Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Viking Chat => Topic started by: Lincoln Rover on September 07, 2024, 10:08:13 pm
-
Good evening. Well after that performance & result the small matter of a meeting took place today.
Here’s the brief take on it.
After it was mentioned that some people were struggling to contact Elite pro sports re items not in stock/ needing to send back etc, with there being no contact number. The club are taking this up with the shop & EPS. Thanks for drawing that to your reps attention.
The exact amount received from the Everton cup match has not yet been established. However the best guesstimate, EFL ( 10 %), after also deducting, VAT, stewarding, police turnstile ops etc, travel & hotels, it’s believed £80k will be heading the clubs way.The club wanted to remove the figures portrayed that £250k was heading to the clubs coffers, as alluded to by some.
The first set of applicants to join the shadow board,,were interviewed this morning with more to be spoken to in the very near future.
Rovers + The club has been challenged & looked into the various complaints received. Nearly all are different issues.These are not problems at the Donny end. The report that some of our equipment is out of date is completely untrue. I was sat near Liam today & there were no problems mentioned.The club has promised to continue to work with the EFL & suppliers.Other clubs are having similar problems. We will keep this one on our radar.
I hope this helps a little. Many thanks. Derek.
-
Good evening. Well after that performance & result the small matter of a meeting took place today.
Here’s the brief take on it.
After it was mentioned that some people were struggling to contact Elite pro sports re items not in stock/ needing to send back etc, with there being no contact number. The club are taking this up with the shop & EPS. Thanks for drawing that to your reps attention.
The exact amount received from the Everton cup match has not yet been established. However the best guesstimate, EFL ( 10 %), after also deducting, VAT, stewarding, police turnstile ops etc, travel & hotels, it’s believed £80k will be heading the clubs way.The club wanted to remove the figures portrayed that £250k was heading to the clubs coffers, as alluded to by some.
The first set of applicants to join the shadow board,,were interviewed this morning with more to be spoken to in the very near future.
Rovers + The club has been challenged & looked into the various complaints received. Nearly all are different issues.These are not problems at the Donny end. The report that some of our equipment is out of date is completely untrue. I was sat near Liam today & there were no problems mentioned.The club has promised to continue to work with the EFL & suppliers.Other clubs are having similar problems. We will keep this one on our radar.
I hope this helps a little. Many thanks. Derek.
Thanks, Derek. I appreciate you and Martin giving up your own time to keep us all informed.
-
So do I!
BobG
-
Me too
-
I’m curious to know why interviews are taking place and not elections?
-
Filo…fair point.I’ll give you that one.
-
This from the club site
https://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/news/2024/july/26/shadow-board-to-hold-2024-election/
-
Filo…fair point.I’ll give you that one.
Could you elaborate on that?
It seems very long winded when a straightforward election would suffice, why are candidates being eliminated by interview by the current board? It comes across to me a bit authoritarian
-
Elected by who and how?
I am fully in favour of the people being vetted in order to ensure they have the appropriate skills and experience to actually add value, that’s what happens in every political party.
-
I hope we are better at selecting good candidates than the political parties for gods sake.
-
Elected by who and how?
I am fully in favour of the people being vetted in order to ensure they have the appropriate skills and experience to actually add value, that’s what happens in every political party.
Is the supporters board a political party?
-
Filo…fair point.I’ll give you that one.
Could you elaborate on that?
It seems very long winded when a straightforward election would suffice, why are candidates being eliminated by interview by the current board? It comes across to me a bit authoritarian
Three points Lincoln.
1. It seems to be a reasonable expectation that the template for Shadow Boards will become either part of the main “Governance” legislation or be in the supporting "Statutory Regulations" and the election process would surely feature too. It would be innovative if any "election" process could include a refinement such as an interview before a successful candidate could stand for election or be subject to, after being successful in the ballot. If it did, it could so easily be construed an instrument for eliminating the purity of the choice of the electors, by disqualifying otherwise successful or potentially successful candidates. And that would surely negate the purity of democracy. The analogy with candidate interviews who stand in elections for political parties is not entirely valid. Parties interview candidates in advance of elections in order to ensure that they will suitably represent the Party's policies. If they are not chosen, they are free to put themselves up for election as individuals.
