From the March minutes.. "KD raised the issue of confidentiality in the Group as she advised that she has had people approach her at matches stating they had heard things which had not been released by the FAB. No one in the Group was aware of any leaks by anyone but it was strongly agreed that confidential matters arising must be kept confidential" Firstly, I guess getting specific answers from MS regarding the January window fell under the "confidential matters" heading then, as all that was minuted was vague waffle. Secondly, what's the point of releasing confidential stuff to a Fan Advisory Board, if that board then can't advise the fans of what took place? Just sounds like a little club for more folk to be ITK.
They shouldn't be discussing anything confidential in my opinion. All that does is makes a mockery of being a fan group and just further makes it look like a cloak and daggers, 'do what we want and we'll give you information' setup which we've had far too many times before. Needs to be cut out and do what it's supposed to be there for before people start to get really pissed off with the ineffectiveness of it. And again that's criticism of those running it not the volunteers
It's may, why are only February minutes out? What about march? Surely they were finalised at the April meeting weren't they? Edit. My bad, I see they've now done march too. In answer to now to be more effective. 1. Release draft minutes when the club have reviewed them. They can then be changed to confirmed minutes at the next meeting. That's one month after the meeting. No excuse for longer than that in anything other than an exception. 2. Each question asked by fans needs to have a way to be documented because for example I have asked about the prices not being displayed several times and I know you've mentioned that other fab members have raised it yet I don't see it in any minutes which means there's no documentation to say it was ever raised. 3. I don't think that the current system of so and so represents long distance fans, so and so represents women, so and so represents season ticket holders etc really works on an efficiency point of view because as I've said before, who does a disabled female season ticket holder from Birmingham contact? She comes under about 50 different people. I personally wouldn't know who my relevant rep is out of about 3 or 4 different people so I just ask you. Surely it would be more efficient to have the different people be responsible for different types of issues. One person in charge of 'issues at away games', 'issues affecting disability', 'issues affecting ticketing', 'issues affecting matchday experience' etc. seems like a more streamlined way of doing it. But that's just my opinion.
Feb..... https://images.gc.barnsleyfcservices.co.uk/94857d20-2a72-11f0-b316-3d917fca0cba.pdf Mar.... https://images.gc.barnsleyfcservices.co.uk/9b135860-2a72-11f0-b316-3d917fca0cba.pdf
I've just read the most recent minutes. Hopefully we manage to regroup after the collapse of ITV Digital.
Hopefully now the minutes are out. They will in future come out in a timely manner, once the minutes are agreed at the next meeting or before if matters are resolved. As for your point re individuals responsible to be contacted on relevant issues. The FAB board is on the system as to who to contact. And has been for a while. With email address for each one. Of which there are 11 persons. All contactable. (Same section as the minutes) with 10 sections to cover. If you feel any other sections of the fanbase are not represented. I'm sure they will look into it. And add to AOB. This is why footballing matters imo. Are not in their remit, causing them to having to take unwarranted flack. Of which some have been abused unfairly. Look at their titles. It should be. Again imo (Eg the January window) the responsibility of eg the Supporters trust. A separate entity but with some input from both if necessary on club matters. Eg a fanzone. Of which the supporters trust played a big part over the years.
I've seen you mention this on several occasions now and, with all due respect, couldn't disagree more with it. Our role is to reflect the concerns of supporters, and nothing in the terms of reference we work to restricts us from discussing footballing matters in this regard. At the end of January there was no single bigger issue among supporters than the general dismay regarding the January transfer window, and we took steps to relay those concerns to the person with direct responsibility for that. At the time, no-one envisaged that the minutes of that meeting would become a saga in itself, and awaiting their publication also effectively silenced us from being able to provide any sort of update on it, other than to confirm it had taken place. I'll leave it to the conspiracy theorists to determine whichever master plan was responsible for that, but it has been something of an inconvenience for us, to put it mildly. We all hold roles with reference to particular categories of supporters, mainly as a means of providing a channel of contact for people to use. This was established during the setup of the FAB when a wider group of supporters, including yourself, were involved prior to the FAB members being elected. The terms of reference were also drafted during that process. However, it would be farcical if we were each individually only allowed to speak within meetings on matters with a direct link to our own remit, and the meetings would become a sequence of individual two-way dialogues if we attempted to work in that way. As a group, we're all supporters with largely the same concerns as everyone else, and we seek to raise and address these with the club in a constructive manner. The FAB being given access to Mladen at that time was, as far as I'm aware, the only opportunity provided for anyone to ask questions to him in an unfiltered manner until the recent Radio Sheffield interview. I'm as annoyed as anyone about the time taken for the minutes of that meeting to be published, but no-one should be in any doubt that the same general concerns that were being expressed on the various forums at the time were expressed during that meeting. Now, like everyone else, we have to wait to see what the summer transfer window brings to assess whether there has been any noticeable improvement. We now have the benefit of hindsight that wasn't available at the time we held the meeting, but I would challenge anyone within the club to now argue that the business done during that window was anything other than a failure. From a personal perspective I would not continue to sit on the FAB if I felt that we were unable to raise any issue with the club as we saw fit, and nothing in the terms of reference prevents us from doing so. It remains within the club's prerogative for them to choose not to engage with us on any particular topic, but this hasn't been my experience of the FAB meetings to date. The thing we need to ensure is that there is no repeat of the situation where the publication of minutes effectively constrains the ability of FAB members to engage with the wider fanbase on any particular topic, and this is something that we have been seeking to address in the intervening period since the delay with the February minutes first became apparent.
If as I imagine you were part of the Fan advisory group. (Which you seem to have an advantage, if you know me). And Note Fan advisory not engagement. The items imo were exactly that. Each board member was elected on the premis they represented the different sections as proposed by the board and the club. Each elected representative. Gave a reason as to why they put up for the posts they did. If as you suggest. They get involved like the supporters trust (who believe me feel totally disconnected from the club. Having been the main connection for years. But are trying to get folk to come on board and build back up again, and the club are wishing to see that happen ) then that was not what most of these reps didn't volunteer to do. The FAB was not born to be the trusts replacement. But at the FSA's requests. For efl clubs to engage with on fan issues. Finances etc. Not who they sign or why. The club will not go into detail. The output from the February meeting was welcome. But that should have been 1 question with a simple answer. which the club went into detail. The rest of the agenda was dropped barring the community trust. Dealing with matters on the field, I will say again are not in the remit. The issue i fought when attending advisory meetings on each occasion. Was the Horsham debacle. One or two on the group were dismissive of it. (Pathetic replies) as was one from the club. One lad intervened and in effect backed me up. And offered a lesser solution that both parties in the end agreed to, inc. Yours truly. I am not dismissive of any questions being asked. But once the Trust is back up and running. Everyone is invited but can't be arsed, and if I recall correctly. Gally invited those questions. Of The Trust members on the FAB board 1 was elected the other admitted. But on the premis of what may benefit the fans from their meetings that may not get picked up by the board. You seem to be under the impression all members of the FAB agreed to the change of agenda. Not so.
Yeh but what did the FAB ever do for us....apart from fixing the tvs,standardising ticket prices, reducing food queues, irrigation.....
No-one is arguing that it was. The Trust has specific representation on the FAB, but the two are separate organisations. There are 2 elected representatives of the Trust on the FAB (as put forward by the BFCST Board). Two other current BFCST Board Members have separate elected roles on the FAB, having stood for election in those categories. The proposed change of agenda for the meeting was agreed in advance of the request being made to the club to speak to Mladen.
Why would we make such a request to the club without it? If you want to provide any specific details as to why you disagree then feel free.
