>Don't mistake the Ken Bates Members Club for anything close to the valuable >service LUSC offers. It's nothing more than a gimmick set-up to charge you >extra for the privilege of booking tickets." Wasn't the Supporters Club doing >the same thing before Bates introduced his own version? I joined the SC when I >was living in London so I could get tickets, as far as I can see, the MC does >the same thing, except all the money from the scheme goes back to the club?
How much did you pay for your SC membership ? How much does a non-season ticket holder pay for membership of the Bates scheme ? What percentage of away tickets ever went via the SC ? Nobody was ever forced to join the SC in order to obtain tickets AFAIK. Isn't it true that it was simply easier for you to obtain tickets because the local branch of the SC did the leg-work for you ? Joining the SC was an additional service that you opted to buy into. You could still have applied directly to the club if that it what you had wanted to do. Even if you were correct - and you are not - at least you say that the SC was doing it FIRST but then you say - "But there is simply no point in going head to head with the club over an issue that is never going to change". If anyone decoded to go "head to head" then it very clearly must have been Bates and it certainly was not (and still is not) the SC. >"all the money goes back to the club" Are you comparing like with like and do you know how much the SC paid over to the club out of its very small membership fees ? >And when the people complained about Billy's Bar being for members only, I >noticed that the SC did a similar thing at the Peacock with a "SC only" room. Your point would be fair if let's say only the rear third of Billy's Bar was for members only when in fact you can't get in at all if you are not a member. Just as with the tickets above - you are misrepresenting the actual situation. >As for investing a heap of money into a lease on a pub in direct competition >to the club's facilities, then you can see why Bates is annoyed. The Peacock pub has always been there. The SC did not create a rival facility and it is just nonsense to try to make out that they did. Bates can only be reasonably annoyed by the change of ownership if - either he wanted the pub himself or if he thought that it would close down. The SC bought the lease because they wanted a "home" close to the ground. A location on club premises would have been preferable but the club didn't want to know. Bates was annoyed because the SC did not simply hand over their bank account to him when he asked for it. Since that time Bates put the club through administration so if the SC had given him all their funds it would have been like throwing it down the toilet. It would have been 100% lost by the process of administration. Then SC members would really have grounds for criticism. >I have to say that I am in the MC and think it is a good idea. So of course, >my opinion is biased, as most of us are on this issue. Based upon your arguments here, I think everyone would have to agree that you are certainly biased on this subject. At the same time (and there is not necessarily any conflict in this) many might agree that the MC could be a good idea - depending upon how it is run and the benefits it offers. It is also a fact that large numbers of SC members are also MC members. Why do you wish to claim that most of us are biased on this issue ? Many of us are not. People can look at the facts and make a decision based on them. That does not make their opinion biased in any way. An opinion in opposition to the facts though, would certainly be biased. If I had to make wild generalisation in the manner that you have done, my GUESS would be that most fans don't care either way. I accept that this is not the same as your GUESS. >I think that in the past, an organization like the SC had a real purpose, and >did a hell of a lot of good. But there is simply no point in going head to >head with the club over an issue that is never going to change. The club want >the option of setting out how tickets are distributed, rather than letting a >third party do it. Makes sense when you think about it. As far as I can tell, the tickets argument was redundant long ago. I haven't heard any arguments from the SC that the club should go back to supplying tickets via the SC. What I have heard is that SC branch secs would like the same ease of ordering tickets for their members as the RMC secs have at present. Makes sense when you think about it - unless your objective is to FORCE fans to join the members club. >The MC system has also made lots of inroads into bringing fans together, with >the Leeds on the Road events, providing memorabilia for fund raising, and >providing centralised communication DIRECT to the club. The LOR events could take place with or without the existence of a members club. The club could visit any sort of fans organisation if it wanted to. The club could provide memorabilia in a similar way. Who are the funds being raised for btw ? Direct communication with the club is fine but why do I need a members card to communicate in this way ? I'm a fan - how has the MC system made lots of inroads in bringing me together with fellow fans ? I'd say that it attempts to exclude non-members rather than bring fans together. >That article says if you don't like the system, get involved and change it >from within, well you could also argue you might get further if you do it >through the Member's Club. Well you could argue that but I doubt that many people with a modicum of knowledge would accept the point. The SC operates democratically and you could change it from within if you really wanted to and could get the members to agree to your changes. Maybe you could respond and advise just how the MC can be changed from within. Who makes the decisions ? What happens if the members wish to change something that Bates wants left unchanged ? There is plenty of room for discussion on this subject and room for both organisations and both points of view. Just accepting Bates' propaganda and half truths is doing nobody a service. _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER
