his was the first time that Committee members from QPR 1st had met with a team of the operational management at QPR. It was in place of the postponed meeting from last month and was a meeting based purely on operational issues and how the Trust and the Club can work together. It was not about the sale of the club. A detailed-minuted report of the meeting is below.
Meeting between QPR Operational Management and QPR 1st Supporters Trust – 13/12/2001
QPR FC: David Davies ~ Chief Executive; Mark Devlin ~ Commercial and Marketing Director; Jim Frayling ~ Marketing Manager; Mike Hartwell ~ Press and PR Manager
QPR 1st: David Price ~ Chairman; Justin Pieris ~ Vice Chairman; Tracy Stent ~ Secretary; Libby Magrill ~ Media and PR; Leon Stent ~ Membership Sec
Introductions
An introduction was made by all in attendance, giving an explanation of the various roles. We explained that we would be taking minutes, and that Tracy would type them out for a report of the meeting. David Davies informed us that the club also would be taking minutes with a view to publishing them, with Mike Hartwell doing the honours. We saw this as a positive step by the club and welcomed their openness.
Justin started off by stating how there were a number of issues we had to raise with the club, including marketing ones and asked everyone to take a look at the agenda he had prepared.(see agenda here)
DD queried if some of the items were actually operational issues, and then asked if we could set a time limit on the meeting. Due to him having to attend a hastily arranged meeting prior to our one, it meant that our meeting started at a later time than had been originally planned for. With us all having family commitments, everyone fully concurred about the need for a time limit, so 2 hours maximum were decided upon. This did mean that some of the issues on the agenda would have to wait either for next time, or if need be for anything of great importance on the agenda not discussed, to be addressed sooner.
QPR 1st History
David Price then gave a little explanation on the history of QPR 1st. He made the point of saying how perceptions could be wrong and gave our perspective. How some fans, including himself, Justin, Julia and Tracy from the executive Committee had batted the idea of a Supporters Trust at QPR for quite some time before we had been placed into administration. The main reason for this is that it had been felt that bad boardroom management in the past had led to a great deal of lack of direction for our club. The fans desired the need for direction that led to QPR 1st being borne. An organisation which, with its desire for the stakeholders of the club to have far more input, and more of a say in the running of our club, the ambition being for it to be a platform for all QPR fans far and wide.
He mentioned how we also aim to be a totally committed focus group, utilising our members’ skills and talents. He also assured the club that whilst we cannot tell them how to do their jobs, we can express concerns and advise when issues are raised. And whilst undoubtedly there will be dust up’s he expressed our desire for there to be groundrules set between all concerned.
Mark Devlin then asked the question of whether we thought the club would not have talked to us in the first place at the onset of QPR 1st?
Our reply was that we didn’t think so, not at that particular time, mainly down to the many misconceptions about the Trust.
David Davies then told us how he welcomed DP’s words. He mentioned how he had recognised, from his early dealings with last season’s Supporters Club of how the basis of a Trust was forming from 2 ex committee members of that organisation, and who were present in the room tonight. He recognised the validity that we are a pressure group as well as a Trust. He went on to say that the club has always tried and there have been times when they’ve had to bite their lip. (Haven’t we all?) And he expressed his desire for the club to remain open to other groups that are seen as voices as well. Everyone fully agreed and Tracy made the point that everything the club discusses with us will also be reported back to the LSA. JP also pointed out that there were 4 people from the exec committee of QPR 1st sitting at the table who are also all members of the LSA.
David Davies then asked us about our aspirations and asked if one of our aims is to get fan representation on the board.
DP again stressed that whilst we don’t want, or indeed have any wish or desire, to take on anyone’s job, our one fundamental wish is to give the fans a proper voice, ultimately to find a way of giving stakeholders a greater say in the influencing of the club, and to advise the board as to where the fans believe input is needed.
Justin pointed out that there are a number of Trusts whose aims are to get fan directors onto their club boards. He mentioned Supporters Direct, and cited Luton and Chesterfield as examples.
