Fans Forum

[Para Handy]

Jeez, is Para Handy still crying about me with every post?

It's almost as though my pointing out his permanent state of angryness hit a nerve.

Yeah, every one of your posts is an arrow to my heart m8. I think you'll find I didn't bring it up in the first place but no real surprise you turned up is it.

[Cypry]

Pretty strange to be condoning chopping and changing the captain though, wouldn't you agree? It would certainly have an unsettling effect on the team and I, for one, would not be in favour of it. And the first game of the season, he drops Jobi and makes Morrison captain, despite Guthrie being Vice Captain - ok - clear as mud for me. I'll bow to your knowledge from the Fan's Forum!

On the other hand, last season loads of people were bemoaning the fact that Jobi was undroppable because he was captain.....

I think Adkins is trying to strike a balance, he has his figurehead in Jobi, who has the honour of Club Captain, writes in the programme and is generally looked up to by fans and players alike.
He then has a group of leaders who share the responsibility of wearing the armband on a Saturday, it's a different role, and that's the point that Adkins was making - he talked about how the position of the captain on the pitch is important, about how CBs and goalkeepers have a better view of what's going on, and where things might be going wrong, or right.

He also talked about how the role of captain has changed over the years, and how a good captain is no longer just a motivator, who can shout at people when things go wrong, but someone who has good tactical awareness, and knows how to make subtle changes to the way the team is playing to address weakness, with the benefit of being closer to the action than the manager on the bench...I strongly suspect that Guthrie as a captain might fit into the "old school shouty" bracket, and therefore is perhaps not at the top of the list for captain....

Personally I think it's an approach that makes sense, gives more of the team a shared sense of responsibility, and also keeps the current wearer of the armband on his toes as he will be all too aware that he could lose it with a couple of poor performances.....

[Green]

Join STAR?

I'd rather gauge out my eyes with a rusty fork.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Join STAR?

I'd rather gauge out my eyes with a rusty fork.

Do you think that would need measuring?

[Green]

[Hoop Blah]

The issue with STAR, for my money, isn't their exclusive events and travel, that's fine, but they are supposed to be a body to represent and fight for the supporter base as a whole. Due to their cliquey and subservient nature I think they've become too close to the club and no longer represent the fan base as a whole which is one of their stated aims.

Their inability and apparent lack of motivation to engage with the wider fan base just reinforces that opinion/perception IMO.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think it's a mistake on STAR's part not to engage on HNA. I can see why they don't due to the abuse, but I agree it's a mistake.

What makes me laugh though, is most of the critics appear not to be STAR members yet all think they should be representing the "wider fanbase". Erm, there's a simple answer to that

I don't use STAR Travel, my m8's and I prefer to travel by train to away games when we go. For that reason STAR is probably irrelevant for me. However, I respect what they try to do within the confines of what they can do (which probably isn't much). I don't really care whether they're cliquey or not. They're doing what they want to do supporting Reading. I've no problem with that. The opportunity is there for people to change within or start their own organisation.

I was a member of the supporters club and then STAR after it essentially took it over (yes it was voted in and had good intentions) but the organisation now isn't the same as the old one.

As for you laughing at the fact non STAR members think they should be representing the wider fan base, theres a very good reason for that, it states it as one of its aims and, from what I remember, was something that was promised at the time the supporters club was engulfed by STAR.

• to encourage the Club to take proper account of the interests of its supporters and the community it serves in its decisions and to honour the contribution made by the community in the past to the life of the club

Do I think it does that? No, not really. I think it puts a much higher priority on having close and cosy links with the club and being its unofficial PR and and free events support team. I don't think one organisation can be as cosy as STAR appear to strive for but militant enough to effectively stand up for the supporters rights when needed.

[The Rouge]

What makes me laugh though, is most of the critics appear not to be STAR members yet all think they should be representing the "wider fanbase". Erm, there's a simple answer to that

Yeah, its like all these people who criticise the government. Why don't they just become prime minister?

Wow. That's a pretty bloody stupid analogy don't you think. In retrospect....?

Less stupid than people continually suggesting that joining and changing from within is only option. Would you do that with EDL? PETA? UKIP? etc I would suggest cranking up the intelligence level of your posts before throwing that one tbf..

