FSA AGM - reportedly a fans' motion supportive of APT rules proposed

We (1894) intended to go but none of the main leadership team could go through family commitments. It was a 10am start at Wembley.

The main other motion we were expecting had been around football governance. The change of government meant seeing if it was going to be in the kings speech, it was but then some groups notably Arsenal supporters trust and spirit of shankly have made extra amendments specifically calling out City challenging APT rules.

There was no mention of this, we believe it’s a very last minute thing, an AGM which is supposedly planned well in advance yet Paul Colborne from Hammers Utd got shown the motion on friday the day before. It wasn’t on the agenda fil the day before. He would probably have backed it anyway but he admits he probably didn’t look into it too much.

The main issue here is sneaking it through the back door to get a unanimous verdict. Not enough discussion beforehand. Our ticket motion was discussed with 13 other groups, 42 people on a call and others were allowed to make amendments and tweaks to help it past. We were not afforded the same courtesy or advance warming on this motion which mentions our club.

So piss poor and FSA is funded by the PL so we will seek to speak with their new chairman, clearly the outgoing Malcolm Clarke has added the motion as a goodbye favour to his committee, but there is an ongoing legal challenge to APT rules and what if City win? Our club IS allowed to challenge things.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Because if I disagreed with him, he would reply arguing against that point rather than answering specifically.about Liverpool FC.
I want him.to only be able.to answer the question about whether he or SOS have ever called Liverpool out and I used his comments about City and our fan base to flush the fucker out.
I'm saying to him "you are so right. So now, do you apply the same judgement and values to this case?" And if not, why not?
Click to expand...
He’s too thick to read that far down
 
M18CTID said:
Just to clarify that 1894 - and, I’m guessing, the OSC - knew about the AGM (I’d actually describe it more as an annual conference rather than an AGM). 1894 normally have someone in attendance - as do the OSC - but our issue this year is that we couldn’t get anyone down there in person. We did have a couple of guys following the motion remotely about co-ordinated action on ticket prices which 1894 have been heavily involved in. Whether the motion about APTs was properly communicated in advance, I’m not sure as I’ve been out of the loop a bit over the past couple of months due to family issues. The impression I get is that it’s kind of been shoved through the back door and as you can see, both 1894 and the OSC aren’t happy about that.

I still think this has got Ian Byrne’s fingerprints all over it and it’s been worded in a way to try and sucker other fan groups in to vote in favour of the motion.

Can I just say thanks to @Luddite_Blue for posting the details on here.
Click to expand...

No worries M18CTID - appreciate you keeping us informed and fighting the good fight.
 
M18CTID said:
Just to clarify that 1894 - and, I’m guessing, the OSC - knew about the AGM (I’d actually describe it more as an annual conference rather than an AGM). 1894 normally have someone in attendance - as do the OSC - but our issue this year is that we couldn’t get anyone down there in person. We did have a couple of guys following the motion remotely about co-ordinated action on ticket prices which 1894 have been heavily involved in. Whether the motion about APTs was properly communicated in advance, I’m not sure as I’ve been out of the loop a bit over the past couple of months due to family issues. The impression I get is that it’s kind of been shoved through the back door and as you can see, both 1894 and the OSC aren’t happy about that.

I still think this has got Ian Byrne’s fingerprints all over it and it’s been worded in a way to try and sucker other fan groups in to vote in favour of the motion.

Can I just say thanks to @Luddite_Blue for posting the details on here.
Click to expand...
From when i was on the National Council of the FSF (2002 to 2011) we had a conference / AGM at Crewe one year.
All AGM's are well advertised to members via website / emails / newsletter (which we had at the time) and regional meetings, with motions given in advance to members. However motions could be submitted right up until the start of the meeting.

At Crewe, a member of the National Council dropped a motion on the morning of the meeting. A very long motion with something like 6 different things to vote on. I agreed with some, not the others (he was the diversity officer and one of his sub motions was he suggested he should be able to attend any diversity conference / meeting taking place anywhere in the world and the FSF would pay for it!)
We took up half of the meeting discussing this motion, or rather not the actual issue but the motion itself, the wording, with some members calling for the wording to be amended etc etc.
In the end someone put forward a motion that this motion be ended and left for the National Council to discuss at a later date -which received a unanimous YES!

