Football Supporters Association and BST

Magic147

Well-known member
I think it's quite important to know who moderates any platform. I can't understand why that information isn't freely available, very odd.
 

coppiceman

Well-known member
We don't have a right to know personal details of a poster, but if there is a poster who is also an admin and they are removing posts, whilst contributing to threads then we should at least know the username of the admins.

They've said that they mod in-house and no 'Pool fans are involved. Haven't they? Did I imagine that?

I don't understand all the fuss about it. if you behave yourself, you probably never even notice them. if you behave like the OP, maybe its different.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
They've said that they mod in-house and no 'Pool fans are involved. Haven't they? Did I imagine that?

I don't understand all the fuss about it. if you behave yourself, you probably never even notice them. if you behave like the OP, maybe its different.
I thought i'd read that too coppice. I was just responding to Lala's point that IF a poster was also a mod, then it would need to be transparent.
Also agree with your last sentence. I pretty much post what I like on here and have never had much of an issue. When I have disagreed with the moderation - more as a point of free speech/censorship etc. - I've used the PM facility to discuss with those moderating in a normal way. All seems to work fine.
 

fcblackpool

Well-known member
I thought i'd read that too coppice. I was just responding to Lala's point that IF a poster was also a mod, then it would need to be transparent.
Also agree with your last sentence. I pretty much post what I like on here and have never had much of an issue. When I have disagreed with the moderation - more as a point of free speech/censorship etc. - I've used the PM facility to discuss with those moderating in a normal way. All seems to work fine.
And when you do PM me I tell you stop moaning or I'll ban you.
 

td53

Well-known member
Lala has a point in that we accept anonymous moderation on big platforms like facebook and twitter without question. I also used to use an ad free board (not football related) which published who the moderators were and accepting donations towards running costs and made a big fuss about being 'user directed:. It was an absolute nightmare tbh and easily as divided and riven by accusations of bad moderation (and under hand stealth moderation) as anywhere else on the internet.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
I know what you mean. Before lockdown I went into my local McDonalds and demanded to speak to the manager. When she arrived I said:

“I think you food is tremendous. And the service is speedy and efficient. But I think you let yourself down badly by not providing the full names and contact details for all your staff. Could you please let me have the information”.

Bizarrely, although my request was perfectly polite and respectful, she turned me down!!!!

What has the world come to?!!!!

A very poor analogy that Mex and you have clearly not put that much thought into it.

I am fairly sure that if you were not satisfied with the service received - or the conduct of a staff member - at McDonalds or any other reputable organisation that you would be given a staff ID number if you were to request it politely.

I would imagine that Plumbs is looking for the username of the moderators and not any personal details.
 

TangerinePeel

Well-known member
They've said that they mod in-house and no 'Pool fans are involved. Haven't they? Did I imagine that?

I don't understand all the fuss about it. if you behave yourself, you probably never even notice them. if you behave like the OP, maybe its different.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter but there are definitely users on here who are also moderators, you see sometimes where they've forgot to swap back to their personal account and commented as the "avftt_admin" on threads discussing random things.

Unless I am getting the job avftt_admin does confused with the moderators, which are a separate entity. I always assumed it was the 'Boro fellas who ran that account until I saw them posting about things Blackpool FC/personal related accidentally
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
A very poor analogy that Mex and you have clearly not put that much thought into it.

I am fairly sure that if you were not satisfied with the service received - or the conduct of a staff member - at McDonalds or any other reputable organisation that you would be given a staff ID number if you were to request it politely.

I would imagine that Plumbs is looking for the username of the moderators and not any personal details.
Not at all. It was you who was waxing lyrical about what a wonderful site this is, with the caveat..... “but”. Exactly as in the analogy.

I also have to say that your last paragraph is very disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the people behind certain usernames are well known and for them there is no question of anonymity. For those individuals there’s no possibility of disclosing the username without revealing “any personal details”. And that’s particularly true of the username that you (and others) are fishing for.

Personally I can’t understand the obsession with knowing who the mods are. Why would people want to know? It’s all very well saying it’s in the interests of transparency but the suspicion will be that the real reason is to facilitate intimidation and bullying. Ironically as appears to have happened in the case of Plumbs.