Jim Frayling then asked the question about fan representation on the board and are we aiming to represent QPR 1st or for all of the fanbase. Our reply was that we aim to be a general catalyst for board representation for all fans with a direct voice that is influential rather than some kind of a patsy voice.
DD asked if we have been promised seats by all the bidders we had spoken to and DP replied that we had been offered some involvement, but we have been very careful in our response to those offers.
JF enquired about what we had been offered by the various bidders and our response was that we are not at liberty to say, though suffice to say we haven’t exactly signed on any dotted lines!
History with Fans
Mark Devlin then went on to speak about issues of communication. He referred back to a time when he was much younger and how during the eighties he penned a letter to the club. Never received a reply. (Sounds familiar!) He was insistent that if the person at the top pays lip service to customers invariably the staff often follow suit and fail in their jobs. He told us how since DD has been at the club; the communication has improved significantly, due to DD’s transparency.
He referred to last season’s supporters club committee and how it was doomed to fail and then went on to talk about the club’s new liaison group. How he ideally sees it as non-political, made from all areas of fans and how he sees it as a way of building trust between the club and fans. He told us how that doesn’t mean that QPR 1st and the LSA are not wanted within the group and acknowledged that the club does need to work closely with us in the future and “not to pay lip service as regards communication”.
Jim Frayling then made the point over how he wants to make the fans voices heard and was insistent on how communication is very much more open. He referred to the website/commentaries and fan input into this/feedback/fan liaison/beat around the bush newsletter and expressed his wish for recognition over the club’s openness. We accepted that there is plenty of common ground for us to work with.
Use of programme to attack fans
discussion took place about the club’s recent propensity on using the matchday programme to single out individual fans/organisations (though not actually naming them). We mentioned how we are unhappy with this method of criticism taking place and tried to advise them on how they are coming across as bullies, and we also told them how we were most unhappy with the fact that the matchday programme seems to have been used in recent weeks as a forum to air grievances towards individual fans. DD and MD cited how they reserved the right to reply to fans, whether that is via the website, or to a larger audience in the programme. We reiterated our belief that issues really ought to be addressed via the forum on which they were originally initiated upon. Mike Hartwell queried the logistics of responding on the same media channels and David Davies insisted that if he has something to say then he’ll say it loud and proud and said how he couldn’t see just responding on the internet channel is good enough. He was insistent that he is a believer in transparency and communication, mentioning how in his top 5 of correspondees via the email channels, Tracy is amongst them.
Leon then asked the question if the fact that you have ‘the right to reply’ could be printed into the programme, therefore ensuring that fans can write in a response. It was agreed.
A brief discussion then took place between Tracy and Mark regarding the liaison group. She pointed out how it was a step in the right direction but then went on to talk about a difference of opinions MD and herself had had a few months ago regarding the set-up of the group and her subsequent remarks on the QPR mailing list, to which MD had made references to those remarks in his column in the matchday programme. The misunderstanding was cleared up with TS seeking his assurances that he understood her reasons to which he graciously assured her that he did.
Focus groups
Justin then gave our perspective on working/focus groups and spoke of the club’s new focus/liaison group. How it is a very good initiative but what we worry about is that in the setting up of the group, which is a small one, there is a danger of it being unable to deliver. He spoke of how the club needs to be harnessing specific groups, made up of individuals who have the relevant skills/experience in the particular areas of each group. Marketing, Catering, juniors etc. QPR 1st can offer the club the above considerable experience for nothing! Small targeted groups containing at least one professional person in each area. This will give the club a proper response unit to many of the issues, which matter to the club/fans.
David Davies said the club would take on board our offer, will think about and absorb it and see if they can at least look to our expectations: delivery – aspiration – fan input.
By now time was getting on so we decided to either put the other items on the agenda on hold until our next meeting, or will discuss sooner if necessary.
So we moved onto the future.
