Coventry City SCG March Meeting Minutes

Last updated : 25 March 2014 By SCG

Coventry City Football Club 

Supporters’ Consultative Group Meeting 

Thursday 20th March 2014, 6.30pm 

The Squirrel Pub, Coventry 

M I N U T E S 

Attendees: 

Pat Abel (Tickets for Schools)

Jan Mokrzycki (Sky Blue Trust) 

Moz Baker (Sky Blue Trust)

Pat Raybould (Family Zone/Away Travel) 

Steve Barnett (SBA) (Covsupport News Service, South Wales Supp Club. South Africa Supp Club)

Tynan Scope (CCFC) 

Nick Connoll (CCFC)

Ray Stephens (Diamond Club) 

Lee Corden  (Advent Communications)

Jonathan Strange - Chairman 

Ian Davidson (CCFC London Supporters’ Club/Sky Blues International)

Peter Ward - Vice-Chairman 

Kevin Heffernan (CC Irish Branch)

Darren Davies

Elaine Ward (Minutes Secretary) 

Chris McGrath 

 

  1. Apologies 

 

Apologies were received from:   

Ian Barnes, Jim Brown, Steve Brown, Tim Fisher, Mark Labovitch, Kevin Monks, Andy Powell and Mark Sorbie. 

 

  1. Chairman’s Introduction 

JS welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave the following introduction: 

“Good evening. 

I have received apologies for absence from Ian Barnes, Jim Brown, Tim Fisher, Mark Labovitch, Kevin Monks, Andy Powell and Mark Sorbie. Steve Brown will not be present. Steve sent me an e-mail nine days ago, saying, ‘I have not had an invite to next meeting’. I replied that I was not aware that he had for any reason ceased to be a member, adding that ‘we are all of us looking forward to seeing you’. 

However, I received an e-mail from Steve a couple of days ago simply stating: 

I am unable to attend due to work commitments. Moz Baker will be attending in my place. 

I am sure that Steve does not intend any discourtesy but for the sake of anyone a little rusty over committee procedure, may I remind them that it is customary a) to tender an apology, and b) to seek agreement before sending a replacement. 

The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to focus on the SCG. Neither Tim Fisher nor Mark Labovitch will be present. Tynan Scope and I feel that it is high time the SCG had a discussion about itself. 

As you are aware, there has been a steady stream of e-mails since the last meeting. Before we can proceed with our discussion, there are certain issues pertaining to this correspondence that need to be addressed. 

Firstly, I would like to clarify something that has been reported in the local newspaper. I am sure that the impression given by the Coventry Telegraph that Mark Labovitch had written to ‘around a dozen prominent  members of the Sky Blue Trust’ was accidental and completely unintentional. As we know, Mark Labovitch had actually written to about twelve members of the Supporters Consultative Group. And how strange that a ‘letter’ to Jan Mokrzycki could find its way onto the Coventry Telegraph’s mat. 

After the draft minutes of the last meeting on 20 February were distributed, the chairman of the Sky Blue Trust alleged that some remarks made at the meeting were ‘untrue and libellous’, asking that they be removed from the minutes in their entirety. I repeatedly asked Steve to specify precisely which sections of the minutes he was referring to so that we could address them. Instead, Steve requested that the Trust make a brief statement that could be added at the end of the minutes. He offered, as I understood it, to discuss my question about the remarks at a later date. 

I replied: 

I do not think the minutes of the meeting are an appropriate context for attaching a statement by or on behalf of any of the participants. 

You are of course free to issue such a statement independently. 

The Trust has in the meantime published on its website correspondence between the chairman of the Stadium Forum Committee, Sandra Garlick, and the secretary of the Sky Blue Trust. Aside from the fact that Sandra, she informed me, was never granted the courtesy of agreeing to the publication of this correspondence, the Trust’s letter makes the following assertions: 

Steve and Moz both declined the opportunity to act…as a representative of the SCG because the Trust does not feel that piecemeal ad hoc representation by the SCG is appropriate, because most of its Members represent no-one but themselves and because it meets so infrequently that it cannot hope to have meaningful input into the rapid process you envisage. 

I have since received an e-mail from Jan Mokrzycki: 

Are there any other meetings planned? If so I am happy to volunteer to attend on behalf of the SCG as I understand no one volunteered for the role at the last SCG meeting.  