Frankly I can’t understand why anyone would volunteer to be a mod. I’m just very grateful that there are people prepared to take on the job, because without them the board would quickly become toxic. And I can’t think anyone would want to see this site to go the same way as BHS.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Not at all. It was you who was waxing lyrical about what a wonderful site this is, with the caveat..... “but”. Exactly as in the analogy.

I also have to say that your last paragraph is very disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the people behind certain usernames are well known and for them there is no question of anonymity. For those individuals there’s no possibility of disclosing the username without revealing “any personal details”. And that’s particularly true of the username that you (and others) are fishing for.

Personally I can’t understand the obsession with knowing who the mods are. Why would people want to know? It’s all very well saying it’s in the interests of transparency but the suspicion will be that the real reason is to facilitate intimidation and bullying. Ironically as appears to have happened in the case of Plumbs.

Frankly I can’t understand why anyone would volunteer to be a mod. I’m just very grateful that there are people prepared to take on the job, because without them the board would quickly become toxic. And I can’t think anyone would want to see this site to go the same way as BHS.

Mex

Your analogy was a very poor one and I'm sure you know exactly why but I imagine that we both know that it is not particularly relevant in this discussion.

You certainly make some fair points.

There is no obsession with knowing who the mods are and nobody is looking for personal details in order to carry out any off board retribution.

Moderators have abused their position on here in the past and I think people are just looking for a level field - I think we have some good discussion/debate on here but things can become heated and there are obvious reasons why a person involved in any such debate should not hold anonymous moderator duties/responsibilities.

If I was to become a moderator, be given an anonymous username and then exclude you from the site without good reason, I don't think the fact that the site is free and that nobody was holding a gun to your head would satisfy you.

It is just about doing things properly and I'd imagine that you are fully aware of the need for propriety and of its benefits.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
Mex

Your analogy was a very poor one and I'm sure you know exactly why but I imagine that we both know that it is not particularly relevant in this discussion.

You certainly make some fair points.

There is no obsession with knowing who the mods are and nobody is looking for personal details in order to carry out any off board retribution.

Moderators have abused their position on here in the past and I think people are just looking for a level field - I think we have some good discussion/debate on here but things can become heated and there are obvious reasons why a person involved in any such debate should not hold anonymous moderator duties/responsibilities.

It is just about doing things properly and I'd imagine that you are fully aware of the need for propriety and of its benefits.
Exactly and there is always the question of a third party trying to influence the moderation, like for instance the O's parliament group or in other cases the FSA. In my experience the FSA try to influence forums and I think they 'have a man' in place on here,indeed I see they've been busy moderating some posts today without due cause imo.

Talking of which I see the FSA have finally convinced West Ham to disband their Supporters Advisory Board and bring in a 'better' model.
Like I've said they are at the heart of all things 'engagement' which is fine as long as they make it inclusive,but they dont which is why some of your groups are only given associate status.

 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Exactly and there is always the question of a third party trying to influence the moderation, like for instance the O's parliament group or in other cases the FSA. In my experience the FSA try to influence forums and I think they 'have a man' in place on here,indeed I see they've been busy moderating some posts today without due cause imo.

Talking of which I see the FSA have finally convinced West Ham to disband their Supporters Advisory Board and bring in a 'better' model.
Like I've said they are at the heart of all things 'engagement' which is fine as long as they make it inclusive,but they dont which is why some of your groups are only given associate status.


I wouldn't pretend to know anything about the FSA Plumbs.

Everybody knows and can see what goes on on here and some are happy to turn a blind eye to it.

I doubt you'll get anywhere, that doesn't make it right and I am not telling you to stop calling them out, I just don't think you'll get anywhere.

Those who have wronged you can not fool themselves.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
I wouldn't pretend to know anything about the FSA Plumbs.

Everybody knows and can see what goes on on here and some are happy to turn a blind eye to it.

I doubt you'll get anywhere, that doesn't make it right and I am not telling you to stop calling them out, I just don't think you'll get anywhere.