After that, the National Council took the decision to set a deadline prior to the conference date when motions should be submitted by (to prevent the issue at Crewe from happening again.) This was carried, however there was a provision for a motion to still be submitted after the deadline but only if an issue arose affecting fans that occurred after the deadline date and before the day of the conference. I'm just wondering if this motion fell under that category which is why it wasn't brought up in pre conference communications?

Edit - Just read the post from @wearethesouthstand at the top of this page and yes clearly.it was a last minute job.
 
Last edited:
wearethesouthstand said:
We (1894) intended to go but none of the main leadership team could go through family commitments. It was a 10am start at Wembley.

The main other motion we were expecting had been around football governance. The change of government meant seeing if it was going to be in the kings speech, it was but then some groups notably Arsenal supporters trust and spirit of shankly have made extra amendments specifically calling out City challenging APT rules.

There was no mention of this, we believe it’s a very last minute thing, an AGM which is supposedly planned well in advance yet Paul Colborne from Hammers Utd got shown the motion on friday the day before. It wasn’t on the agenda fil the day before. He would probably have backed it anyway but he admits he probably didn’t look into it too much.

The main issue here is sneaking it through the back door to get a unanimous verdict. Not enough discussion beforehand. Our ticket motion was discussed with 13 other groups, 42 people on a call and others were allowed to make amendments and tweaks to help it past. We were not afforded the same courtesy or advance warming on this motion which mentions our club.

So piss poor and FSA is funded by the PL so we will seek to speak with their new chairman, clearly the outgoing Malcolm Clarke has added the motion as a goodbye favour to his committee, but there is an ongoing legal challenge to APT rules and what if City win? Our club IS allowed to challenge things.
Click to expand...
See my post above.
I'd contact the FSA and ask when was the motion (or the amended motion) presented to the FSA?

Then ask if this was before or after the deadline for motions (assuming in the last few years the deadline is still in place) and if it was submitted after the deadline - but was an issue already occurring before the deadline then state it should not have been presented on the day.

I would then call for the National Council to make the motion null and void if it was incorrecrly submitted out of time and without prior notice given to members to consult and prepare for the motion appropriately.
 
Last edited:
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
See my post above.
I'd contact the FSA and ask when was the motion (or the amended motion) presented to the FSA?

Then ask if this was before or after the deadline for motions (assuming in the last few years the deadline is still in place) and if it was submitted after the deadline - but was an issue already occurring before the deadline then state it should not have been presented on the day.

I would then call for the National Council to make the motion null and void if it was incorrecrly submitted out of time and without prior notice given to members to consult and prepare for the motion appropriately.
Click to expand...

Clear & organised!!
 
wearethesouthstand said:
We (1894) intended to go but none of the main leadership team could go through family commitments. It was a 10am start at Wembley.

The main other motion we were expecting had been around football governance. The change of government meant seeing if it was going to be in the kings speech, it was but then some groups notably Arsenal supporters trust and spirit of shankly have made extra amendments specifically calling out City challenging APT rules.

There was no mention of this, we believe it’s a very last minute thing, an AGM which is supposedly planned well in advance yet Paul Colborne from Hammers Utd got shown the motion on friday the day before. It wasn’t on the agenda fil the day before. He would probably have backed it anyway but he admits he probably didn’t look into it too much.

The main issue here is sneaking it through the back door to get a unanimous verdict. Not enough discussion beforehand. Our ticket motion was discussed with 13 other groups, 42 people on a call and others were allowed to make amendments and tweaks to help it past. We were not afforded the same courtesy or advance warming on this motion which mentions our club.

So piss poor and FSA is funded by the PL so we will seek to speak with their new chairman, clearly the outgoing Malcolm Clarke has added the motion as a goodbye favour to his committee, but there is an ongoing legal challenge to APT rules and what if City win? Our club IS allowed to challenge things.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know the FSA was funded by the PL. A good reason not to trust the FSA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.