2. I don't doubt that the system providers, the suppliers of the software and the operating system, are directly responsible for the functioning of the website etc., and can therefore be blamed for things that go wrong, but the club are the customers and we the fans are the club's customers. Clearly the club believed they had bought a premium product, based on the experience of the top clubs that were using the systems from the providers in question already. But it has been disappointing in its operation and does not seem to contain important features. In this situation (with a product not really fit for purpose) it would be good to know that the club were exerting real pressure on the suppliers to bring things up to scratch, just as we are, as the ultimate customers.
3. Although I have been criticised on this forum for "moaning", I do not underestimate your efforts on our behalf and I also know how much Liam cares about providing the service we all want.
-
Elected by who and how?
I am fully in favour of the people being vetted in order to ensure they have the appropriate skills and experience to actually add value, that’s what happens in every political party.
Is the supporters board a political party?
I did not see your contribution before I posted mine Filo, but very succinctly put!
-
Elected by who and how?
I am fully in favour of the people being vetted in order to ensure they have the appropriate skills and experience to actually add value, that’s what happens in every political party.
Is the supporters board a political party?
Yes, that.
I think you understand the point I was making; that it’s a regularly used model that ensures some level of scrutiny.
How would it work as a free for all with no governance? Do we just hope that we get the right people? Although it does seem that some on here are happy to have anyone, regardless of skills, experience or capability to fulfil the role, for the sake of ‘purity of democracy’?
-
Elected by who and how?
I am fully in favour of the people being vetted in order to ensure they have the appropriate skills and experience to actually add value, that’s what happens in every political party.
Is the supporters board a political party?
I think you understand the point I was making; that it’s a regularly used model that ensures some level of scrutiny. It would hardly work as a free for all with no governance would it?
I think it appears undemocratic, when present board members are vetting prospective board members, it comes across as a bit Soviet style “ election” almost as if they want “yes men”
-
Only if you are that way inclined.
The alternate view is that they are making sure that we get people able to contribute and represent the wider fan base, whilst also being able to communicate that back to us.
As per my original point, would you want someone getting elected simply because they have a lot of mates and can run a Facebook campaign, but who only attends 5 games a year and has no relevant skills or experience?
The other risk is that we get someone with a background that could embarass the club. I expect some due diligence is part of the process.
-
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-06-18/reform-uk-leader-nigel-farage-questioned-about-vetting-of-party-candidates
-
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-06-18/reform-uk-leader-nigel-farage-questioned-about-vetting-of-party-candidates
Only if you are that way inclined.
The alternate view is that they are making sure that we get people able to contribute and represent the wider fan base, whilst also being able to communicate that back to us.
As per my original point, would you want someone getting elected simply because they have a lot of mates and can run a Facebook campaign, but who only attends 5 games a year and has no relevant skills or experience?
The other risk is that we get someone with a background that could embarass the club. I expect some due diligence is part of the process.
There is always merit in getting sensible people in positions of importance, but you would hope that this is achieved by the operation of pure democracy. As people are probably aware, some organisations expect election candidates to set out a summary of their reasons for standing. That seems to have the effect of electors voting for people whose ideas they agree with. It goes some way to getting a mix of those who are representative.
Vetting poses the question “Who is qualified to decide who is suitable?” It could be a bunch of people intent on sacking the Club’s Board or people who are best mates with Board. Ideally it would be people who are totally impartial. Then the question is “Who chooses them and how is it decided who is suitable for such a role?” If it is the current Shadow Board might they not be tempted to exclude anyone whose views do not align with theirs? The whole scheme is surely intended to achieve true representation and therefore reflect a range of opinion, not necessarily to replicate and entrench existing policy. The Shadow Board should always be sufficiently refreshed to avoid getting too cosy with any Board of Directors. These measures were introduced to ensure that there would be a means and a willingness to question decision-making and, if necessary, directly oppose owners who place their own interests above the fans.
-
I am all in favour of the vetting process and have full faith in the present board to oversee the process as as far as I am aware they are not in the game for their own agenda and have served the club well and us the supporters in their capacity from the boards inception whoever has been associated with it in the past.
SM, and Derek have been excellent communicators and we are subsequently well informed of matters we should be as supporters, whether other clubs are as well served I don't know, but in some cases I would doubt it.
As for running open elections I am one vote against it, as there would never be a massive number to vote and it would be open to such as the Netto club dominating the vote with very few people and overwhelming the numbers on the shadow board.