Those who have wronged you can not fool themselves.
Cheers and there is something going at the moment but I think this site is being monitored and posts lifted so I cant comment futher.
Here's our certificate for FSF membership. At the EGM to merger the two groups (FSF and SD) a few years ago they decided regional groups would be 'downgraded' to associate, but wouldnt allow groups like ours the full vote (which we were entitled to)

I've complained about it but its like speaking to a brick wall, but the whole thing was rigged to get the agendas and mandate through. At some point this will affect Blackpool supporters -maybe tickets, lack of focus on the ownership issues with other clubs, or maybe something directly affecting the lower divisions.

Whats clear in my view is that a clique is trying to run the show and stifle input, which is a clear form of manipulation and cheating fellow fans.

FSF certificiate.PNG
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Cheers and there is something going at the moment but I think this site is being monitored and posts lifted so I cant comment futher.
Here's our certificate for FSF membership. At the EGM to merger the two groups (FSF and SD) a few years ago they decided regional groups would be 'downgraded' to associate, but wouldnt allow groups like ours the full vote (which we were entitled to)

I've complained about it but its like speaking to a brick wall, but the whole thing was rigged to get the agendas and mandate through. At some point this will affect Blackpool supporters -maybe tickets, lack of focus on the ownership issues with other clubs, or maybe something directly affecting the lower divisions.

Whats clear in my view is that a clique is trying to run the show and stifle input, which is a clear form of manipulation and cheating fellow fans.

View attachment 4783


Plumbs

To be honest, I used to think that you were a crackpot when you were banging on about football committees and politics on here as most posters have no interest in or perhaps only a limited interest in such matters but I was certainly wrong to think like that and I apologise for doing so.

Things should be done properly and people should be held accountable but I am not sure people will take you seriously because most are not overly bothered, especially when they have not been seriously effected by any of the matters you describe and the others may be either directed involved in wrongdoing or perhaps don't want to rock the boat and are happier to maintain the status quo.

I find it strange that those who continually inform of us of the need for improved governance in football seem to have scant regard for propriety themselves and appear to think that it is something that can be disregarded because they are not being remunerated.

Good luck with your quest for justice.
 

Malcolm Clarke

Well-known member
Plumbs

To be honest, I used to think that you were a crackpot when you were banging on about football committees and politics on here as most posters have no interest in or perhaps only a limited interest in such matters but I was certainly wrong to think like that and I apologise for doing so.

Things should be done properly and people should be held accountable but I am not sure people will take you seriously because most are not overly bothered, especially when they have not been seriously effected by any of the matters you describe and the others may be either directed involved in wrongdoing or perhaps don't want to rock the boat and are happier to maintain the status quo.

I find it strange that those who continually inform of us of the need for improved governance in football seem to have scant regard for propriety themselves and appear to think that it is something that can be disregarded because they are not being remunerated.

Good luck with your quest for justice.

It is a pity that my first foray onto this forum should be about an FSA constitutional matter, rather than one of the big issues facing the game and its fans today but in view of the fact that my signature has been reproduced above as some sort of "evidence" and you appear to have accepted that there may have been some sort of impropriety or poor governance by the FSA it is appropriate that I should explain exactly what has happened on this matter.

In 2018 the FSA was formed from a merger of the Football Supporters Federation and Supporters Direct. The two organisations had very different structures. FSF had three types of members - individuals ( 1 vote), affiliate organisations (5 votes) and associates who did not meet the criteria for affiliates ( 1 Vote). There was no limitation on the number allowed from any club. SD only had Supporters Trusts who met the legal status of Community Interest Societies and had a limitation of 1 Trust per club.

As you can imagine, merging these two structures and traditions was not straightforward, as indeed is often the case with mergers in any sector. For example, some SD colleagues had concerns that the SD tradition might be lost or weakened because of being outnumbered by the ex-FSF members. It required discussions and flexibility and compromise on all sides. But we got there in the end, and produced a new constitution which was separately and democratically agreed by the AGMs of both organisations. Any suggestion that there was some sort of impropriety or rigged procedure is entirely without foundation. Any member of either organisation could have moved an amendment to alter the proposals relating to regional groups or anything else in the rules, and put it to democratic debate and vote.