[Royal Lady]

The issue with STAR, for my money, isn't their exclusive events and travel, that's fine, but they are supposed to be a body to represent and fight for the supporter base as a whole. Due to their cliquey and subservient nature I think they've become too close to the club and no longer represent the fan base as a whole which is one of their stated aims.

Their inability and apparent lack of motivation to engage with the wider fan base just reinforces that opinion/perception IMO.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think it's a mistake on STAR's part not to engage on HNA. I can see why they don't due to the abuse, but I agree it's a mistake.

What makes me laugh though, is most of the critics appear not to be STAR members yet all think they should be representing the "wider fanbase". Erm, there's a simple answer to that

I don't use STAR Travel, my m8's and I prefer to travel by train to away games when we go. For that reason STAR is probably irrelevant for me. However, I respect what they try to do within the confines of what they can do (which probably isn't much). I don't really care whether they're cliquey or not. They're doing what they want to do supporting Reading. I've no problem with that. The opportunity is there for people to change within or start their own organisation.

I was a member of the supporters club and then STAR after it essentially took it over (yes it was voted in and had good intentions) but the organisation now isn't the same as the old one.

As for you laughing at the fact non STAR members think they should be representing the wider fan base, theres a very good reason for that, it states it as one of its aims and, from what I remember, was something that was promised at the time the supporters club was engulfed by STAR.

• to encourage the Club to take proper account of the interests of its supporters and the community it serves in its decisions and to honour the contribution made by the community in the past to the life of the club

Do I think it does that? No, not really. I think it puts a much higher priority on having close and cosy links with the club and being its unofficial PR and and free events support team. I don't think one organisation can be as cosy as STAR appear to strive for but militant enough to effectively stand up for the supporters rights when needed.

^^^ THIS all day long - thank you for being so eloquent about it!

[Ian Royal]

The issue with STAR, for my money, isn't their exclusive events and travel, that's fine, but they are supposed to be a body to represent and fight for the supporter base as a whole. Due to their cliquey and subservient nature I think they've become too close to the club and no longer represent the fan base as a whole which is one of their stated aims.

Their inability and apparent lack of motivation to engage with the wider fan base just reinforces that opinion/perception IMO.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think it's a mistake on STAR's part not to engage on HNA. I can see why they don't due to the abuse, but I agree it's a mistake.

What makes me laugh though, is most of the critics appear not to be STAR members yet all think they should be representing the "wider fanbase". Erm, there's a simple answer to that

I don't use STAR Travel, my m8's and I prefer to travel by train to away games when we go. For that reason STAR is probably irrelevant for me. However, I respect what they try to do within the confines of what they can do (which probably isn't much). I don't really care whether they're cliquey or not. They're doing what they want to do supporting Reading. I've no problem with that. The opportunity is there for people to change within or start their own organisation.

I was a member of the supporters club and then STAR after it essentially took it over (yes it was voted in and had good intentions) but the organisation now isn't the same as the old one.

As for you laughing at the fact non STAR members think they should be representing the wider fan base, theres a very good reason for that, it states it as one of its aims and, from what I remember, was something that was promised at the time the supporters club was engulfed by STAR.

• to encourage the Club to take proper account of the interests of its supporters and the community it serves in its decisions and to honour the contribution made by the community in the past to the life of the club

Do I think it does that? No, not really. I think it puts a much higher priority on having close and cosy links with the club and being its unofficial PR and and free events support team. I don't think one organisation can be as cosy as STAR appear to strive for but militant enough to effectively stand up for the supporters rights when needed.

I used to be a member of STAR as well and it felt pretty cliquey at the time and that was when it actively tried to engage with fans on here as it ought to, and to do its job I used to defend them, but tbh, I haven't seen any sign of them doing anything remotely useful for years. And the hissy fit and passive aggressive defensiveness over Cypry's post about that fans forum was just pathetic. It's got more and more insular and cliquey from what I can see. I seem to recall having to wait about 2 months to get any information about a fans forum when I was actually a member. So I agree with you.

The only way I benefited from being a member was by getting a free pen and a few Royalty points.

They've proved incredibly weak when it comes to the commitment (iirc) the club gave not to change kits every season and instead alternate new home and away kits so each lasted 2 years. That disappeared years ago with not even a murmer. They advertise their forums to try and look good and then refuse to tell anyone who couldn't go what happened, in effect they're saying "Wwe're getting secret information, you can't get it because we're better than you!"