That would probably result in the club not disclosing as much information to the wider fan base for instance if you look at the minutes of past meetings of the shadow board it is in those minutes that the club will make available the full accounts to certain members of the board as forwarded to the tax people, and we are the only club that do so, that is in the past minutes of the meeting with the club and board.
So I am in favour of the vetting process and am quite at ease for the members of the board to look for members who don't want to just follow their individual or organised ideology to the detriment of the wider supporters well being, which I feel the board members past and present have achieved together with gaining the trust of the main board and owners to work together for the good of the club.
As an attending long standing supporter I thank everyone who has or is a member of the shadow board past and present who give their time freely to make our game experience and our connection with the club better and the owners and main board for for accepting progress so well, long may it continue.
As for pure democracy I am quite at ease with the process of the members of the board having the vote as there are a number of them with a chairman with a casting vote so to me is democratic and the people voting have a full view of the people they are voting for not just a casual I know him so I will vote for him which an open vote would become and open to favourable selection to forward an alternative agenda.
-
Filo…fair point.I’ll give you that one.
Could you elaborate on that?
It seems very long winded when a straightforward election would suffice, why are candidates being eliminated by interview by the current board? It comes across to me a bit authoritarian
Any further comment Lincoln Rover?
-
I don’t doubt your faith in what is there now Selby.
We shall have to see what passes into law and I would hope that the machinery which is installed at DRFC conforms with what is prescribed.
-
You think it wouldn't?!
BobG
-
I doubt the reasons people want change to something that is working so well and would want to know what their agenda was.
And seeing as Derek is a past serving law enforcer I don't doubt the fact we would conform with any law requirements.
-
Filo.
My apologies, I misunderstood your first comment. I thought you were asking why we weren’t already at the election stage in terms of voting.
The SB election process has been developed from many chats with other SB’s & FAB’s from all over the country. I’d suggest the average time spent doing the roles, of James & I are presently taking up twenty plus hours a week each over the last couple of months or so.
If you just went to straight elections it would a popularity vote no doubt.The way it’s being conducted is fair in that persons who are banned or have no recent ticketing history are excluded. The quality of candidates is truly exceptional with the ability & desire to challenge our club confidently in the knowledge that they are good in their respective fields. Collectively we work very well as a team. The whole process is there for everyone to see on the clubs website & the SB twitter.
We are well ahead of other clubs & several now approach us for advice on how to make it work.
We learn from every meeting & adapt when we think it’s needed. We’re not perfect & I can’t thank my fellow volunteers enough for trying to make it better for our fans in many ways.
A few,( not you), just wish to criticise whatever we do. The vast majority appreciate the time that Martin & others have put in over the years.
I hope that helps. I don’t spend a lot of time on here, as work, family life & following Donny Rovers gets in the way. Keep smiling.
DD
-
Filo.
My apologies, I misunderstood your first comment. I thought you were asking why we weren’t already at the election stage in terms of voting.
The SB election process has been developed from many chats with other SB’s & FAB’s from all over the country. I’d suggest the average time spent doing the roles, of James & I are presently taking up twenty plus hours a week each over the last couple of months or so.
If you just went to straight elections it would a popularity vote no doubt.The way it’s being conducted is fair in that persons who are banned or have no recent ticketing history are excluded. The quality of candidates is truly exceptional with the ability & desire to challenge our club confidently in the knowledge that they are good in their respective fields. Collectively we work very well as a team. The whole process is there for everyone to see on the clubs website & the SB twitter.
We are well ahead of other clubs & several now approach us for advice on how to make it work.
We learn from every meeting & adapt when we think it’s needed. We’re not perfect & I can’t thank my fellow volunteers enough for trying to make it better for our fans in many ways.
A few,( not you), just wish to criticise whatever we do. The vast majority appreciate the time that Martin & others have put in over the years.
I hope that helps. I don’t spend a lot of time on here, as work, family life & following Donny Rovers gets in the way. Keep smiling.
DD
Thanks for the reply, I did ask again because you had already been active on here this morning.
The banned or no recent ticket history data will already be held by the club without having a candidate submitting a CV and having to go through an interview process, seems all a bit gestapo to me
-
Please look at the election process. Happy for you to PM me IF you wish with how we can make it better.
-
I doubt the reasons people want change to something that is working so well and would want to know what their agenda was.
And seeing as Derek is a past serving law enforcer I don't doubt the fact we would conform with any law requirements.
LR: I have no doubt at all about your commitment and all I am trying to establish is the importance of being truly representative. One of your points about excluding people with no recent ticketing history means that those of us who are exiled are disqualified, yet the Government publication on the matter specifically mentions the representation of overseas fans. I do not doubt that people in my position, a UK "exile", would also feel that they are encompassed by the measures and indeed most of us will be Rovers+ subscribers.
I hope no one minds if I quote what the relevant section of the Government report on the subject (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future/fan-led-review-of-football-governance-securing-the-games-future#chap2) states:
"Having considered various models and approaches, it is recommended that the mandated Shadow Board should:
- operate according to written terms of reference registered with IREF, which should be based on a standard IREF template (which may be varied to allow flexibility according to local circumstances if so requested by supporters and the club)
- consist of 5 - 12 members appointed according to a democratic process
- have a Chair appointed from among its members on a seasonal basis
- have reserved seats for representatives from key supporter groups including: representatives of the body holding the Golden Share, equality, diversity and inclusion representatives, youth supporters and international supporters (if relevant)
- members should be subject to retirement by rotation, ensuring both that there is a regular turnover of members but also that at any one time there will be a number of experienced members on the Shadow Board
- hold at least quarterly meetings with club executives, with guaranteed attendance from the club CEO or equivalent twice per year."
Sorting this out at club level based on the above will not be straightforward and perhaps how this will all be achieved in practice will be clarified when it is all rolled out.
The whole thrust of these measures is surely to ensure there is representation of the entire fan base and not simply those who are members of the team's supporters’ club and are able to attend matches regularly which seems to be the nucleus around which those who currently serve on the Board is drawn.
-
FSR.
As you quite rightly say, it’s guidance & recommendations. We do take soundings from abroad I can assure you. We’ve also implemented the youth panel. More than happy for you to
It’s never perfect but thanks for sharing. It’s an ever evolving subject & one we try our best on.
-
Does anyone know somebody wanting to go on the board with £50 million to splurge on us?
-
The propensity of this forum to find something meaningless to whinge about is a thing to behold
-
The propensity of this forum to find something meaningless to whinge about is a thing to behold
“Meaningless” is absurd description to place on a subject like this. It is about providing a representative voice for football fans. As well as condemning those of us care about the future stewardship of football like Lincoln Rover and all the other hard-working supporters reps, it took years of campaigning to finally get the Government to introduce these measures.
We only have to look back 20 odd years to recognise how fragile Rovers were as a club then and we were totally at the mercy of a man who not only put his own interests above those of DRFC but was later convicted of arson and sent to prison. Only recently Scunthorpe were in similar straits. With Shadow Boards that sort of situation could probably never develop. Is that not understood?
It is absolutely vital to get this right and to be sure that the system is not abused by unscrupulous owners who might want to put their friends on to Shadow Boards. Fortunately, with our current Chairman and owner, there is no risk of that, but none of us know what lies ahead. I’m a year older that TB, so perhaps there is less risk to me in my lifetime, but most of you will eventually be facing the phase of ownership without Terry and so this should be important to you and not “meaningless”.
There is no question in my mind that what we have at the club is soundly based, but I anxious to ensure that the Shadow Board is truly democratically elected. As I say, I don’t doubt the commitment of those who give up their time to safeguard our interests and that they honestly feel that what we’ve got would be difficult to better. However until the democratic process fully conforms with what the Government seem to have in mind, no one can be absolutely sure that their model will not be more representative than what we have now.
Do you not want to be represented? Do you feel that your interests will be automatically represented, whatever process is used to constitute a Shadow Board? That is what I believe people should be thinking about.
I lot of debate on this forum may appear to be meaningless when someone is not interested in the subject and probably hasn’t even taken the trouble to read what it’s about and no one is forced to take part, but I think most contributors are polite enough to allow others the freedom to share opinions on subjects that interest them.
-
Meaningless as in you are bitching about the process of joining, talk about small issues. Definitely not about the concept thank you.
-
Meaningless as in you are bitching about the process of joining, talk about small issues. Definitely not about the concept thank you.
I am afraid that I cannot follow your rationale.
-
Probably the same reason why you interview for a manager and not hold an election for one.