Turning specifically to the issue of regional groups, Mr. Jordan (Plumbs) is correct when he says that in the FSF such groups could be affiliate members if they met the affiliate criteria ( hence the certificate above with my signature). They obviously couldn't be members at all of SD because they aren't Trusts. He is also correct to say that in the new constitution groups which were deemed to appeal to a limited sub-set of supporters would become associates and regional groups were specifically referenced in the rules democratically approved by the 2 AGMs as an example of that. The FSA staff of course were required to apply the rules as laid down by the two Conferences.

Fast forward a couple of years, and we reviewed all the rules, in the light of experience of operating them, as is good practice. Part of that review was looking at the criteria for the various categories of membership status, including the clause which required that regional groups should be associates. As it happens, I personally ( as did others) felt that clause should be removed or amended.

Following that review, as Mr.Jordan knows, or should know, because he attended the meeting and received its papers, revised rules were submitted to, and approved by, our AGM in December. These included a new definition of what is required to be an affiliate and associate which no longer includes the requirement that regional groups must be associates, something which Mr.Jordan has failed to mention in this thread, preferring instead to mislead readers by referring to speaking to a brick wall . It doesn't mean that any regional group can automatically become an affiliate. Such a group like any other will have to meet the affiliate requirement, but it does mean that the rules no longer prohibit regional groups becoming affiliates as they did previously.

As in any democratic organisation, not everybody in the FSA agrees about everything, or indeed did so in the predecessor organisations of the FSF and SD. Whatever view is taken about the wisdom or otherwise of the clause relating to regional groups democratically agreed by the two conferences at the time of the merger, I completely reject the accusation that there was any impropriety, or rigging to get an agenda or mandate through ( whatever that means) in those two AGMs. And I suggest that the failure to point out that the 'regional clause' no longer appears in the new rules has had the effect of misleading those readers of this Board who are interested in this specific FSA constitutional matter ( which may well not be all readers).

Malcolm Clarke
FSA Chair
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
It is a pity that my first foray onto this forum should be about an FSA constitutional matter, rather than one of the big issues facing the game and its fans today but in view of the fact that my signature has been reproduced above as some sort of "evidence" and you appear to have accepted that there may have been some sort of impropriety or poor governance by the FSA it is appropriate that I should explain exactly what has happened on this matter.

In 2018 the FSA was formed from a merger of the Football Supporters Federation and Supporters Direct. The two organisations had very different structures. FSF had three types of members - individuals ( 1 vote), affiliate organisations (5 votes) and associates who did not meet the criteria for affiliates ( 1 Vote). There was no limitation on the number allowed from any club. SD only had Supporters Trusts who met the legal status of Community Interest Societies and had a limitation of 1 Trust per club.

As you can imagine, merging these two structures and traditions was not straightforward, as indeed is often the case with mergers in any sector. For example, some SD colleagues had concerns that the SD tradition might be lost or weakened because of being outnumbered by the ex-FSF members. It required discussions and flexibility and compromise on all sides. But we got there in the end, and produced a new constitution which was separately and democratically agreed by the AGMs of both organisations. Any suggestion that there was some sort of impropriety or rigged procedure is entirely without foundation. Any member of either organisation could have moved an amendment to alter the proposals relating to regional groups or anything else in the rules, and put it to democratic debate and vote.

Turning specifically to the issue of regional groups, Mr. Jordan (Plumbs) is correct when he says that in the FSF such groups could be affiliate members if they met the affiliate criteria ( hence the certificate above with my signature). They obviously couldn't be members at all of SD because they aren't Trusts. He is also correct to say that in the new constitution groups which were deemed to appeal to a limited sub-set of supporters would become associates and regional groups were specifically referenced in the rules democratically approved by the 2 AGMs as an example of that. The FSA staff of course were required to apply the rules as laid down by the two Conferences.

Fast forward a couple of years, and we reviewed all the rules, in the light of experience of operating them, as is good practice. Part of that review was looking at the criteria for the various categories of membership status, including the clause which required that regional groups should be associates. As it happens, I personally ( as did others) felt that clause should be removed or amended.

Following that review, as Mr.Jordan knows, or should know, because he attended the meeting and received its papers, revised rules were submitted to, and approved by, our AGM in December. These included a new definition of what is required to be an affiliate and associate which no longer includes the requirement that regional groups must be associates, something which Mr.Jordan has failed to mention in this thread, preferring instead to mislead readers by referring to speaking to a brick wall . It doesn't mean that any regional group can automatically become an affiliate. Such a group like any other will have to meet the affiliate requirement, but it does mean that the rules no longer prohibit regional groups becoming affiliates as they did previously.

As in any democratic organisation, not everybody in the FSA agrees about everything, or indeed did so in the predecessor organisations of the FSF and SD. Whatever view is taken about the wisdom or otherwise of the clause relating to regional groups democratically agreed by the two conferences at the time of the merger, I completely reject the accusation that there was any impropriety, or rigging to get an agenda or mandate through ( whatever that means) in those two AGMs. And I suggest that the failure to point out that the 'regional clause' no longer appears in the new rules has had the effect of misleading those readers of this Board who are interested in this specific FSA constitutional matter ( which may well not be all readers).

Malcolm Clarke
FSA Chair


Malcolm

Thank you for a very detailed response.

I was just referring to general problems with propriety within football committees etc and not specifically to the FSA.

'Your response seems to relate specifically to the FSA and issues you have with Plumbs* and I think that it would be better aimed at him than myself.


Thank you


* This is an anonymous forum but no problem if Plumbs has granted permission for you to use his real name.
 

Malcolm Clarke

Well-known member
Malcolm

Thank you for a very detailed response.

I was just referring to general problems with propriety within football committees etc and not specifically to the FSA.

'Your response seems to relate specifically to the FSA and issues you have with Plumbs* and I think that it would be better aimed at him than myself.


Thank you


* This is an anonymous forum but no problem if Plumbs has granted permission for you to use his real name.
Understood - it was your phrase "good luck with your quest for justice " which led me to believe that you accepted that there has been some sort of injustice which needs correcting relating to this FSA constitutional matter which "Plumbs" has chosen to raise on this Board, and in so doing reproduce my signature immediately below an outrageous allegation of " a clear form of manipulation and cheating fellow fans".

There most certainly hasn't been an injustice, or any manipulation or any cheating of fellow fans. The truth is that it is the readers of this Board who are interested who have been misled by that poster both on the detail and background to the issue and the fact that the rules referred to have in any case now been altered. I most certainly have an issue with "Plumbs" or anyone else who deliberately misleads fans on FSA issues (although I agree with you that lots of readers will not be interested in this particular issue).

I haven't had his permission to use his real name, but will respect your guidance on that point, whilst saying that I believe that anonymity is a big part of the problem with the way social media is misused to misrepresent things ( and of course, far worse, to abuse others) which is why I always use my own name, and I think those like "Plumbs" who make accusations on a public forum against myself and my colleagues should have the courage to do the same.

Malcolm (Clarke)
FSA Chair
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Well that's that sorted then... 👍

The Big Cheese from the FSFSDFCFCFFFTSB has given us it straight... Thanks Big Malco 👍

Nothing to see here... The world is still turning and we can all heave a big sigh of relief
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Understood - it was your phrase "good luck with your quest for justice " which led me to believe that you accepted that there has been some sort of injustice which needs correcting relating to this FSA constitutional matter which "Plumbs" has chosen to raise on this Board, and in so doing reproduce my signature immediately below an outrageous allegation of " a clear form of manipulation and cheating fellow fans".

There most certainly hasn't been an injustice, or any manipulation or any cheating of fellow fans. The truth is that it is the readers of this Board who are interested who have been misled by that poster both on the detail and background to the issue and the fact that the rules referred to have in any case now been altered. I most certainly have an issue with "Plumbs" or anyone else who deliberately misleads fans on FSA issues (although I agree with you that lots of readers will not be interested in this particular issue).

I haven't had his permission to use his real name, but will respect your guidance on that point, whilst saying that I believe that anonymity is a big part of the problem with the way social media is misused to misrepresent things ( and of course, far worse, to abuse others) which is why I always use my own name, and I think those like "Plumbs" who make accusations on a public forum against myself and my colleagues should have the courage to do the same.

Malcolm (Clarke)
FSA Chair

Malcolm

My "quest for justice" comment was just a sign off to Plumbs who I'd be discussing matters with.

I think he does believe that there are - or have been - problems involving the FSA but you will see that I have repeated explained to him that I do not know about the goings on within the FSA and I didn't comment on any specific issues relating to the FSA.

