wearethesouthstand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 1,892
1894 GROUP SUPPORTS CITYMATTERS REFORMS - Statement from the group, 24th September 2024.
Citymatters, is the club's preferred Fan Advisory Board and is next due to meet the club in October.
We want Citymatters to have real teeth but also for there to be a willingness on the part of the representatives to use them.
So we feel we now have to give both them and the club a very public nudge whilst remembering anyone serving is doing it for free and giving up their spare time.
Three new members have joined the Citymatters board, we wish them well and applaud their enthusiasm, however the shortlisting was done by SIX people at the club. Previously a Chelsea fan got through to sit on the board.
We support Alex Howell, the current chair, with his wishes to modernise and restructure Citymatters. These proposals seem to have been rejected by the club, which is a mistake because if it is not a proper two way relationship, the club will always end being out of touch and end up with desperate damage limitation every time there's a PR disaster.
We feel these proposals actually don't go far enough.
The process needs to allow for people to come through who are capable of holding their own with executives of a very powerful football club, not be overwhelmed by hospitality or by the chance to have tea and biscuits with the club.
In line with much of what the chair's own report says, we say a Fan Advisory Board should be:
* Fully independent from the club, that the club should not be involved in the shortlisting of candidates.
* That representatives serve a designated two year term and then cannot re-apply for a further two years.
* The agenda for all meetings set by fans and not the club. They can use other meetings for "focus groups."
* Transparent notes for all meetings and the club to take on board constructive criticism and not try to alter any notes.
* That Ferrano Soriano , Khaldoon Al-Mubarak and Roel De Vries should attend at least once a year.
* That the club sign up fully to the principle of fan engagement and see Citymatters as a fan representative body with a mandate and not to see it as a platform to rubber stamp their own new initiatives. Citymatters reps themselves have commented the club blindsides them on policy and pays them lip service which is very unfair.
* Finally that all Citymatters reps recognise the power and support they would receive from the vast majority of City supporters if they were prepared to challenge the club much more firmly on ticketing, pricing and atmosphere policy. A sharing of the workload amongst reps on these items is necessary and a desire to really understand what a majority of fans have concerns about is really important. So the current format of how Citymatters is structured should be revisited and the club themselves are blocking this because they don't want to hear criticism.
City fans had an independent fans group called Points of Blue, meeting at The Lass O'Gowrie in Manchester for many years, invites were always sent out to the club to attend but they were always ignored, even though fans sent the minutes into the club. Citymatters was only set up because the club HAD to do it, not particularly because they WANTED to do it. Citymatters reps are there to represent the FANS not to represent the CLUB, If the club continue to ignore the fans on ticket prices and ideas such as Flexi Gold they will only face PR issues because they won't understand why the feeling is strong if they have a stranglehold over the way fan advisory boards are set up.
Ultimately a supporters trust of note is just round the corner if the club cannot or will not implement much needed reforms to Citymatters.
Alex Howell's original proposals an be found here :
Citymatters, is the club's preferred Fan Advisory Board and is next due to meet the club in October.
We want Citymatters to have real teeth but also for there to be a willingness on the part of the representatives to use them.
So we feel we now have to give both them and the club a very public nudge whilst remembering anyone serving is doing it for free and giving up their spare time.
Three new members have joined the Citymatters board, we wish them well and applaud their enthusiasm, however the shortlisting was done by SIX people at the club. Previously a Chelsea fan got through to sit on the board.
We support Alex Howell, the current chair, with his wishes to modernise and restructure Citymatters. These proposals seem to have been rejected by the club, which is a mistake because if it is not a proper two way relationship, the club will always end being out of touch and end up with desperate damage limitation every time there's a PR disaster.
We feel these proposals actually don't go far enough.
The process needs to allow for people to come through who are capable of holding their own with executives of a very powerful football club, not be overwhelmed by hospitality or by the chance to have tea and biscuits with the club.
In line with much of what the chair's own report says, we say a Fan Advisory Board should be:
* Fully independent from the club, that the club should not be involved in the shortlisting of candidates.
* That representatives serve a designated two year term and then cannot re-apply for a further two years.
* The agenda for all meetings set by fans and not the club. They can use other meetings for "focus groups."
* Transparent notes for all meetings and the club to take on board constructive criticism and not try to alter any notes.
* That Ferrano Soriano , Khaldoon Al-Mubarak and Roel De Vries should attend at least once a year.
* That the club sign up fully to the principle of fan engagement and see Citymatters as a fan representative body with a mandate and not to see it as a platform to rubber stamp their own new initiatives. Citymatters reps themselves have commented the club blindsides them on policy and pays them lip service which is very unfair.
* Finally that all Citymatters reps recognise the power and support they would receive from the vast majority of City supporters if they were prepared to challenge the club much more firmly on ticketing, pricing and atmosphere policy. A sharing of the workload amongst reps on these items is necessary and a desire to really understand what a majority of fans have concerns about is really important. So the current format of how Citymatters is structured should be revisited and the club themselves are blocking this because they don't want to hear criticism.
City fans had an independent fans group called Points of Blue, meeting at The Lass O'Gowrie in Manchester for many years, invites were always sent out to the club to attend but they were always ignored, even though fans sent the minutes into the club. Citymatters was only set up because the club HAD to do it, not particularly because they WANTED to do it. Citymatters reps are there to represent the FANS not to represent the CLUB, If the club continue to ignore the fans on ticket prices and ideas such as Flexi Gold they will only face PR issues because they won't understand why the feeling is strong if they have a stranglehold over the way fan advisory boards are set up.
Ultimately a supporters trust of note is just round the corner if the club cannot or will not implement much needed reforms to Citymatters.
Alex Howell's original proposals an be found here :
Last edited: