash from the wider fan base to get it amended, but what has happened has definitely done more harm than good.
I didn't expect you to agree and I can certainly understand some of the principles of your argument, but it was not the principles that were wrong, it was the way it was enacted. My understanding of how it was enacted is formed from what I have read on here and in various other places. I will detail the view I have formed and, if I have some facts wrong I am open to being corrected. 1. We have been told that a company called Strawberry have been developing the format for quite some time, some say 2 years, which is amazing. 2. You spent 3hrs being presented the result of their work, it would appear it was complete (apparently) and explicit in it's detail, in regards to membership ticket costs. 3. The elements missing were the benefits of 'Earning Your Stripes' and the costs of buying non-membership match day tickets. I think these were the key elements missing. 4. To my knowledge no supporter or group of supporters (just this Strawberry) has come forward to claim any input into these plans - if true, do you consider this to constitute reasonable consultation? 5. 2 years down the road the much frustrated FWG is finally summoned, the cherry-picked ones, and this is notable, as it is not as regular an act as once thought. 6. Those summoned are told that to attend the meeting they must sign an NDA - we do not have the timings of these actions. 7. All invitees attended (?), but we only have an old list which we know is wrong. 8. The meeting shared much information (3hrs !!), points of concern were raised, noted and the meeting closed. 9. Some, or all of the invitees subsequently gave, or intended to give feedback. 10. A few days later (?) Burnsy announced what he knew and shortly afterwards the club placed the thought through detail, 2years worth, on their website. 11. The club have now declared the scheme under revision and no one seems to know what is going on; although some offer probabilities and expected release dates that are now a moving feast. I haven't trawled back, as I'm on a poor device, so please correct any major error of memory. That sequence does not show a club running ideas by a mixed bunch of supporters, it shows a club that thought they had a final solution. I can only look at the time of year, when other clubs are busy selling their season tickets, and wonder why they did not consult before they started putting the mechanics of the scheme together. I suppose it wouldn't have helped that they don't do talking, do they, in confidence or otherwise. Where is the precedent for them taking heed of the input of the FWG members? I have read all of the reports, along with the comments of you and other FWG members and this prediction of yours seems to be hopeful in the extreme. People are pissed off because it has serious flaws, the thinking behind it totally denigrates a longstanding supporter body, it flies in the face of social etiquette in dismissing valued concessions and actually takes the piss by delivering it in this controlling fashion. If you think people are pissed off because it was made public, then I believe you are wrong. They are pissed off at yet another high-handed move against them by the club. What if it was not leaked? How long for the FWG members to respond and were they the right people to do so? I seem to recall TOM saying that the OSC rep had divulged nothing to his colleagues - I find that improbable, but at least it would be in the spirit of what you are saying. Madness, the NDA was an hindrance to ongoing and wider more constructive consultation. How long, having offered your feedback, would you all of waited for a club revision? What timetables were you given considering we are well into April? Who was conducting this strange exercise in how to be consultative? In my opinion the NDA (which is now defunct) was divisive, unnecessary and no more that a time waster at best, or a smart way to blame someone else for the club's tardiness in presenting these to the public. I don't think the NDA issue will go any further and I await the revisions with interest. Looking at what they thought they could impose as acceptable pricing and we have endured from them in the last 3yrs, I fail to see how some up front and genuine honesty can make matters with the club any worse. You never know, the furore it has created might well do some good.