Any specific issues are between Plumbs and the FSA/yourself and can be addressed appropriately.

No big deal with the name thing and I hear what you say but it is possible for people to have good reason to retain their anonymity.

Thanks again and all the best.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Well that's that sorted then... 👍

The Big Cheese from the FSFSDFCFCFFFTSB has given us it straight... Thanks Big Malco 👍

Nothing to see here... The world is still turning and we can all heave a big sigh of relief
😂 To be fair he did say that not all of us might be interested. (Although to be honest I am wondering whether to get some popcorn in).
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Mods take note.

Mex

I've been explaining myself all afternoon so I guess I'd better explain myself to you.

I could be wrong but I think that you are trying to say that I am suggesting that Plumbs should be allowed anonymity but not the moderators ?

If that's the case, then can I explain that during "Moderatergate" last week, I was not suggesting for a second that moderators should have to reveal their real name, addresses and inside leg measurement.

All I said - actually I don't think I said anything, I agreed with what somebody else suggested - was that IF any moderators were involved in debates/discussions on threads on here then there usernames should be revealed.

I'm sure we both know that to be the case Mex but I'm happy to discuss if you are not happy with anything.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Mex

I've been explaining myself all afternoon so I guess I'd better explain myself to you.

I could be wrong but I think that you are trying to say that I am suggesting that Plumbs should be allowed anonymity but not the moderators ?

If that's the case, then can I explain that during "Moderatergate" last week, I was not suggesting for a second that moderators should have to reveal their real name, addresses and inside leg measurement.

All I said - actually I don't think I said anything, I agreed with what somebody else suggested - was that IF any moderators were involved in debates/discussions on threads on here then there usernames should be revealed.

I'm sure we both know that to be the case Mex but I'm happy to discuss if you are not happy with anything.
Nope. No need to chat any further. I’m as Happy as Larry thanks.

By the way congratulations on how you extricated yourself from your earlier difficulties with the FSA Generalissimo. I was a bit concerned for you at one point but think you handled the situation admirably 👍
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Nope. No need to chat any further. I’m as Happy as Larry thanks.

By the way congratulations on how you extricated yourself from your earlier difficulties with the FSA Generalissimo. I was a bit concerned for you at one point but think you handled the situation admirably 👍

Okey doke Mex.

There is clearly some in joke on the FSA with you and x3 but I don't know anything about the FSA, please explain another time perhaps.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
It is a pity that my first foray onto this forum should be about an FSA constitutional matter...
sorry but that is an important issue to fans especially Blackpool one,
In 2018 the FSA was formed from a merger of the Football Supporters Federation and Supporters Direct. The two organisations had very different structures. FSF had three types of members - individuals ( 1 vote), affiliate organisations (5 votes) and associates who did not meet the criteria for affiliates ( 1 Vote). There was no limitation on the number allowed from any club. SD only had Supporters Trusts who met the legal status of Community Interest Societies and had a limitation of 1 Trust per club.

Any suggestion that there was some sort of impropriety or rigged procedure is entirely without foundation. Any member of either organisation could have moved an amendment to alter the proposals relating to regional groups or anything else in the rules, and put it to democratic debate and vote.
Not quite because the motions and agendas often come from the groups who have the block vote, and where 'associates' dont think they can sway any vote.
Turning specifically to the issue of regional groups, Mr. Jordan (Plumbs) is correct when he says that in the FSF such groups could be affiliate members if they met the affiliate criteria ( hence the certificate above with my signature). They obviously couldn't be members at all of SD because they aren't Trusts. He is also correct to say that in the new constitution groups which were deemed to appeal to a limited sub-set of supporters would become associates and regional groups were specifically referenced in the rules democratically approved by the 2 AGMs as an example of that. The FSA staff of course were required to apply the rules as laid down by the two Conferences.
At the EGM Kevin Miles (CEO) stated that groups that came from abroad (I think he mentioned Ghana) could only be associate members,and that led people to believe that we would continue with our affiliate membership ( not quite lied to but certainly misled imo)
Fast forward a couple of years, and we reviewed all the rules, in the light of experience of operating them, as is good practice. Part of that review was looking at the criteria for the various categories of membership status, including the clause which required that regional groups should be associates.
Along this road affiliates (old money) werent consulted or informed correctly imo,indeed they were sending me invites for meetings without the venue details. I felt this was pushed through by an authoritarian executive who were trying to simply pacify the Trusts.This mirrors the inverted snobbery that I think exists within the FSA and why Blackpool fans should be cautious going forward.
Following that review, as Mr.Jordan knows, or should know, because he attended the meeting and received its papers, revised rules were submitted to, and approved by, our AGM in December. These included a new definition of what is required to be an affiliate and associate which no longer includes the requirement that regional groups must be associates, something which Mr.Jordan has failed to mention in this thread, preferring instead to mislead readers by referring to speaking to a brick wall . It doesn't mean that any regional group can automatically become an affiliate. Such a group like any other will have to meet the affiliate requirement, but it does mean that the rules no longer prohibit regional groups becoming affiliates as they did previously.
The criteria for affiliate is beyond what most regional / local supporters clubs can afford and is also stipulated that it must satisfy the board,
so even if you tick every box you're not necessarily in.
10.3.2.3.6. the organisation must publish annual accounts which are audited or certified annual accounts or, if annual income and expenditure do not exceed £100, a simple written statement and such audited or certified accounts or written statement must be approved or received

