One supporters group

[bro600]

The other day Michelotti quite rightly suggested that the respective supporters groups should pull their fingers out and start talking and get their heads together.
Believe me i've suggested it at more than one meeting and even been into detail with a few of the supporters groups committee members.
The way i saw it is we have quite a few groups of supporters who could bring something different to the one group if they so wish.
There is the Supporters Trust that needs no explanation really.
An ST?
Working with national and regional supporters groups to fight for supporters rights, while trying to keep the home front in tact by adding it's two'penneth now and again.
A supporters Club.
Organizing coaches, a membership scheme that means you get representation if you have a problem while on your travels with HTAFC + Social events run throughout the season.
There's also a football team = The netterriers.
A disabled supporters section.
A very good humored cartoonist.
The Patrons.
And god knows how many websites
But from my experience it is a very difficult thing to achieve bringing any part of this together.
Even though every part has something unique to offer for some reason the main players just don't seem happy for it to happen.
Meeting after meeting after meeting to decide this that and t'uther means that before you know it you're 2 years down the line of where you 1st started.
FFA was born out of frustration with KD and his attempts to run the club!
personally, i,ve been equally frustrated by attempts to re-ignite the supporters groups cause.
Decreasing numbers in membership of the supporters club and the same decreasing numbers of Supporters trust committee members and you'd think they'd be keen to re-invent themselves wouldn't you?
Bob Pepper started a thread a thread "900 and counting" on here the other day! At least 600 of them will be Town supporters, if ever there was an opportunity to canvas and consult with supporters this messageboard would be the place.
Even on the old DATM the supporters trust had it's own MB. It went defunct, hardly any supporter news or consultation or chance for supporters to add their two'penneth.
It is time for change, football is changing and it's full of 'ambitious chairmen' who need to be scrutinized. Football is no longer just about what happens on the football field, whole seasons are wasted by poor chairmen and their cronies.
It won't be long before a football club goes out of existence because of the same. Our £2 million debt at the end of this season takes us closer to that destiny.
A good, strong supporters group can help any fair and honest chairman to gain the respect of the supporters .
A good strong supporters group can also put the brakes on any chairman who might not have the best interests of the football clubs future in his mind.
But you can't make a real difference by not being flexible and having to have meeting after meting to decide when the next meetings going to be is not workable enough.
The futures here.
It's e-mail. It's chat-rooms. It's net-meetings. It's websites and it's free consultation with the people that matter.
THE SUPPORTERS...

[Polish Hippy]

bro600 said:

Bob Pepper started a thread a thread "900 and counting" on here the other day! At least 600 of them will be Town supporters,

Some people have multiple accounts.

But I do know where're you're coming from Rob. Itis high time we all got together as one group, two at the most if the club insist on having it's own. IMO the B&WF and the Patrons should become one organisation.

The other independent bodies should become one as well. There's no reason why we can't put on meetings similar to the Patrons with the co-operation of the club for an independent group. Just depends if the will is there to do things differently or not.

[alwaystown]

If the supporters club asked you to help out then it wouldn't be a hostile takeover would it? That would then leave the supporters trust to join the party and as a lifetime member of the supporters trust I would love that to happen!

[terrier19]

if a merger were to happen would a lifetime member/ a normal member of the trust then have to pay membership to join the supporters club to travel on the coaches?

[LePoivre]

Can I remind everybody that moves are indeed afoot, as reported on the Trust mb on this site.
Firstly, there will be a Supporters Club meeting tomorrow (Dec 13) at 7:30pm at The Albert for members to discuss the future of the SC, including a possible amalgamation with the Supporters Trust.
Then there will be a similar meeting of the Trust, also at 7:30pm, on Jan 9 in the Panasonic Suite. The third step will then be a jointly-attended meeting of the SC Committee on Jan 13.
IF there is then a decision for amalgamation, that would need to be ratified by two members' ballots but that would also be the time, in my view, for the FFA to be consulted on the role that they wish to take.

[LePoivre]

terrier19 said:

if a merger were to happen would a lifetime member/ a normal member of the trust then have to pay membership to join the supporters club to travel on the coaches?

One of the (many) points for discussion in any future steps - please see my other post above this one.

[michelotti]

What you need is to find someone independant you all trust and respect and appoint them to coordinate the respective groups.

[newbeginning]

Nowt`s Ever Bloody Easy.You`re not kidding

[n7t]

stan said:

The other independent bodies should become one as well.

Out of interest, why?

Some of the 'independant bodies' have their own agenda quite apart from what might be seen as a unifying cause or causes that could perhaps benefit from a more integrated approach that "one supporters club" could provide.

Perhaps an extreme example, but why specifically would my independant supporters group which currently has 6 members and specific aims and goals want to amalgamate with all the other riff raff out there?

[LePoivre]

I'd go along with that, Nigel - though perhaps taking exception to the reference to riff raff
Some of the independent groups cater for specific groups and benefit from a distinct identity.
In my book, we're effectively talking about the two, open-to-all, independent groups, i.e., the SC and the Trust.

[mids]

Is FFA not open to all Bob?

I would suggest that is more open than the other 2 groups combined!

[bro600]

N7T.
There is nothing stopping groups still having their 'own agenda' and identity but the one supporters group idea IMO should provide easier access to it to 'all supporters' without membership or payment being a necessity, which in some cases it is.
The one supporters group will never be able to represent or speak for 'all' Town supporters all of the time but should be available to 'all' supporters 'all' of the time.
It is a matter of respect for every group that they are given recognition in any supporters group (if it transpires) going forward.
The mention of your football team and Danny's abilities was because a new supporters group doesn't necessarily have to be entirely about the politics of the football club but mainly about getting back to the entertainment factor involved in supporting our team.

[n7t]

bro600 said:

N7T.
There is nothing stopping groups still having their 'own agenda' and identity but the one supporters group idea IMO should provide easier access to it to 'all supporters' without membership or payment being a necessity, which in some cases it is.

This is where I "don't get it". We're already all in one membership free/payment free supporters group, colloquially called "Town fans".

I really don't understand the benefit of formalising a 'one supporters group'.

..a new supporters group doesn't necessarily have to be entirely about the politics of the football club but mainly about getting back to the entertainment factor involved in supporting our team.

Quite - a very important point, and one that can easily be missed in amongst discussion of directorship/share ownership/stadium rental/playing budget etc, items which I'd suggest are of minimal interest to the vast majority of 'average' Town fans.



HOWEVER - having said that and having stated on previous occasions that I'm not really a 'member' type person because none of the various supporter clubs (in the traditional sense of the phrase) are really aimed at me and I don't feel a real need for a new 'club/group' that is aimed at me as I'm quite happy being an individual supporter and dealing directly with the club with any questions I might want answering (without fail ALL of which have been answered to my satisfaction in a timely fashion under the present regime) I do think there is a need for something.

And that something is the word that I don't believe has previously been mentioned, which when you read it might be a big surprise to you, as it was to me when it popped into my head.

What we should be talking about forming (in my opinion!) is a Huddersfield Town Supporters Union.

Union in the meaning of 'like a trade union'.

It would be massively helpful if there was an organisation that ordinary fans could subscribe to that aimed to represent supporter interest, provide backing the event of any greivances etc, in the way that a traditional union is able to represent an individuals issues greater than an individual, so a supporters union might be taken more seriously than 'a supporter' by the club.

[bro600]

The union idea sounds good and union was a word i wondered if we could use without the obvious comparisons.
But it seems to contradict your 1st point or at least agree with my opinion.
The thought of the one group idea was basically to unify our efforts in raising supporter group profile and possibly bolster interest in the same.
It's a well known fact that the S.T and S.C are struggling possibly through both apathy and a lack of activity in both groups.
So a 'union' could be a chance to have a good old clean-out, dust down and think tank and start to turn things around for the better.

[n7t]

I don't think I'm contradicting myself, I used union to have two meanings.

1) I don't understand or recognise the benefits of forming 'one supporters group' - but I do recognise the positives of creating a "union" between two of the groups whose members are agreeable to such a union (in the sense of 'joining together') in order to reinvigorate that new group beyond the current state of the two disparate groups, and irrelevant to any other supporters groups continued desire to remain independant.

2) Additionally, I see that these other supporters groups (formal and not so formal) might gain huge benefit if they had a "union" representative to communicate with the club where a collective focus might be more directed and where regular communication lines are already established with the club.

The union mentioned in point 2 might (and almost definitely would) be the same organisation as the 'union' mentioned in point 1.

Union 1 would probably have a formal membership policy, such as the two formative groups that are proposed to create the new group already do...although the opportunity might be taken to make this a bit more accessible perhaps?

Union 2 I'm not so sure. It would perhaps seem a bit selfish for people to raise loads of grievances to the union and expect them to take them on and go with them to the club from individuals not formally recognised as 'members'. But equally for the union to have power and be respected by the club it needs to ensure it represents ALL supporters in their particular time of need. So perhaps some kind of official associate and optional membership scheme could be introduced for those who want to be more actively involved?

[n7t]

BTW. Despite my convoluted sentences I think we're probably saying the same thing!

[michelotti]

Errrrr

At the risk of repeating myself..........

What you need is to find someone independant you all trust and respect and appoint them to coordinate the respective groups.


All that hard work when one sentence will do.......Sums it up really

[n7t]

That indeed maybe so, but its up to those groups to do that surely?

I aren't a member of either so it doesn't really concern me (unless some 'all seeing all representative union' is set up). Are you?