I thanked Jan for his solicitous offer, adding: 

We keenly anticipate reading on the Trust’s website about how the Trust reconciles its apparently contrasting postures. 

And this is the dilemma. We would welcome Jan’s offer but we are perplexed as to how this can possibly benefit anyone whilst the Trust publicly questions the significance of the very group it aspires to represent. And if, for instance, it thinks that monthly meetings are inadequate, why not raise the issue on the SCG agenda? 

It would be helpful to hear the Trust’s unequivocal views on a number of matters. As Callum Wilson tore up the touchline during Sunday’s game before scoring his magnificent equaliser, someone could clearly be heard, as they frequently can, blowing a whistle from the hill. Do the Trust’s ‘thousands’ of members approve of such behaviour? 

The comments publicly aired on the Trust’s website, even if just clumsily phrased, are offensive. Personally speaking, I do not spend £29.70 on a rail ticket, and that is with a disabled persons’ discount, for an organisation represented on this group to publicly insinuate that I am doing so only to represent myself. And as chairman, I will not accept having the relevance of my colleagues’ contribution publicly called into question by fellow members.    

The SCG is a platform managed by its members and provided by the football club to enable consultation between the club and a broad spectrum of Coventry City supporters and their views. The SCG is not a fans’ parliament. There is nothing in the SCG’s Terms of Reference that states that each member must be a representative of a specific group. The democracy of the SCG cannot be founded on self-appointed constituencies. Some SCG members may represent a specific group but the football club is consulting them through the SCG primarily for what they contribute to representing Coventry City supporters as a whole. This is absolutely fundamental. It always has been and always must be. 

Further to this and in connection with publishing the names of the members of the group on the football club’s website, I am proposing to you that each member contributes fifty or sixty words about your role and aspirations as a Coventry City supporter. If you wish to say that you represent this or that community, that you represent this or that group, that’s fine, but we are sure you would want the public to know how and in what way this works and how it is especially relevant to your membership of the SCG.  

For those who represent a specific group, current statements of that group’s policies will, where relevant and with discussion, be quoted alongside other information provided. This is purely in order to provide the public, fellow members of the SCG and the football club which is enabling this process with a comprehensive picture of each group and its aspirations.  

I am extremely grateful to Elaine for producing the minutes. I would like to make two points about the purpose of minutes. Minutes of a meeting are not designed as a kind of Hansard. They are intended a) as a summary of what was discussed, and b) as a reproduction of any specific commitments undertaken during a meeting. I would ask us all to respect that they are not intended as an opportunity to top up what has been said.  

Every single member of this group has a unique contribution to make to this process of consultation. We make up a very wide tapestry. Whatever our angle, we have a privilege and a responsibility to identify and work towards a common purpose for the sake of the club, its supporters and also for the sake of this city. I trust that we can ALL join together in this endeavour.” 

JS’s address initiated discussion as follows: 