-
There are some very interesting comments on this thread, but I would suggest that most of the comments are made because the history, objectives and processes have never been made particular clear. But there are reasons for that, the main one being that implementation has been fragmented due to the delay in appointing an independent regulator (although work does occur in the background), and the EPL trying to hijack the implementation by creating their own version of Shadow Boards under the name of Fan Advisory Boards, or FAB's, and at the same time ring fencing the process and nullifying a lot of the intention.
To make matters worse the EFL are following in similar footsteps despite bringing in new regulations in the summer that clubs must comply with. All clubs must submit a Fan Engagement Programme, or an FEP, which outlines what each individual club has outlined as the key steps for it to follow over the next season. They also go with FAB designation, which is a distinct variation from what we considered when we produced the original document that 'birthed' the Fan Led Review, and also what was documented in the FLR itself. There are a number of Supporter Trusts out there who are constantly reminding these bodies of what was originally agreed to and are opposed to the watering down of the engagement process as we see it. The VSC of course is one of those trusts that are pushing back on direction of travel and wish to see a return to what was originally planned when the FLR was gathering its evidence. In my experience, those trusts that have been through the mill, and are run by people who understand the arguments, are also the trusts that see these changes by the EFL and EPL as the undermining of all that work that they've put in over the years. Those that are new to this accept it because they see it as progress when usually its a diversion.
But that's all about the national picture. The direction of travel is still a good one, just not as transforming or as revolutionary as we had hoped when we set out with these objectives all those years ago. And therein lies another problem, all campaigns that we've ever been involved with have taken many, many years to come to fruition. Sometimes fate smiles, and sometimes it doesn't, a case in point being the top 6 clubs trying to break away and join a European Super League. Our campaign for an Independent Regulator had been underway for many a year, and whilst it had wide spread approval it hadn't got the traction it really needed, that was until the ill fated ESL reared its head! That's when government became really interested.
Its a pity, but I've yet to see anything that convinces me that all that work has had a return that meets what our expectations were. Yes, there is a lot of noise made by individuals who think they know the subject well, unfortunately a lack of knowledge of the subject matter, its history and objectives, means the noise doesn't have merit.
-
That’s certainly comes from knowledge and experience, cheers.
-
The subject of democracy is hugely important and extends from Allotment Societies to national elections and organising processes is very challenging so many thanks for your perspective SM. May I say that admire the way in which the VSC have organised themselves into an effective representative voice at DRFC.
I have carefully read your account of where matters stand at the moment and note your words "Yes, there is a lot of noise made by individuals who think they know the subject well, unfortunately a lack of knowledge of the subject matter, its history and objectives, means the noise doesn't have merit." May I say that I do not have your inside knowledge, but I hope my "noise" has some merit because eventually a practical system will have to be put in place which the ordinary fan will have to understand and play his or her part. Democracy is key and I like to think that I know something about that.
It is evident that the current way of running all supporter bodies will have to undergo modification to conform with the model envisaged by the Fan-led Review. But that model is a political ideal and tailoring it to a practical method of democratic elections to meet the specified criteria looks very difficult. Expecting Supporters Organisations to administer it, seems a formidable undertaking. Do we know who will pay for it? I assume that it will be the clubs that will have to, but it would be wrong in principle for them to administer elections themselves.
It is very obvious why full democracy is important, because if a Shadow Board is not fully elected as required, unscrupulous owners could install people of their own choosing on to it.
The Government guidance as it stands, which I quoted in part, does not obviously lend itself to easy implementation. It's all very well saying that this and that group need to be represented, but how do you achieve that in practice? It seems utterly infeasible to have separate elections with separate electors drawn from (and I quote) "the body holding the Golden Share, equality, diversity and inclusion representatives, youth supporters and international supporters". That is 4 specific groups or "cohorts" (which is now the fashionable term) plus regular fans, some of whom can attend matches regularly (5), but others who support from afar, yet are not "international" (6). Six groups! (If “equality. diversity and inclusion” are 3 categories it would be eight!!)
So, ruling out multiple elections, you would hold just one and people standing would need to say which of the six (or eight) groups they fell into. Then the equivalent of "Returning Officers" would identify which individuals from each of the specified categories got the highest number of votes.
That is a heck of a task. When it comes to deciding who the electorate will be, theoretically it would be all the fans, but how can their bona fides be verified? If you had to join or register with the supporters’ club that would provide a platform from which to proceed. It would also go some way to ensure that the electors were real people and had just one vote. Doing it by post would cost a fortune, so an online process would presumably be the way.
