FCG Meeting - 7th December

[wilko154]

I haven't finished reading this yet, but that Southgate question was pretty embarrassing. I'm glad the club answered it in that way.

[WallisFrizz]

I’m glad you clarified because you can almost feel the contempt come through in a few of those answers. Good to hear the meeting was more positive. In all fairness, I think Villa TV is excellent value for money and I have no problem with them charging for the content they provide.

The Gareth Southgate thing…I couldn’t care less whether they wish him happy birthday or not but it makes you wonder who the social media channels are for.   It’s like last weeks Grealish tweet, they know the fans won’t respond well to it but they do it anyway. So who’s benefit is it for? It’s a really petty little thing but sometimes I think there is a bit of a disconnect between club and fanbase.

Who do the answers come from? 

[Ingram85]

Can we get out of the fanatics deal asap and who is our next kit supplier? 

[wilko154]

Wish I had seen this thread last month... the clock in the Holte End Upper hasn't been working for about two years and it's doing my head in.

[OutByEaster?]

7 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

I’m glad you clarified because you can almost feel the contempt come through in a few of those answers. Good to hear the meeting was more positive. In all fairness, I think Villa TV is excellent value for money and I have no problem with them charging for the content they provide.

Me too - in terms of AVTV it's not the quality of the content that's the issue, more the confusions on what levels of subscription get access to different parts of it - again, that was something that was communicated a little more clearly at the meeting.

Quote

Who do the answers come from? 

From Paul Tyrell, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer and the various heads of department. The heads of our media, commercial and ticketing departments were all present last night.

 

 

 

[tomav84]

i think separate meetings are needed re: transport. whilst it's great that purslow is having these meetings, with respect, he's not the one queueing for hours post match. there needs to be fans present at those meetings with their own stories of getting away from the ground.

[a m ole]

48 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

I’m glad you clarified because you can almost feel the contempt come through in a few of those answers. Good to hear the meeting was more positive. In all fairness, I think Villa TV is excellent value for money and I have no problem with them charging for the content they provide.

The Gareth Southgate thing…I couldn’t care less whether they wish him happy birthday or not but it makes you wonder who the social media channels are for.   It’s like last weeks Grealish tweet, they know the fans won’t respond well to it but they do it anyway. So who’s benefit is it for? It’s a really petty little thing but sometimes I think there is a bit of a disconnect between club and fanbase.

Who do the answers come from? 

I assume the Southgate thing is because the club want to be seen to support the England manager and distance themselves from any perceived conflict between the two parties - helps with the perception of the club from media and players, especially young ones and agents who will want their clients at a club that has a good relationship with the national team.

As a fan I find it odd, and I thought the Grealish one was definitely a little tone hard-of-hearing, but I understand why from a PR perspective. Just though the answer seemed quite blunt and pointed but thanks OBE for the explanation of how these meetings are conducted.

[WallisFrizz]

3 minutes ago, a m ole said:

I assume the Southgate thing is because the club want to be seen to support the England manager and distance themselves from any perceived conflict between the two parties - helps with the perception of the club from media and players, especially young ones and agents who will want their clients at a club that has a good relationship with the national team.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

[Brumstopdogs]

Quote

Regarding Matchday ticket resale - The process does advertise that it can take 21 days but not in every case. The process is manual as it involves a  BACS transfer that has to be keyed in with correct bank details. On average it has taken 16 days

Thanks for the details @OutByEaster? 

Have to say the attached bit is a joke. Keying in some bank details to make a payment shouldn't take 16 days!

[jimmygreaves]

14 minutes ago, Brumstopdogs said:

Thanks for the details @OutByEaster? 

Have to say the attached bit is a joke. Keying in some bank details to make a payment shouldn't take 16 days!

Well maybe not a single case, but fair for couple of thousand refunds.

[WHY]

I’m no Southgate fan but I can’t actually believe this was a question, we have some sad, sad fans if wishing him Happy Birthday upset them!

[Brumstopdogs]

16 minutes ago, jimmygreaves said:

Well maybe not a single case, but fair for couple of thousand refunds.

I disagree on that one. I'm sure if it was taking payments rather than making them they'd find a way to do it a bit quicker.

[HanoiVillan]

Quote

Answer:

At the FCG meeting with Christian on 10^th December 2019, we were asked – in a wider question – if we had any plans to associate ourselves with Socios. At that time 2 years ago, we didn’t have any.

Every Season Ticket Holder was given the opportunity to claim a free Socios token when the partnership was launched in September. This would give STHs the same opportunity to interact with the club on that platform for no cost.

Socios provides our supporters with another, different, way of communicating an opinion on matters pertaining to the football club. Those subjects will tend to be substantially different to those in which we are in regular dialogue with FCG on. This new method of interaction via Socios is complementary to – and not detrimental to - any other form of dialogue the clubs has with supporters. This includes the established relationship with FCG.