I find it difficult to believe that the increased tolerance to standing from stewards has anything to do with STAR and is more a case of giving up because of bigger crowds and more people doing it. STAR don't seem to be interested in even trying to address whether fans want different kit designs to the ones we get. They are actively against engaging with one of the largest and most established online communities of the fanbase they're supposedly representing.

Apart from hold private meetings with club officials and arrange coaches for a couple of hundred people, what exactly do they do!? When anyone comes up with a suggestion for something their answer seems to be "We're too busy (presumably because they're in an orgy of smug self-congratulation at being so special and superior), organise it all yourself and then we'll jump onboard and take the credit."

[Cypry]

I seem to recall having to wait about 2 months to get any information about a fans forum when I was actually a member.

In fairness, they sent out the notes from last weeks Forum yesterday by email, so perhaps they have been listening a bit more.....

[Royal Lady]

I do think it needs some brave STAR members who are unhappy with the way things currently are, to speak out about it and then, perhaps, something might be done. It is just not worth the effort for someone to start up another Supporter's Group - because the club just won't recognise them. Therefore, it needs to be done from within. You need 10 STAR members to approve your decision to stand for office or something, let alone get voted in ahead of the usual faces - they know they've got us over a barrel to some extent and it's a shame. It really is. I'm clearly a marked woman and I'll never be voted on to STAR to try and create some change from within, so what else can I do but speak my mind when I want to on here?

[Alexander Litvinenko]

It's not about being brave and speaking out - that's massively over-dramatising it. STAR reflects its members - that's what it should do as a democratic organisation.

To change it just needs people who have opinions about it stump up the £10 to join it and to say what they want. The board has to respond, and I've no doubt it will.

As for this "I'm a marked woman" bullsh*t - that's quite spectacularly paranoid and over-dramatic, and shows a quite phenomenal lack of understanding of STAR as well as a tremendous conceit.

To suggest that an organisation which has never in its entire history had enough potential Board members coming forward to ensure than an election happens would somehow suddenly manage to manufacture candidates out of thin air in order to stop a particular "marked" person getting elected is phenomenal leap of logic.

For a start, the rules on election process are very stringent (and FSA-regulated) but the reality is that anyone coming forward to stand would be welcomed with open arms and could easily make a great difference, as long as they were prepared to throw themselves into it and do some graft, rather than just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

But, tbh, these little conspiracy theories are a little laughable. The people running STAR are all volunteers doing their best, and not a bunch of Machiavellian schemers trying to cling on to power. Admittedly, some of them (not all, I hasten to add!) may not be the most effective or dynamic people in the world, but that's much more a reflection of how few people actually come forward to help than some grandiose political scheme as you seem to think.

[The Rouge]

I don't think many are throwing around conspiracy theories.. The one regular accusation is that they are a little too cosy with the club - and most wouldn't disagree with that. Outside of that, I just think many don't feel they are an organisation that represents supporters as a whole and that is my personal opinion too. Its hardly scandalous thinking.

Just saying - join, attend, stand, influence ad infinitum kind of misses the point. Sure, if some people who have views closer to me/us/those who feel under-represented AND they have the time and AND they live near Reading, then great, it may improve their output/activity and it may move it towards an organisation more would feel inclined to join. RFC, and maybe STAR have been very slow to progress from a small town club mindset to a local/national club mindset but that's mostly another debate.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

To take the two points individually - the perceived cosiness with the club I can understand why peopel say that, but in a lot of ways that's forced on them by the reality of the situation. If their default position is to criticise the club for everything, then the club will have nothing to do with them, and they achieve nothing.

The only way to have any influence - and to at least be listened to - is to co-operate where necessary and to criticise in private. That's very much the way the club prefer it, and the end result is that STAR is at least listened to, but by definition their influence usually stays under wraps. But an all-guns-blazing, in their face, run to the papers every two weeks organisation would have absolutely zero influence at a football club where they have no effective shareholding. It's the only way in such a position.

Regarding the representation question ... we'll, it's a chicken and egg thing. They reflect their membership - like most other membership organisation, and their board members are "elected" from within their membership. What's their incentive to go out on a limb to try and attract people who seem to delight in criticising them - at the same time having to second-guess what those people want. With no guarantee of attracting anyone new, they risk alienating their existing membership and also spreading themselves too thinly.

