Season Tick Renewal - What's Going On!

[Bandini]

That's some top, top fight-in-an-empty-room starting there, RL.

[Hoop Blah]

HB, are you a STAR member? Why not join the board and shake things up a bit?

I have been a member in the past and stopped because the only benefit was attending the fans forums. I can't make the time/effort to get to any of them these days so I'm no longer a member.

Would I join the board? Not a chance. It's not my kind of organisation and I'd rather contact the club directly to air any grievences and deal with things myself.

At the end of the day the club has made it's bed and has set out it's strategy. For the most part STAR and the majority of it's members fit into that strategy but the most likely outcome for me is that it will drive me away from the club and the game I've supported for far too many years.

[Bandini]

Come off it, V12. No wonder STAR can't do their job properly with busybodies like RL poking her nose in. Starliason was RIGHT to tell RL that she's doing more harm than good.

[Blue Heart]

Sorry to disappoint you, but had we have been given the opportunity we would have strongly argued against it, not that I am holding my breath that you will believe that, because that would truly screw up the preferred perception by some that we will rubber stamp anything the club chooses to do.

[Blue Heart]

It must be wonderful to be as all knowing as you, however the offer is still open if you think things need changing rather than sit on here so smug and self satisfied do something about it try and change things from within.

[RoyalBlue]

Sorry to disappoint you, but had we have been given the opportunity we would have strongly argued against it, not that I am holding my breath that you will believe that, because that would truly screw up the preferred perception by some that we will rubber stamp anything the club chooses to do.

So presumably you have since given the club hell for not consulting with you on this?

Presumably you are also pushing hard for them to change this decision and not kick long term supporters in the teeth (whilst at the same time shooting at their own goal) with the earlier renewal deadline.

Or wil STAR just accept it once again and continue to be perceived by some/many as an unpaid section of the club's PR team?

[Hoop Blah]

It must be wonderful to be as all knowing as you, however the offer is still open if you think things need changing rather than sit on here so smug and self satisfied do something about it try and change things from within.

How do you know people don't though?

If I feel strongly enough I make a point of telling those that matter at the club. I know you guys have a voice of some sort with the club but pretty much everything I see and hear from STAR is that your just being unpaid help for the club or their mouthpiece to the fans.

I can't recall any other topic where you've been really anti the club (although I do remember an instance where the club changed tack after STAR and other fans representation - can't for the life of me remember what it was though) rather more your detault stance is club-apologist. From the little communication on here regarding the ST renewals it seems your all more put out that you weren't consulted rather than the atcual impact of the change in renewal date.

Maybe it is just a perception thing, but that is STARs issue to solve if they really want to be considered a representative group for RFC fans in general.

[TFF]

although I do remember an instance where the club changed tack after STAR and other fans representation - can't for the life of me remember what it was though

Broadcast rights being exclusive to 107 iirc

[TFF]

I can't recall any other topic where you've been really anti the club

That's probably because on the whole we get pretty fair treatment from RFC. I'd struggle to name an instance where I felt STAR have let the fans down tbh.

All our gripes (and there might be lots of them) are pretty minor ones.

[Svlad Cjelli]

although I do remember an instance where the club changed tack after STAR and other fans representation - can't for the life of me remember what it was though

Broadcast rights being exclusive to 107 iirc

Plus searches by drug dogs.

[Blue Heart]

It must be wonderful to be as all knowing as you, however the offer is still open if you think things need changing rather than sit on here so smug and self satisfied do something about it try and change things from within.

How do you know people don't though?

If I feel strongly enough I make a point of telling those that matter at the club. I know you guys have a voice of some sort with the club but pretty much everything I see and hear from STAR is that your just being unpaid help for the club or their mouthpiece to the fans.

I can't recall any other topic where you've been really anti the club (although I do remember an instance where the club changed tack after STAR and other fans representation - can't for the life of me remember what it was though) rather more your detault stance is club-apologist. From the little communication on here regarding the ST renewals it seems your all more put out that you weren't consulted rather than the atcual impact of the change in renewal date.

Maybe it is just a perception thing, but that is STARs issue to solve if they really want to be considered a representative group for RFC fans in general.