  • KH had not seen ML’s email to JM – ‘SBT getting its house in order’.  A number of people checked their e-mails and pointed out that he was indeed copied in. Ian Davidson had not been copied in and raised this. The e-mail may not have been copied to all SCG members, but JS happy to forward a copy to anyone who doesn’t have it 
  • JM denied any possible suggestion that he had sent the Coventry Telegraph the letter he had received although JS was not saying that he had. 
  • JS expressed his distaste of a SBT statement, still on the SBT website, which referred to the SCG having no meaningful input as it meets infrequently and that SCG members only represent themselves 
  • JM explained that because SG’s Stadium Forum Committee meets more frequently, information cannot be usefully fed between the Forum and the SCG which only meets once a month 
  • NC said that the SBT representatives on the SCG should have asked that frequency of meetings be put on the Agenda if they had a problem with this 
  • JS suggested that the concerns of the SBT should not be voiced on a public web-site, but that he, as Chairman, should be consulted in the first instance 
  • JS reiterated that he is happy to work with the SBT but asked what their position was.   The wording on their web-site was very insulting to SCG members 
  • Private correspondence between Sandra Garlick and the SBT appears on the SBT web-site and JS reported that Sandra Garlick is unhappy about this 
  • TS raised the issue of “infrequency of meetings” and “no meaningful input”.  He asked which group does meet frequently enough to represent themselves on the Stadium Committee 
  • ID raised the issue of speed of communication and the commitment to publish minutes of meetings on a timely basis.   JS had been asked by Sandra Garlick to hold back communication of information from Stadium Committee meetings until agreed by her. This was due to previous experience where confidential information (and not specifically to or from members of the committee), had appeared on websites. Sandra Garlick had also asked the Minutes not be circulated but that a summary be given  
  • TS raised the issue of a statement on the SBT website (dated 01 March) which states that the SCG was now run by the Club.  JM and MB reported that Roger Ellis had written this. 
  • TS made it very clear that by definition the Club does not run the SCG.  The SCG in its Terms of Reference is ‘sponsored’ by the Chief Executive of the Club, but is an independent group of fans who decide their own meeting dates, time, venue and agenda. 
  •  KH maintained that Dan Walker had made a statement that he looked upon the SCG as an integral part of his job in respect of his role as Fans’ Liaison Officer, a Football League requirement to liaise with all fans and not any particular group of fans.   
  • Irrespective of this TS stated that the SCG operates independently of the Football Club, and asked for a show of hands where all members, apart from JM and MB, confirmed this was also their understanding. TS asked that minutes of previous meetings be checked for clarification. 
  • PW advised that the SBT had been consulted when the Terms of Reference were first drafted.  John Fletcher had provided input in his role as SBT Chairman and therefore PW was disappointed that the SBT continue to question the structure of the SCG.  He also stated his wish for the SCG to continue its tradition of consultation and to work through current difficulties in a positive manner 
  • PW stated his belief that the SBT’s apparent duplicity made its further involvement with the SCG untenable, and proposed the following motion:- 

Continued inclusion of the SBT within the SCG should be contingent on three specific actions:- 

  1. An unreserved and public apology to the SCG, individually and collectively, for the recent comments made by the SBT 
  2. A retraction of the comments and the Sandra Garlick correspondence from the SBT website 
  3. A statement to be placed on the SBT website acknowledging positively the SCG’s structure and Terms of Reference, and the SBT’s commitment to embrace them 

 

The proposal was seconded by KH, a vote was taken on each measure, and the proposal was carried unanimously without objection.  

 

3.     The Identity of the SCG 

Dealt with per earlier discussion as outlined above 

 

4.Matters Arising from the Last Minutes 

  • Date not yet set for the public Fans’ Forum planned for April 
  • NC had looked into the possibility of taking match day team photos for posterity, but the window of opportunity was only about 60 seconds on match day between the final welcome hand-shake and kick-off.  This time is needed for players to make their final match preparations and there would not be enough time to take photos.  However, Steve Waggott and Steven Pressley would be happy to have photos taken pre and post transfer windows, so that all CCFC players are photographed at some point during their time at the Club 
  • JM pointed out that in American Football they have short videos of player profiles which make the web-site a little more interactive.  NC said that they had had head and shoulder shots of players on the scoreboard at the Ricoh etc.  NC would welcome any ideas of initiatives they could run from pre-season on health and fitness, where they could use the web-site to drive it 
  • TS has sent emailed details of his forthcoming charity bike ride 
  • It was agreed that the WiFi at the Squirrel would be tested at the next meeting which ID is unlikely to be able to attend.  He could dial in on FaceTime or Skype.   TS has had four or five overseas fans lines up to take part in the meeting via FaceTime, but had found that it was difficult for overseas fans to commit to the times of the meetings due to local time differences. Nobody could take part so far 
  • Following SBA’s request at the last meeting regarding away ticket subsidy, TS said the club had had initial internal discussions and was awaiting further discussions to be able to present a full answer to the SCG.   
  • TS did raise the issue of away coaches and asked about those occasions when the SBT coaches (run at cost price) had been more expensive for fans than the Club coaches and suggested that the SBT direct fans to use the Club coaches.   MB pointed out that the SBT coaches often leave earlier than the club coaches because fans want to make more of a day out at away matches. TS said that it would make sense for the SBT to work with the club (for its members) to organise an earlier and cheaper coach that was full rather than an un-full SBT coach with people having to pay more. JM and MB committed to promoting the club coaches when the club’s organised coaches were cheaper than the SBT organised coaches. 
  • ID had asked at the last meeting if a SBI section could be added to the web-site and NC reported that this has been done 
  • ID pointed out that fans need to see if actions have taken place following meetings and it was suggested that Matters Arising and Actions from Last Meeting be put first on the Agenda for future meetings. 