DP spoke of initiatives and how proud we have been of some of our achievements. A discussion took place over how we have been slightly disappointed with the club in not crediting initiatives enough to the person who instigated them. We mentioned Rizman’s family season ticket and how the credit hadn’t gone to the Trust but to ‘a group of QPR fans’. We touched on the Turn up if you Love Rangers initiative and DD showed us the clipping from the official website on which John McCooke was rightly credited. LS made the observation abut how a mention of the initiative in the programme would go down well. MD insisted that the club are not trying to take the credit for anyone’s ideas. A brief discuss took place about how there has been an element of mistrust between the fans and the club for many years and this will take a long time to heal. JF reiterated how the club are trying to improve and we spoke a little of leadership, as in our own organisation and the club. DD remarked to us “You can give leadership”.
Jim F then went back to the point he attempted to make as regards the club trying to improve for the future. He mentioned how, on his employment at the club a couple of years ago, a small group of fans, who were laden with marketing ideas, were invited along to discuss their innovative thoughts. According to him it became apparent shortly afterwards that all the good ideas just hit a brick wall with the then Chief Executive of the Plc, and he put a stop to the Marketing sub-group rather than pay them lip service.
We agreed that all future working/liaison groups should be minuted
Joint Calendar
short discussion took place about the joint QPR/QPR 1st 2002 wall calendar. Everyone concurred that we are extremely pleased with the end result. DD remarked how it was the best QPR calendar he had seen. There are going to be interviews with Simon Cherry, (the QPR 1st member who offered his photographer’s services for this initiative) for the various QPR publications. The only downside is that due to a printing error he wasn’t credited with the photos on the back of the calendar. Jim said that he would sort out some stickers with his name on them to be put onto them asap.
We will be working jointly together in order to encourage a hard sell on for the calendars.
Well done Jim, Libby & Simon).
Groundshare
David Davies confirmed that talks have been on-going as regards Fulham ground-sharing at Loftus Road whilst the renovations to Craven Cottage take place. Talks are still continuing, and Fulham also continue to talk to West Ham. The possibility that Wasps could still remain playing at LR also remains. Should the ground-share at LR come about, the proposed arrangements he gave us are as follows:
David Davies confirmed that talks have been on-going as regards Fulham ground-sharing at Loftus Road whilst the renovations to Craven Cottage take place. Talks are still continuing, and Fulham also continue to talk to West Ham. The possibility that Wasps could still remain playing at LR also remains. Should the ground-share at LR come about, the proposed arrangements he gave us are as follows:
* There would be no pay off to Wasps
* Fulham would come in and Wasps would leave
* There would be an arrangement between Fulham and Wasps
* There would be a deal between Loftus Road and Fulham
* It would be a true ground-share i.e. real rent, own system including tickets from Fulham, no Fulham merchandise to be on display in our clubshop on QPR matchdays. And vice versa. (So what would happen should we draw them in the cup we asked? Ahh. Something they clearly hadn’t envisaged judging by the blank looks though DD did say that the team drawn first would obviously be the ‘home’ team!)
* The deal would be worth a substantial amount of money to QPR
He mentioned how he prides himself on making ground-shares work and said how if it comes off it would be of immense help financially. We then asked a couple of questions. DP raised the point of what would happen should the contract finish and Craven Cottage is unfinished/or even planning permission fails completely? Would they come here permanently? DD said the contract would be for a minimum period to re-build the Cottage and that the share date would have to be for a definite period.
Following the same theme, Libby asked if the worst came to the worst what would there be to prevent Mohamed al Fayed from putting in a bid to buy the Loftus Road ground? If they (Fulham) made a bid for LR the administrators would surely listen to it?
DD assured us that he is not asking for LR to be sold to Fulham but that it was a fair question.
We then touched briefly on our public meeting to take place and asked if the club would support us on the night? They agreed.
The meeting finished at 9.30pm and it was agreed that we would all come to an agreement for a further meeting after Christmas to continue with other issues and to discuss matters arising from this one.