I hope I will be forgiven for what I am sure people will hope is my final contribution and that it will be recognised that this is not a “meaningless” discussion. Whatever people think of my views, perhaps it will provoke some thought on the subject where everybody's opinion can count.
And I wish SM and all the others working on this good luck and look forward to hearing more in due course as structures take shape.
-
I very much doubt SM had any posters on here in mind when he wrote the last paragraph.
The final paragraph does suggest he had unwarranted high hopes for the fan led review though that came from a lack of understanding of what the politicians, football authorities and administrators were wanting to achieve from the elongated process of "consultation "
Yes, pretty much that.
I know, as I was one of the original participants that penned the document that preceded the FLR, that our ambition was set fairly high when it came to supporter involvement. At the time that the FLR was being put forward and being framed by our expectations we discussed at length, and sought many an opinion, on what our ideal would be. That ranged from adopting the German model of 50+1% of supporter ownership to mandating a minimum of 2 supporters on each board. To that end we interviewed supporters who were already sitting on their clubs board. But, because of the ownership models in use in the English game, we had to rule out both those options. Which is how the Shadow Board idea was born.
And, as I detailed above, I'm disappointed with how the authorities have been able to dilute what we had originally envisioned and subsequently what's being adopted prior to an Independent Regulator being appointed. It could well be that when he is appointed (and yes we already know who that will be) he may rule that a lot of what we're currently seeing, especially in the EPL, will be insufficient and that he will mandate a much higher level of supporter involvement in the ownership of clubs at all levels.
And as to the point that FR has made about supporters organisations having to change to accommodate the electoral process then I would disagree. The Supporters Trust movement in England and Wales has always been well regulated and well organised, originally through the auspices of Supporters Direct, but increasingly through membership of the FSA. The structure is already there from our standpoint, what's lacking is the regulation that will drive effective supporter vigilance of our football clubs. I could name several trusts who are not on speaking terms with their owners because the owners don't wish to be challenged. In this day and age I find that remarkable and so short sighted.
And I must add that I'm talking about the national picture here. There are a number of trusts that have shared their personal picture and are willing to encourage a change in the interpretation of the FLR and its recommendations. I'm sure it will happen at some point, but as I've pointed out, change in football takes a lot of effort and time.
-
All this is very illuminating SM and I’m impressed with the effort that has gone into it. Getting so many people united and cooperating to reach a common solution is a formidable endeavour.
The objective is such an honourable and necessary one and we must hope that no one loses sight of it.
I suppose we might hope that even the prospect of firmer regulation could discourage potential undesirable owners. Do you think there is any evidence of such a trend?
I hope you’ll update us on significant progress from time to time.
-
I'm still puzzled, possibly by ignorance of course, how any Shadow Board can ensure the survival of ant football club when the person or persons owning the shares or owning it outright have decided that football is not part of their future agenda.
BobG
-
What is the main objective of the Shadow board and what influence will it have within the club .
-
I'm still puzzled, possibly by ignorance of course, how any Shadow Board can ensure the survival of ant football club when the person or persons owning the shares or owning it outright have decided that football is not part of their future agenda.
BobG
I think that the “Golden Share” could be the most significant feature of the scheme and there’s quite a lot about that online Bob.
(You will have probably noted today’s news about the European football authorities talking about banning our clubs from European Competition, classifying the proposed regulation of the game as “Government interference”!)
-
I'm still puzzled, possibly by ignorance of course, how any Shadow Board can ensure the survival of ant football club when the person or persons owning the shares or owning it outright have decided that football is not part of their future agenda.
BobG
I think that the “Golden Share” could be the most significant feature of the scheme and there’s quite a lot about that online Bob.
(You will have probably noted today’s news about the European football authorities talking about banning our clubs from European Competition, classifying the proposed regulation of the game as “Government interference”!)
Big business has taking over football and they don’t want to be held responsible by outside government interference who could stop them gambling on games or even allowing teams to move out of their domestic leagues into a European League or Asian League like Golf !
-
On that note, I think there will be some fall out from the Man City case on football governance, whenever that comes to a verdict. There could be some huge implications for the domestic authorities as well as UEFA/FIFA.