We are annoyed that we were not given the opportunity to voice our opinion, but NOT just because we are STAR. We are season ticket holders as well do you think by some miracle we are unaffected by the whole thing. By the way Reading are not the only club to have done it ( NOT that is any excuse for them) Derby have also done the same except they have given their fans 2 more days grace, there may be other clubs but I haven't checked that.However that is for their fans to protest over. The club will be left in no doubt as to how we feel about the whole debacle, the most effective way to show the depth of feeling is by not renewing by the date, by calling the clubs bluff, but human nature as it is, people will huff and puff but I suspect, no matter what they say, they will renew quietly because they will not run the risk of losing their seat.

[Svlad Cjelli]

FWIW my view on this, as a STH, is that the club, like any other business, has made a commercial decision and will reap the commercial consequences if they’ve got it wrong. If people object to it they won’t go for it, the uptake will be poor and the club will be forced to make a commercial decision to rectify the situation – otherwise they lose out.

I think this is a very short-sighted decision by the club, appallingly handled from a PR point of view, and which is losing them the goodwill of so many of their loyal customers – and whilst they might not lose out financially the goodwill hit will be damaging to them.

But whilst this will be a pain for those people who will be renewing anyway, it’s not such a great pain – as I say, it’s a commercial decision, take it or leave it!

The fact that there’s such outrage over what is really not that serious an issue (in the great scheme of things) shows how well - in comparison to many other sets of supporters – Reading supporters have things and are treated.

As to the usual conspiracy theories being trotted out, to the effect that this is all part of the club’s on-going attempts to rip off the fans, they are well wide of the mark – from all my dealings with people at the club they are genuine, hard-working people trying to do the best within the lousy constraints placed upon them. They know that if they piss too many supporters off then they lose them, so it’s a balancing act, and this time they’ve swung too far one way – and not controlled the message at all well. When it bites them commercially - well, that’s the way life works.

[Svlad Cjelli]

And at at this point, it may be worth re-postng the below which is about a year old but I assume still stands for STAR.

I'll just make this point to clarify STAR's modus operandi : the experience of STAR and just about every other supporters' organisation is that unless you have a significant or majority shareholding then adopting an adversarial stance means that you achieve nothing - adopt a default state of always criticising and all that actually happens is that you get ignored.

The most effective way to achieve things is to work with, not against, the club. And while we don't always achieve what we want, we can guarantee that we always get listened to, unlike the majority of other supporters' organisations. Football today is a money-business more than ever, and when you don't have any significant financial interest attaining influence is the most effective way of doing things. People might want to see public-sabre rattling, but while that might look good in the papers for a few days it would actually achieve the square root of b*gger-all! .

Also, as a key role of STAR is also to act as a communication channel between club and supporters, every trolling attempt which accuses STAR of "saying what the club wants them to say" is taken as a measure of success, not of criticism - when you're passing on a message you shouldn't change it.

..... Edit for relevance and brevity ....

And just to reiterate for all, STAR Board Members are elected by the members of STAR, and there's an elections process every year. Any member is welcome to stand against us and we'd actively welcome this.

[Hoop Blah]

I agree an effective communication can't be based around always having a pop at the club and being too antagonistic.

I think the fan base probably need a more militant voice though, but perhaps that needs to be as well as STAR and not STAR themselves. STAR perhaps don't get the credit they deserve at times, the likes of me included, but as a traditional fan seeing a lot of my fellow supports drift away from the game because of the way the club have sanitised, corporatised and customerised the 'match day experience' I just feel they're not representative of my views.

Do they stand up to the club? Not a lot by what I've seen and heard. Is that a bad thing? At times yes, but I take on board the above that you can't always be the dissenting voice and still have any weight on the subjects that matter.

I do think the reaction of STAR on here leaves a bit to be desired though.

[Bandini]

And at at this point, it may be worth re-postng the below which is about a year old but I assume still stands for STAR.

I'll just make this point to clarify STAR's modus operandi : the experience of STAR and just about every other supporters' organisation is that unless you have a significant or majority shareholding then adopting an adversarial stance means that you achieve nothing - adopt a default state of always criticising and all that actually happens is that you get ignored.