[Green]

The only way to have any influence - and to at least be listened to - is to co-operate where necessary and to criticise in private. That's very much the way the club prefer it, and the end result is that STAR is at least listened to, but by definition their influence usually stays under wraps. But an all-guns-blazing, in their face, run to the papers every two weeks organisation would have absolutely zero influence at a football club where they have no effective shareholding. It's the only way in such a position.

I don't think anyone is asking for all guns blazing. There is a middle ground - STAR are currently nowhere near it. I can't remember them ever publicly saying they disagree with a decision the club has made for example - the new shirt every 2 years is a classic example.

Were they able to say "Regrettably We weren't able to reach agreement with the club on this occasion" I think it would give them a lot more credibility.

[The Rouge]

To take the two points individually - the perceived cosiness with the club I can understand why people say that, but in a lot of ways that's forced on them by the reality of the situation. If their default position is to criticise the club for everything, then the club will have nothing to do with them, and they achieve nothing.

No one wants that default position and there is a middle ground.

The only way to have any influence - and to at least be listened to - is to co-operate where necessary and to criticise in private.

No problem with that. Its sensible. They need to communicate, or at least to suggest to fans where their activity is though. This forum would be a good tool for that.

But an all-guns-blazing, in their face, run to the papers every two weeks organisation would have absolutely zero influence at a football club

Well it could do if the membership was large enough, but again, no one wants that and there is a middle ground.

They reflect their membership - like most other membership organisation, and their board members are "elected" from within their membership. What's their incentive to go out on a limb to try and attract people who seem to delight in criticising them - at the same time having to second-guess what those people want. With no guarantee of attracting anyone new, they risk alienating their existing membership and also spreading themselves too thinly.

This is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of it all.

- The word 'supporters' is in their title
- They should have the ambition to grow supporter membership and to represent supporters - anything narrower than that seems pretty futile
- They should know what supporters want. They should understand their membership is not representative and they should survey supporters in certain areas so they are not ill-informed. (A survey could be free on some issues and again they should utilise the forum as it is the best and cheapest way they have to get a more representational sample, even of it is not the sample I would target with a budget.)
- The toys out the pram ' What's their incentive to go out on a limb to try and attract people who seem to delight in criticising them' is a childish, ridiculous approach. If people are critical, then aside from (diluting one or two serial complainers), you understand why they are being critical and move forward with this info.

[Royal Lady]

It's not about being brave and speaking out - that's massively over-dramatising it. STAR reflects its members - that's what it should do as a democratic organisation.

To change it just needs people who have opinions about it stump up the £10 to join it and to say what they want. The board has to respond, and I've no doubt it will.

As for this "I'm a marked woman" bullsh*t - that's quite spectacularly paranoid and over-dramatic, and shows a quite phenomenal lack of understanding of STAR as well as a tremendous conceit.

To suggest that an organisation which has never in its entire history had enough potential Board members coming forward to ensure than an election happens would somehow suddenly manage to manufacture candidates out of thin air in order to stop a particular "marked" person getting elected is phenomenal leap of logic.

For a start, the rules on election process are very stringent (and FSA-regulated) but the reality is that anyone coming forward to stand would be welcomed with open arms and could easily make a great difference, as long as they were prepared to throw themselves into it and do some graft, rather than just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

But, tbh, these little conspiracy theories are a little laughable. The people running STAR are all volunteers doing their best, and not a bunch of Machiavellian schemers trying to cling on to power. Admittedly, some of them (not all, I hasten to add!) may not be the most effective or dynamic people in the world, but that's much more a reflection of how few people actually come forward to help than some grandiose political scheme as you seem to think.

Blimey Dirk Chillax - I've only just removed my tongue from my cheek after my post!!! EDIT: with regard to being a marked woman I mean.

[Royal Lady]

Didn't I offer to be a sort of go-between between STAR and HNA - where I could wheedle out the fishermen/wind up merchants and put any proper criticisms/concerns etc to STAR on their behalf etc and didn't STAR REFUSE to deal with anyone from HNA - despite some of STAR's own members also being on HNA?

[Tennents Super]

Does anybody know if self importance can ever be over-inflated to the point of bursting?

[The Rouge]

Never heard Seb called that before