-
I'm still puzzled, possibly by ignorance of course, how any Shadow Board can ensure the survival of ant football club when the person or persons owning the shares or owning it outright have decided that football is not part of their future agenda.
BobG
The obvious truth is they can't. When it comes to survival of a football club when the chips are down the only group that has any chance at all is the Supporters Trust. The trust is the only legal entity that has the ability to keep a club from folding or being subject to hostile take overs. We hold the ACV on the stadium and surrounding area and the plan is that the 'Golden Share' will be held by supporters trusts when the IR finally gets up and running.
Its obvious, but overlooked frequently, that a supporters trust has to be independent and led by those who can work with the club but at the same time feel strong enough to stand against them when the requirement is there. The VSC was the biggest supporter of John Ryan when he was struggling to put the club back on its feet. Andy Liney worked tirelessly to raise money to invest in the club, over £100k of supporters money was handed over at that time, and of course Andy helped deliver the Keepmoat stadium. We still have that investment of course, but its miniscule numbers compared to the investment made by the Watson and Bramall families.
-
I'm still puzzled, possibly by ignorance of course, how any Shadow Board can ensure the survival of ant football club when the person or persons owning the shares or owning it outright have decided that football is not part of their future agenda.
BobG
I think that the “Golden Share” could be the most significant feature of the scheme and there’s quite a lot about that online Bob.
(You will have probably noted today’s news about the European football authorities talking about banning our clubs from European Competition, classifying the proposed regulation of the game as “Government interference”!)
The latest news of course is the dirty tricks department of the EPL at work. There is no truth in any of that. When the FLR was being proposed UEFA were consulted at every level and they had no issues with it. Nothings changed in that regard. But I would expect the scare stories to continue.
-
Thanks SM
-
Could you explain, please, how you know what Sir Keir is going to do. I've not seen anything, anywhere, reported on this.
Cheers Smyth
BobG
-
It would be quite an irony if the new goverment and/or UEFA/FIFA were to oppose a government regulator but yet be 'influenced' by the Saudi's if you get my drift. We'll see who can be bought.
Some football analysts are already fearing 'intervention' into the Man City case with threats about government contracts and other investments.
-
SM I have checked with Doncaster Council site and the AVC concerning the Stadium has to be renewed periodically and it seems the original AVC lodged with the council elapsed a couple of years ago and is in need of being renewed and submitted as there is no current Asset of Community Value covering the stadium area.
I had business with planning on line so after reading the thread out of interest mainly as I was unaware of it being applied and could in future have an interest to know its ins and outs checked on line and was surprised it had lapsed some time ago.
I hope it helps and can be dealt with to the clubs advantage, as it is something that needs covering quickly as it probably is just an oversight by someone who should have been aware it was up for renewal.
-
I'm still puzzled, possibly by ignorance of course, how any Shadow Board can ensure the survival of ant football club when the person or persons owning the shares or owning it outright have decided that football is not part of their future agenda.
BobG
I think that the “Golden Share” could be the most significant feature of the scheme and there’s quite a lot about that online Bob.
(You will have probably noted today’s news about the European football authorities talking about banning our clubs from European Competition, classifying the proposed regulation of the game as “Government interference”!)
The latest news of course is the dirty tricks department of the EPL at work. There is no truth in any of that. When the FLR was being proposed UEFA were consulted at every level and they had no issues with it. Nothings changed in that regard. But I would expect the scare stories to continue.
Interesting debate with Simon Jordan about the need for a regulator.
-
Could you explain, please, how you know what Sir Keir is going to do. I've not seen anything, anywhere, reported on this.
Cheers Smyth
BobG
Well we'll see Bob. I've given my thoughts on the next process.
Starmer won't operate on the basis of full disclosure of his intentions and that will be to do nothing about financial governance in football. Nothing to impinge on the power of the EPL.
The bloke is easily bought though and his price isn't high.
We saw from the new intake of MPs when they voted to take away money from pensioners without any impact assessment ever taking place already that they're a spineless, clueless group of sheep.
You just see the maneuvering that will happen to greatly water down even legislation that was proposed in the previous parliament.
Others can make clear their own position on what powers they think legislation will have.
So it's entirely speculative then - based solely on your personal opinions. Ok.
BobG
-
Good evening. Well after that performance & result the small matter of a meeting took place today.
Here’s the brief take on it.