LeP seemed to set out a reasonable timetable for change.

If its taken 1 week, 6 months or 3 years to get to the transition point is largely irrelevant to non-members of the SC or ST...and people who ARE members who have watched the respective organisations flounder perhaps need to look at their selves before questioning any apparent lack of action?

[bro600]

Another good idea Mich.
But i don't think it'll happen.
As this thread and any thread on supporters groups in the past as proved some institutions are set in their ways. Maybe even wary of change.
Bob Peppers proposals are of the Supporters Trust making a decision on whether to amalgamate with the Supporters Club and then that organization inviting FFA for consultation on what they can offer to the then amalgamated group.
In other words...
The same of the same.
A debate i had in one of the meetings just about sums up the problems with the supporters groups.
The supporters club representative pointed out a few examples of what the S.C were about.
Insurance for every football match.
They've represented a few of their members in disputes arising from football matches and a few other things.
I pointed out that I and many others are unaware that these things even happened and they should be made public knowledge as they are the kind of things that attract membership.
I was told to become a member and then i'll find out.
I'd have to spend a hell of a lot of money on memberships if that applied throughout life wouldn't i?
The other thing Mich is when FFA held meetings and we've been to S.T meetings we all seem to say the same things and agree on 90% of things, probably because when it suited them half of the S.T were actively part of FFA, but we do agree on the financial future of the club.
The one man who seems to hold the others together is Bob Pepper but IMO he's got his fingers in too many of the organizations and seems content with his own position within the same.
Therefore he is IMO a stumbling block.
He could however be the man you speak of.

[mids]

"What you need is to find someone independant you all trust and respect and appoint them to coordinate the respective groups"

Bob Pepper does that already for most of the groups, and he does the 'job' admirably.

However, if he's been doing it for ages and still those groups haven't come together what's the chances of it happening in the near future?

Is Henry Kissinger still alive? Or Boutros Boutros Ghali?

[Polish Hippy]

Mids, i'm going to give you an official warning for your siggy strip. Too much cheese - even for a pizza ;D

Back on topic. in my opinion the bureaucracy side of the ST is run very well, probably the same goes for the SC but what is not done well is interaction with people who are not members and their PR. I think the crisis within the SC could well have forced an issue here. I think it would be wrong of us to allow two organisations to merge and for the same bungling to carry on.

I'm all in favour of the merger as long as it is a used to bring in change as well as a stronger representative organisation. I'd rather hand out leaflets on behalf of an organisation that has the support and the respect of the majority of Town fans rather than the way we started as FFA - viewed with suspicion and derided by many.

Promote what the organisation can do for the fans and keep the lofty ideas firmly tucked away in a dark corner for a while.

[LePoivre]

I hope to get back here tonight with another update after a short meeting to discuss the way forward for the proposed Fanzine - or Magazine or whatever you want to call it. (What about Town's VOIS - the Voice of Independent Supporters?)
That for me is another way of publishing information.
Not the same - or as effective - as leaflets, I'll grant you, and perhaps it will be time for a leaflet drop IF/WHEN we have a common group of independent supporters.
Maybe more on that tonight as well.

[n7t]

We already have a common group of supporters ~ "Town fans" so is it time for a leaflet drop!? (about what???).

Any feedback from last nights meeting at the Albert?

PS - How come I get picked up for labelling the collective supporters groups as 'riff raff' and yet you can say 'common'?

[LePoivre]

n7t said:

Any feedback from last nights meeting at the Albert?

I don't want to jump the gun before tonight's double-purpose meeting.

n7t said:

PS - How come I get picked up for labelling the collective supporters groups as 'riff raff' and yet you can say 'common'?

Because some are more common than others

[bro600]

Bob ! If the supporters trust was born out of crisis and involved members of the supporters club and patrons getting together at the time just when did you decide to cut the ties with The S.C and Patrons and why?
Why is it such an issue to get back to the roots of where you started from?
Surely it's not the £50,000 is it?

[LePoivre]

Who's making it an issue, Bro?
I'm certainly not!

[bro600]

You made a big issue of the supporters club being in debt and cited that as a problem last time we talked.
You also said that the supporters club was 'a club' run group and have said in the past that the supporters trust runs "outside of the football club".
Maybe this was the different agenda Carlton was referring to at the last meeting?

[LePoivre]

I'm not saying that there aren't any problems to be overcome but we haven't reached that point yet.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about the Supporters Club.
The Patrons is a Club organisation but both the SC and the Trust are independent groups.

[bro600]

You said it! not me mate.

[ksne]

bro600 said:

You said it! not me mate.

Anyone can take this anyway they want but me and mine( for our sins belong to all factions apart from the SC) and we are both asking ourselves why?.

If we come to a solution then this matter may change.