The most effective way to achieve things is to work with, not against, the club. And while we don't always achieve what we want, we can guarantee that we always get listened to, unlike the majority of other supporters' organisations. Football today is a money-business more than ever, and when you don't have any significant financial interest attaining influence is the most effective way of doing things. People might want to see public-sabre rattling, but while that might look good in the papers for a few days it would actually achieve the square root of b*gger-all! .

Also, as a key role of STAR is also to act as a communication channel between club and supporters, every trolling attempt which accuses STAR of "saying what the club wants them to say" is taken as a measure of success, not of criticism - when you're passing on a message you shouldn't change it.

..... Edit for relevance and brevity ....

And just to reiterate for all, STAR Board Members are elected by the members of STAR, and there's an elections process every year. Any member is welcome to stand against us and we'd actively welcome this.

Presumably there's also a place for being more adversarial on certain occasions. If the impetus is always to keep STAR's insider status, the organisation risks being alienated from fans with legitimate complaints and being taken for granted by the club - as long as the STAR rep gets to shake the manager's hand once in a while, (s)he'll be happy etc.

[Sarah Star]

I take exception to the comments made by the STAR representatives on here - firstly, that I shouldn't be mentioning "cash flow problems" when that is what I heard on the radio from one of them!

Thought that was me, posting as me not a STAR representative and you were reporting what you'd heard BBCRB report which I felt was selective. Thought my apology was accepted.

I do think the reaction of STAR on here leaves a bit to be desired though.

Point taken, but they're volunteers with other jobs trying to do their best who have bad days just like anyone else. People forget that.

[Royal Lady]

Starliaison also moaned about "cash flow" mentioning

And we all know that you all have other jobs - so really, attacking those who have helped you out by also trying to get answers on this particular subject isn't the cleverest thing to do really, is it.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Presumably there's also a place for being more adversarial on certain occasions. If the impetus is always to keep STAR's insider status, the organisation risks being alienated from fans with legitimate complaints and being taken for granted by the club - as long as the STAR rep gets to shake the manager's hand once in a while, (s)he'll be happy etc.

To a certain extent, yes, and they have in the past. I would imagine (I certainly can't and don't talk for STAR) that the art is picking which battles are winnable and which are worth fighting.

Also, frequently the best influencing work is often done in private. In a situation like this, it might be quite possible that a club realises that they've made a mistake and are looking for a way to rectify the situation. Going all in all guns blazing with big publicity in such situations can be so counter-productive, as it often just strengthens the resolve of a club so they dig their heels in to save losing face - no-one likes being shown to be wrong publicly. I've certainly learnt that with other clubs I've dealt with, and in work situations - quiet diplomacy and offering a way out is usually much better than doing business in public.

[Hoop Blah]

To a certain extent, yes, and they have in the past. I would imagine (I certainly can't and don't talk for STAR) that the art is picking which battles are winnable and which are worth fighting.

The two aren't always the same (the winnable and the worthy). Perhaps that's a little bit of where STAR are at least perceived as getting it wrong at times.

Point taken, but they're volunteers with other jobs trying to do their best who have bad days just like anyone else. People forget that.

I don't forget it. It's not a time thing here, it's a tone issue.

[Bandini]

Presumably there's also a place for being more adversarial on certain occasions. If the impetus is always to keep STAR's insider status, the organisation risks being alienated from fans with legitimate complaints and being taken for granted by the club - as long as the STAR rep gets to shake the manager's hand once in a while, (s)he'll be happy etc.

To a certain extent, yes, and they have in the past. I would imagine (I certainly can't and don't talk for STAR) that the art is picking which battles are winnable and which are worth fighting.

Also, frequently the best influencing work is often done in private. In a situation like this, it might be quite possible that a club realises that they've made a mistake and are looking for a way to rectify the situation. Going all in all guns blazing with big publicity in such situations can be so counter-productive, as it often just strengthens the resolve of a club so they dig their heels in to save losing face - no-one likes being shown to be wrong publicly. I've certainly learnt that with other clubs I've dealt with, and in work situations - quiet diplomacy and offering a way out is usually much better than doing business in public.

Sure. I think that the perception from a significant number of fans and of actual and potential STAR members is that the balance is tilted too much in favour of the softly, softly approach.