That would for instance put a hefty charge on say Yorkshire Seasiders membership charges, or even say BSA ,Leyland and Chorley or BASIL.
Its like a tax on doing the right things to support your club imo and the FSA knew this when they came up with this,which I think was try and placate the EFL and PL who have received complaints about exclusion
As in any democratic organisation, not everybody in the FSA agrees about everything, or indeed did so in the predecessor organisations of the FSF and SD. Whatever view is taken about the wisdom or otherwise of the clause relating to regional groups democratically agreed by the two conferences at the time of the merger, I completely reject the accusation that there was any impropriety, or rigging to get an agenda or mandate through ( whatever that means) in those two AGMs. And I suggest that the failure to point out that the 'regional clause' no longer appears in the new rules has had the effect of misleading those readers of this Board who are interested in this specific FSA constitutional matter ( which may well not be all readers).

Malcolm Clarke
FSA Chair
At present our group hasn't received its membership certificate, has been excluded (by default) from Network meetings and has little chance of having meaningful input.The elections for the PL where our club plays its football was before the AGM and therefore we had no input into that,
and as far as I'm concerned everything I've said is fair comment on my experiences.

*At present Clarkie has broken one of the basic forum rules on releasing personal information, and my posting of a certificate was something that all groups get so it really was no excuse.
 

TSSeasider

Well-known member
Would the new set up stop shysters who the previous owners picked to represent "the fans" (for the life of me I can't remember the acronym, which is good as it means I'm moving on!) from every getting any form of recognition at the national table?

I hope so.
 
Last edited:

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
"Its like a tax on doing the right things to support your club imo and the FSA knew this when they came up with this,which I think was try and placate the EFL and PL who have received complaints about exclusion"

Plumbs

It might be just me but I didn't understand this bit.

You say the FSA decided that groups required certified accounts but then go onto say that you think that was to placate organisations who had received about exclusion ?

I am not saying that groups shouldn't have certified accounts but surely making it compulsory for smaller supporters groups to have certified accounts does more to exclude such groups ?
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
Well you've been libelling loads of folk without any proof, so you can't really complain, can you?
I havent libelled anyone indeed theres a bigger issue-and story-behind all of this that goes back years,where the FSA/FSF have done nothing in the first place to prevent that.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
"Its like a tax on doing the right things to support your club imo and the FSA knew this when they came up with this,which I think was try and placate the EFL and PL who have received complaints about exclusion"

Plumbs

It might be just me but I didn't understand this bit.

You say the FSA decided that groups required certified accounts but then go onto say that you think that was to placate organisations who had received about exclusion ?

I am not saying that groups shouldn't have certified accounts but surely making it compulsory for smaller supporters groups to have certified accounts does more to exclude such groups ?
Yup. It seemed to be like opening a door but then you had to jump over a moat to get in.

I've no idea what having audited accounts would cost for a small group, but the LU Trust 2015 accounts had an income of £370 and admin costs of 1,113 and nothing allocated for on accounts. (ie they made a loss of around £700)

This is one of my 'forks in the road' where they've ended up banning me,with no explanation,means of appeal and backed up the national group.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Yup. It seemed to be like opening a door but then you had to jump over a moat to get in.

I've no idea what having audited accounts would cost for a small group, but the LU Trust 2015 accounts had an income of £370 and admin costs of 1,113 and nothing allocated for on accounts. (ie they made a loss of around £700)

This is one of my 'forks in the road' where they've ended up banning me,with no explanation,means of appeal and backed up the national group.

I see now, I think ?

So you are suggesting that they encouraged or appeared to encourage smaller supporters groups to join but at the same time introduced a requirement that made it harder for such groups to join ?

Be careful not to libel yourself in any response and don't bother responding if there are any potential problems on that front.
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
I see now, I think ?

So you are suggesting that they encouraged or appeared to encourage smaller supporters groups to join but at the same time introduced a requirement that made it harder for such groups to join ?

Be careful not to libel yourself in any response and don't bother responding if there are any potential problems on that front.
The criteria for having an affiliate group is that must be affordable so it depends on what that accountancy bill is,but from what I've experienced with running groups the transport and ticket costs can soon having you running into thousands.
One very large supporters groups I know decided last year to dispense with audited accounts -they may be a affiliate member of the FSA- and in 2009 the LU Trust opted to replace audited with a 'independent financial examination',so over the span there seems to be inconsistency.

To be fair to the FSA (as it know is) this does lay down a stricter criteria but imo thats largely unaffordable to many, so therefore by default their input is restricted. Whether it actually will apply to recognised Trusts we'll have to wait and see,because it seems to me in the past some have been given a bit of leeway.
 

TwelveAngryMen

Well-known member
I would presume the rule revisions implemented were intended to achieve a legitimate objective

For example I can imagine that limiting small groups voting rights might be viewed as proportionate because otherwise an organisation representing 3 fans would have the same voting rights as one representing say 1000

The associate membership of the old FSF was really easy to secure and as has been stated you could if you were so minded flood the FSF as was with multiple groups who would each have the same voting rights as far larger and more established fans organisations
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
The associate membership of the old FSF was really easy to secure and as has been stated you could if you were so minded flood the FSF as was with multiple groups who would each have the same voting rights as far larger and more established fans organisations
As things stand-many 'working' supporters groups (ie getting fans to matches) are put in the same basket as fanzines,podcasts etc which I think is entirely wrong, where the rules seem to try and give support to the Trusts-many of whom will have access to resources.

If any national group whether its football fans, solicitors or plumbers should have an equitable means of allowing its members input,otherwise those lower down the rung of the ladder feel marginalised and not part of what the entity is trying to achieve.

For me groups like the Yorkshire Seasiders (sorry fellas) should be able to attend network meetings, have a vote that means something, and an opportunity to influence the decisions and policy of a national fans association.

I dont think we have that at present and the balance is swayed towards subjective issues like the European Super League, which are hardly likely to figure on the majority of clubs' radar in the EFL and non league.
 

Hertsseasider

Well-known member
On behalf of BASIL, can I just point out that we are not interested in being involved in this and we defer any political stuff to BST.
Thanks
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
The criteria for having an affiliate group is that must be affordable so it depends on what that accountancy bill is,but from what I've experienced with running groups the transport and ticket costs can soon having you running into thousands.
One very large supporters groups I know decided last year to dispense with audited accounts -they may be a affiliate member of the FSA- and in 2009 the LU Trust opted to replace audited with a 'independent financial examination',so over the span there seems to be inconsistency.

To be fair to the FSA (as it know is) this does lay down a stricter criteria but imo thats largely unaffordable to many, so therefore by default their input is restricted. Whether it actually will apply to recognised Trusts we'll have to wait and see,because it seems to me in the past some have been given a bit of leeway.

I'm sure many will agree with what you suggest here Plumbs but to be honest, others could easily believe that a requirement for audited accounts is a good thing.

To be honest, I'd say that here the FSA are just introducing something that you don't agree with rather than that they have done anything wrong.

I certainly hear what you say re affordability and exclusion but when making things more exclusive it doesn't mean that all requirements are dropped.
 
Top
X