 

5.Stadium Forum 

JS attended the first Stadium Forum Committee Meeting on 26 February and gave an overview of the meeting. The Minutes of the meeting are attached, and will be provided by Sandra Garlick to various supporter groups for publication and wider distribution. 

A Stadium Committee meeting had been held the previous evening (Wednesday 19 March) which DD and PR attended. DD gave a summary report of the meeting, the Minutes of which are attached. These Minutes will also be provided by Sandra Garlick to various supporter groups for publication and wider distribution 

JS advised that the date for the next Stadium Forum had been set provisionally for Monday 31 March, with discussion topics Community and Fans outside the stadium. 

JS asked SCG members to pass on any ideas and thoughts on these two topics to him before this meeting. 

DD referenced the e-mail points ID had sent on behalf of CCLSC/SBI members at the Stadium Forum meeting 

 

6.Any Other Business 

  • TS is of the view that if there is an action to be taken, then do it straight away and for members to e-mail the group where relevant and appropriate to inform them if something had been actioned, rather than waiting until the next SCG meeting to inform the group.  
  • TS said that he had thoughts on the Community aspect for the new stadium – the Club should aspire to teach kids – ‘learn to swim with the Club’, ‘learn to ride your bike with the Club, ‘learn to drive a car with the Club’.  So many initiatives could be set up to link community projects with the Club 
  • KH pointed out that local radio for match commentaries could no longer be accessed by patients at University Hospital and NC agreed to supply a number of complimentary Sky Blues Player subscriptions to help overcome this providing there was agreement from the Hospital 
  • KH had also had problems accessing Sky Player and TS suggested that any problems like this should be reported to the Club, who do need to know and help resolve such issues 
  • RS has a Football League App which enables him to access match highight replays, and questioned if this is in the best interest of the Club.  NC explained that FL controls all rights, and makes short version available on You Tube.  Only the long version is available on Player. 
  • KH asked if ‘Man of the Match’ presentations could be shown on the web-site.  NC would look at this possibility 
  • It was agreed that any SCG Minutes should not be circulated to outside members or placed on any web-sites until 10.00am the following working day to enable a joint release across all platforms rather than staggered release based on when individuals first see them. 
  • ID asked if TS had used the demographics of the SCG members which he had requested and was there any feed-back?  TS explained that he was awaiting the last few members to provide their age group. 
  • JS reminded members to send him a brief personal profile of 50-60 words to outline their involvement and aspiration as a member of SCG.  
  • SBA expressed his ambition for the SCG to take the lead in helping the Club to re-build unity of the currently fractured fan base 
  •  JM raised concerns about the forthcoming home match against Wolves and the distribution of “home” tickets to away fans.  TS assured the group that the Club is taking steps to address this, were working closely with Wolves over it, and only selling tickets to supporters with a previous ticket purchase history 
  • PA is keeping in touch with Head Teachers of local schools, and would like to establish a literacy competition sponsored by the Club to encourage engagement with young supporters.  PA and TS to follow up 
  • TS keen to pursue Tickets for Schools - other Group Bookings full for rest of season 
  • RS attended the Diamond Club lunch and stated the difficulties conveyed to him by senior citizens who are unable to make the journey to Northampton – could the Club consider making transport available?  TS to investigate and report back 
  • PR asked for Club support of raffle prize for last home match in order to raise funds for the continued running of Family Zone pre match arts and crafts.  Funds currently very low, and no further income until next Xmas party.  TS to follow up 
  • PW suggested SCG sponsor last home match by voluntary contribution by members – suggested £5 per head donation at next meeting 
  • KH asked if the Club could provide a player to present the Ray Gould Cup at a morning assembly at Clifford Bridge and/or Pearl Hyde schools at a date during May or June.  NC reminded that players might be on holiday, but will follow up. TS asked KH to e-mail further details of the morning assembly. 

 

7.Date of Next Meeting 

Thursday 24 April at 6.30pm at The Squirrel Pub.