Club1872 tweet

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

I'm all for questioning these organisations - especially if their communication record is poor or, as their critics suggest, value for money in terms of projects or PR is worthy of debate.

 

However, I do think there's a way to go about it and some people (not necessarily Snags) are clearly less than constructive in their approach.

 

To be perfectly honest though I've seen faults on both sides of these kind of debates (and you can see this again over the last few days with respect to this).  I find this behaviour a complete turn off and I don't think my interest in Club1872 or fan representation has ever been lower as a result.

 

I still believe in the concept and I do think Club1872 usually try to do the right thing (rather than the inferred dishonesty from some) but the overall uncertainty created by their various information vacuums is hardly conductive to successful campaigns.

I think what depresses me most is seeing the same old faces still haunting whatever supporter organisation evolves. They've said it all a thousand times on social media, some have had a hand on the tiller at one time and all seem to have an agenda that basically starts and ends with themselves. Albeit much less than it was, there still seems to be an element of blazers about the current incarnation. Until that changes I'll maintain the deep scepticism I've had these last few years. 

[Gaffer 1,665]

14 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

People are putting their hard earned into the organisation and some of it's being spent on entertaining members. Is a 4 figure sum really an amount that we can shrug off? Maybe you think it's a small amount but to me, it's a big amount for a supporter organisation.

In which case, the time to 'complain' about it was when they proposed it, not when it's spent.  Am I still right in saying that the directors are unpaid?  Who would take up these positions with this level of scrutiny?  This isn't a small committee we're talking about here, it's a vehicle for funding projects and buying shares.  It seems reasonable to allocate 5% for the directors to do reasonable stuff.  We will not ever reach the heights we want if we focus on the weeds.

[Bluedell 5,627]

1 hour ago, Gaffer said:

In which case, the time to 'complain' about it was when they proposed it, not when it's spent.  Am I still right in saying that the directors are unpaid?  Who would take up these positions with this level of scrutiny?  This isn't a small committee we're talking about here, it's a vehicle for funding projects and buying shares.  It seems reasonable to allocate 5% for the directors to do reasonable stuff.  We will not ever reach the heights we want if we focus on the weeds.

From what they've said, it was part of the amalgamation vote, so something like that's not going to be focused on. It doesn't mean it can't be revisited now.

 

I've done my time on one of the predecessors of C1872 so I feel comfortable in giving a level of scrutiny in respect of a 4 figure sum. If it's that irrelevant, why did they issue a statement on it?

 

I don't have a problem with them allocating a % to admin costs and also carrying on the RST's (I think) initiative to give Erskine some tickets is also a worthy cause, but spending cash on hospitality isn't a good use of limited funds.

 

We'll never reach the heights we want if we waste cash on relatively frivolous areas.

[craig 5,199]

At the end of the day spending cash on hospitality is fine..... so long as it generates, or has good potential to generate, additional income.  How many more members are C1872 getting on the back of the hospitality that they purchase ?  Most of that hospitality is member draws, is it not ?  Or if you "opt-in" - does "opt-in" mean take up a monthly subscription ?

 

For example, if the hospitality costs, say, 1,000 per season but it generates 10 new members at 10 quid a month then the hospitality pays for itself - but you now have an additional 10 members paying monthly subscriptions, possibly in perpetuity.

 

However, if the new memberships are completely unrelated to the hospitality (seems to me C1872 have had far, far more new sign-ups as a result of the request for 1 million for the upcoming share offering than they have gotten from hospitality) then the hospitality is a sunk costs which offers little to no benefit.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

You can have a debate about whether the hospitality expenditure is value for money but the subtext of the twitter exchange was clearly to have a go at the integrity of board members. The ‘shock revelation’ about something members already knew about seems to confirm this was about mischief-making.

Edited February 17, 2018 by Oleg_Mcnoleg
Typos

[aweebluesoandso 290]

3 hours ago, Oleg_Mcnoleg said:

You can have a debate about whether the hospitality expenditure is value for money but the subtext of the twitter exchange was clearly to have a go at the integrity of board members. The ‘shock revelation’ about something members already knew about seems to confirm this was about mischief-making.

I agree Oleg, there's nothing wrong with members asking genuine questions about expenditure and if that continuous expenditure is still value for money.  Things change and it's always good practise to reevaluate it's value to the organisation. However in this case was the questions of the expenditure on the hospitality events done for financial prudence or purely a mud slinging exercise? 

 

Also are the people asking the questions or mud slinging, depending on your view, members of C1872?

Edited February 17, 2018 by aweebluesoandso

[Bluedell 5,627]

16 hours ago, craig said:

At the end of the day spending cash on hospitality is fine..... so long as it generates, or has good potential to generate, additional income.  How many more members are C1872 getting on the back of the hospitality that they purchase ?  Most of that hospitality is member draws, is it not ?  Or if you "opt-in" - does "opt-in" mean take up a monthly subscription ?

 

For example, if the hospitality costs, say, 1,000 per season but it generates 10 new members at 10 quid a month then the hospitality pays for itself - but you now have an additional 10 members paying monthly subscriptions, possibly in perpetuity.

 

However, if the new memberships are completely unrelated to the hospitality (seems to me C1872 have had far, far more new sign-ups as a result of the request for 1 million for the upcoming share offering than they have gotten from hospitality) then the hospitality is a sunk costs which offers little to no benefit.

It's just an opt-in for members. Nothing to do with new membership.

[Gaffer 1,665]

5 hours ago, Oleg_Mcnoleg said:

You can have a debate about whether the hospitality expenditure is value for money but the subtext of the twitter exchange was clearly to have a go at the integrity of board members. The ‘shock revelation’ about something members already knew about seems to confirm this was about mischief-making.

Completely agree with you!

 

if this is a real bear that's working in this manner it is shameful.  This was done to ensure maximum publicity for the insinuations and for any decent supporter it now reflects very badly on the accuser.  It's so disappointing that we have people like that associate director with our club.  We have too many other enemies to deal with without nonsense like this within.