Socios is a platform which has partnerships with football clubs across Europe including Barcelona, Juventus, AC Milan, PSG, Everton, Arsenal, Manchester City and AS Roma. We constantly review our arrangements with all partners.

No surprise I guess that I don't find this satisfactory, but I don't.

To break it down:

Quote

At the FCG meeting with Christian on 10^th December 2019, we were asked – in a wider question – if we had any plans to associate ourselves with Socios. At that time 2 years ago, we didn’t have any.

What changed? Were concerns taken into account?

Quote

Socios provides our supporters with another, different, way of communicating an opinion on matters pertaining to the football club. Those subjects will tend to be substantially different to those in which we are in regular dialogue with FCG on. This new method of interaction via Socios is complementary to – and not detrimental to - any other form of dialogue the clubs has with supporters. This includes the established relationship with FCG.

Socios is a platform which has partnerships with football clubs across Europe including Barcelona, Juventus, AC Milan, PSG, Everton, Arsenal, Manchester City and AS Roma. We constantly review our arrangements with all partners.

This section answers the question about what decisions can be taken by Socios token holders, compared to the FCG, albeit that we have to take on trust the 'complementary to - and not detrimental to - any other form of dialogue' formulation.

But what this section absolutely does not do is address the concerns that Socios offer an unlicensed, unregulated gambling service that provides no warnings or safeguards or even any age limit to ownership. The final line appears to be saying 'well everyone else does it so why shouldn't we' but this isn't actually an answer to the question. The simple reality is that these clubs are encouraging their supporters to do something potentially irresponsible and dangerous, and so are we. 'We constantly review our arrangements with all partners' is just a brush off.

[maxjackle]

No answer on the website bit? Just how user unfriendly it is navigating from section to section and the nonsense of creating email addresses for kids joining members clubs?

Surely someone understands needing email addresses for primary school age kids isn't on?

[MrBlack]

45 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

No surprise I guess that I don't find this satisfactory, but I don't.

To break it down:

What changed? Were concerns taken into account?

This section answers the question about what decisions can be taken by Socios token holders, compared to the FCG, albeit that we have to take on trust the 'complementary to - and not detrimental to - any other form of dialogue' formulation.

But what this section absolutely does not do is address the concerns that Socios offer an unlicensed, unregulated gambling service that provides no warnings or safeguards or even any age limit to ownership. The final line appears to be saying 'well everyone else does it so why shouldn't we' but this isn't actually an answer to the question. The simple reality is that these clubs are encouraging their supporters to do something potentially irresponsible and dangerous, and so are we. 'We constantly review our arrangements with all partners' is just a brush off.

Yeah, i agree they completely ignored a lot of the question with their response.

Disappointing. 

The kit supply issue was also a complete cop out, fingers in ears type response.

Glad to hear the meeting went better than the wording of those responses, as honestly they are shocking. The FCG may well be frustrated and venting several months worth of frustration due to the lack of communication in-between, but the club should really be above some of those responses. Except for their Southgate response, which I think was fairly warranted.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I always come away from reading these notes thinking the club are trolling us. 

For all the good they are doing on the pitch, off the pitch they come across as proper scumbags. 

[fightoffyour]

9 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I always come away from reading these notes thinking the club are trolling us. 

For all the good they are doing on the pitch, off the pitch they come across as proper scumbags. 

Yeah the response to showing the scores on Villa TV highlights is mental. “The score is available everywhere and no one can avoid it”, then why are people asking you to not do it. There’s literally nothing gained by adding the score, which is indeed widely available, and everything lost for those people who want to watch the match replays without knowing.

Besides, when it comes to academy games, the scores often aren’t widely available because the website/social media often refuse to acknowledge their existence.

Thanks for the notes and clarifying that the meeting itself was more constructive though.

Edited December 9, 2021 by fightoffyour

[Icarium]

Have to say the responses seem in text version quite dismissive of supporters concerns, especially around the website. If people are reporting issues with your product, then guess what? There's issues, either in the design or in the instructions, whether you think the site is working as intended is irrelevant.

[Mic09]

Don't want people to stand together to watch the game before kick off.

Make them stand in a tight queue for 30 mins just to buy a beer.

 

[tomav84]

11 hours ago, Brumstopdogs said:

Thanks for the details @OutByEaster? 

Have to say the attached bit is a joke. Keying in some bank details to make a payment shouldn't take 16 days!

i call BS on it. no way in this day and age is someone manually keying in bank details for each transaction

in the grand scheme of things, i dont see it as an issue anyway. i don't see it as them holding on to my money or anything. it's a service they are not obliged to provide, and that not every PL club provides.