After it was mentioned that some people were struggling to contact Elite pro sports re items not in stock/ needing to send back etc, with there being no contact number. The club are taking this up with the shop & EPS. Thanks for drawing that to your reps attention.
The exact amount received from the Everton cup match has not yet been established. However the best guesstimate, EFL ( 10 %), after also deducting, VAT, stewarding, police turnstile ops etc, travel & hotels, it’s believed £80k will be heading the clubs way.The club wanted to remove the figures portrayed that £250k was heading to the clubs coffers, as alluded to by some.
The first set of applicants to join the shadow board,,were interviewed this morning with more to be spoken to in the very near future.
Rovers + The club has been challenged & looked into the various complaints received. Nearly all are different issues.These are not problems at the Donny end. The report that some of our equipment is out of date is completely untrue. I was sat near Liam today & there were no problems mentioned.The club has promised to continue to work with the EFL & suppliers.Other clubs are having similar problems. We will keep this one on our radar.
I hope this helps a little. Many thanks. Derek.
Olé
https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=292092.msg1338992#msg1338992
-
I'm still puzzled, possibly by ignorance of course, how any Shadow Board can ensure the survival of ant football club when the person or persons owning the shares or owning it outright have decided that football is not part of their future agenda.
BobG
I think that the “Golden Share” could be the most significant feature of the scheme and there’s quite a lot about that online Bob.
(You will have probably noted today’s news about the European football authorities talking about banning our clubs from European Competition, classifying the proposed regulation of the game as “Government interference”!)
The latest news of course is the dirty tricks department of the EPL at work. There is no truth in any of that. When the FLR was being proposed UEFA were consulted at every level and they had no issues with it. Nothings changed in that regard. But I would expect the scare stories to continue.
Interesting debate with Simon Jordan about the need for a regulator.
Apologies, forgot to post the link.
https://youtu.be/Swi0x76OwfU?si=CQKDXIMCeBcsDZRp
-
SM I have checked with Doncaster Council site and the AVC concerning the Stadium has to be renewed periodically and it seems the original AVC lodged with the council elapsed a couple of years ago and is in need of being renewed and submitted as there is no current Asset of Community Value covering the stadium area.
I had business with planning on line so after reading the thread out of interest mainly as I was unaware of it being applied and could in future have an interest to know its ins and outs checked on line and was surprised it had lapsed some time ago.
I hope it helps and can be dealt with to the clubs advantage, as it is something that needs covering quickly as it probably is just an oversight by someone who should have been aware it was up for renewal.
We're well aware of the current position. The renewal document has been lodged, but thanks for that and you can inform your friend of the current position too.
-
Could you explain, please, how you know what Sir Keir is going to do. I've not seen anything, anywhere, reported on this.
Cheers Smyth
BobG
Well we'll see Bob. I've given my thoughts on the next process.
Starmer won't operate on the basis of full disclosure of his intentions and that will be to do nothing about financial governance in football. Nothing to impinge on the power of the EPL.
The bloke is easily bought though and his price isn't high.
We saw from the new intake of MPs when they voted to take away money from pensioners without any impact assessment ever taking place already that they're a spineless, clueless group of sheep.
You just see the maneuvering that will happen to greatly water down even legislation that was proposed in the previous parliament.
Others can make clear their own position on what powers they think legislation will have.
I must confess that I was sat next to Keir Starmer at a recent PFA dinner and throughout the evening he was always in total support of the IR and supported fully the work we had done in that area. So, I can't accept your take on the situation.
-
Could you explain, please, how you know what Sir Keir is going to do. I've not seen anything, anywhere, reported on this.
Cheers Smyth
BobG
Well we'll see Bob. I've given my thoughts on the next process.
Starmer won't operate on the basis of full disclosure of his intentions and that will be to do nothing about financial governance in football. Nothing to impinge on the power of the EPL.
The bloke is easily bought though and his price isn't high.
We saw from the new intake of MPs when they voted to take away money from pensioners without any impact assessment ever taking place already that they're a spineless, clueless group of sheep.
You just see the maneuvering that will happen to greatly water down even legislation that was proposed in the previous parliament.
Others can make clear their own position on what powers they think legislation will have.
I must confess that I was sat next to Keir Starmer at a recent PFA dinner and throughout the evening he was always in total support of the IR and supported fully the work we had done in that area. So, I can't accept your take on the situation.
Am I missing a reasoned argument somewhere in your comments Smyth?