Questions for the Advisory Board

[Bennett]

I'd have liked them to quantify why it's a problem vs just telling the supporters there's a (albeit) slight hoop to jump through.

TBH I've also got issues with data being captured, how it's stored and the use of that data, given it's arriving via an email address

[Quagmire]

I'd have liked them to quantify why it's a problem vs just telling the supporters there's a (albeit) slight hoop to jump through.

TBH I've also got issues with data being captured, how it's stored and the use of that data, given it's arriving via an email address

I expect it’s to stop accounts like the ‘STFC fans questions’ on twitter just sending loads through.

[ChalkyWhiteIsGod]

I've no issue with it. Football fans questions inevitably attract mongs and if it stops shite questions like that div moaning about the word punter then its a good thing.

[Bennett]

I see this as a lack of transparency.
The trust are receiving and processing the questions and have put up an easily stepped over barrier.
They've said 100% of questions get an official response now, so what benefit is there to having a name?
It's very strange, unless they want to save the 20% of resources not responding to unnamed questions

[Posh Red]

The OSC send out an email before the meeting asking if anyone has any questions to ask, will presumably pass on the name rather than grouping them together

[Nemo]

And shortly after that, the June minutes have been posted: https://www.swindontownfc.co.uk/news/2023/june/club-releases-june-advisory-board-minutes/

My notes:

- Season ticket sales at 4.4k
- Kits to come end of June
- Lots of ground maintenance happening (not just the pitch)
- Trust has sold 1,531 voting shares of the CG
- First ever (brief) mention of Chris Kiely in the Advisory Board that I remember - "Chris Kiely provides data consultancy that will support the recruitment which Michael Flynn is undertaking"
- S & C being brought in house

[Power to people]

No issues with that as long as individual names are not logged and kept anywhere.

We don't want a scenario whereby person x asks lots of questions and then ends up being either publicly chastised or receive a ban for asking awkward questions.

There maybe certain individuals that know certain things and can offer more in-depth questions, but they would not want their name logged anywhere.

I would hope this would not stop the trust et all asking the tough questions and publishing them.

[Mooneyraker]

"For the 23/24 season the Medical and S&C team will be a fully in-house STFC team"

No more Adam Hart?

[tans]

Hopefully

[joeydubya]

I would hope this would not stop the trust et all asking the tough questions and publishing them.

Is that not the point? Don't want to harm the special relationship...

[Bennett]

No issues with that as long as individual names are not logged and kept anywhere.

We don't want a scenario whereby person x asks lots of questions and then ends up being either publicly chastised or receive a ban for asking awkward questions.

There maybe certain individuals that know certain things and can offer more in-depth questions, but they would not want their name logged anywhere.

This is one of my issues with this change.
It's solving a problem that doesn't exist and potentially creates a bigger problem for the questioner

[Batch]

"For the 23/24 season the Medical and S&C team will be a fully in-house STFC team"

No more Adam Hart?

or he's on the books now 😁

[Batch]

As far as I can see, there is nothing stopping anyone setting up a fake Twitter, or email account, using a false name. Which would take all of 2 minutes.

I. P. Freely
Seymour Butts
Mike Rotch...

Bart Simpson can be educational

[theakston2k]

It says the name etc won’t be published in the minutes etc but I guess the big question is does the club see the name of the person asking the question? If they do and someone asks a question or makes an accusation the club don’t like what’s to stop them taking action such as imposing a ban or issuing warnings to that person?

Also if the name of the person is disclosed to the club as a separate organisation surely this puts everyone into an iffy position with regards to data protection and GDPR?

Really there needs to be an ironclad commitment that the names of people aren’t passed on to the club either formally or informally otherwise people are less likely to raise anything overly controversial.

[Wobbly Bob]

Regarding the questions.

Shouldn't full (or as near as) transparency work both ways?