Last weekend saw Two conferences take place, the Supporters Direct annual conference and the Football Supporters Federation, Fans Parliament. Several QPR 1st reps attended both events and Tracy has put together a report which can be viewed
Last weekend two football conferences took place, both at Arsenal’s Highbury Stadium. The first one, the Supporters Direct annual conference, was on Friday 20th June with an early start. Due to us not visiting Highbury for a number of years, when I got outside Arsenal tube station I couldn’t remember which road to take which would lead the way to the stadium’s main entrance. After taking the wrong road I approached a respectable looking gentleman who looked just as confused as me and discovered that he was Professor Derek Fraser, Chair of the Independent Football Commission (IFC) who himself as an invited speaker was also on his way to the conference.
A brief conversation and five minutes later we correctly navigated ourselves to the right part of the stadium – the concourse of the North Bank – and after registering just had time to find Juzza and Graham before the formal part of the meeting started.
This was the SD agm business. Andy Burnham MP, Chair of SD, gave an opening speech and explained how Supporters Direct themselves are now registered as in industrial and provident society. He explained that extra funding from the national lottery, due to the collapse of the ITV digital deal, is to be made available, with one of the aims for the use of this money being to allow for SD to engage with Trusts on how their own clubs can also become not for profit clubs themselves. He mentioned how for this vision to take place there will need to be a change implemented with the Football League rules.
Andy also informed everyone that Tessa Jowell MP has secured Government funding for the SD and Trust cause for the next couple of years and that there will be some ringfenced money for rugby league clubs.
Andy then handed over to Brian Lomax, chief executive of SD, who explained that the next item on the agenda was an amendment to rule 41 of the Trust constitution, which was passed. Item 3, read out by Nick Bason from the electoral reform society, was the results of the SD elections. The 12 successful candidates were read out with Nick explaining that as in accordance with the Trust constitution the first four on the list would be elected for three years, the second four for two years and the third four
for just the one year, thus allowing the three year rolling elections which many trusts have adopted.
Item 4 was for the approval of the auditors. And item 5 was a short explanation on the Government increase in funds to Supporters Direct, thus meaning that the Trust movement is here to stay and is not a short term initiative.
With the formal business of the meeting out of the way, the first session of the morning was a debate on Governance, regulation and the integrity of English football.
Professor Derek Fraser was first to speak who gave an explanation about the IFC; how following on from the Football Task Force, Chris Smith MP announced the ICF; how it is a regulator and sits as a scrutiny or audit body over the football authorities; how it has no statutory powers and that it has a very modest budget provided by the football authorities.
He spoke a little of what the organisation have been doing this past year; how following their recommendations, customer care officers have now been accepted by the football league; how they have looked into the cases of clubs in administration; and spoke of finance issues and how the football advisory unit have not yet visited any Premier League club as of yet, this despite there being financial concerns for PL clubs outside of the ‘top 6′.
Derek also spoke of how the organisation Esco over in the USA who use a public disclosure type thing over many issues affecting sports clubs and thinks that maybe this kind of thing ought to be looked into using over here as a way of maybe helping to alleviate concerns over improper practice at clubs.
When I have time I will look through the IFC annual report, which all delegates received in their packs on the day, and make notes of the items of importance and will detail them out and publish them on our website. In the meantime, for anyone interested there is a website available with info on this body which you can visit which is www.theifc.co.uk
Next up to speak on this very important matter of integrity with the game was the writer Tom Bower, whose book, Broken Dreams is highly recommended. I have yet to read it myself but will buy a copy that I will take with me to read whilst lazing around on the golden sands of Norfolk when we go on our family holiday there in a few weeks time.
Tom explained that he was not a great football fan during his early years but when his sons began to take an interest in the game (they are both Spurs fans) he began to want to understand what made football fans tick. His research led him into the dark tunnels of football corruption and his book is based on this matter.
He spoke about how the game is deeply corrupt and that it is full of contradictions and lies. When he spoke about the Sky money and how it is not trickling down to the lower league clubs as it should be but is in effect going to corrupt agents he received warm applause (he mentioned an example of Leeds Utd/Risdale and the injunction served upon himself by Mr Risdale following a fee he wished to name in his book which Mr Risdale paid to a certain player’s agent).
Tom was absolutely certain in his own mind that until we have a statutory body with the correct powers to take effective action against those who continue to corrupt the game we all love, football will continue to be wide open to those who see it as a way of feathering their own nests.
It was now time for a q&a session to take place on the debate and the first delegate to speak from the floor was Tom Greatrex, Chair of the Fulham Supporters – Trust Back to the Cottage – who asked what kind of help can the fan get in the future as regards protecting their grounds, citing Fulham’s own examples of an appreciated benefactor losing interest. He also mentioned about the FA themselves trying to broker a groundshare deal for them at Chelsea, which as Tom said, does not exactly fill the fans with confidence regarding the football authorities that run today’s game!
Derek Fraser replied that he would be interested in seeing regulation being applied where grounds will be preserved. He also said that there is a UEFA rule currently being put through which basically will mean there will be a more visible rule where clubs own their grounds. Though whether he was talking Europe full stop I’m a little unclear on that.
Brian Lomax also spoke briefly of the Pitches in Trust movement that SD are trying to implement and to look out for further details in the future.
A representative from Ipswich Town’s Trust, Peter Morris, then spoke a little about their club’s problems and how they at the Ipswich Trust, are a little peeved because they were originally under the impression that by entering into a CVA would be better than out and out administration but said that all it did was to protect their board and has left them with £30m worth of debt.
The final comment from the floor came from a rep for Leeds Utd who expressed concern for club’s non playing staff when they enter into administration and felt that there ought to be some kind of improvision made whereby loyal staff who have worked at clubs for many years are not cast out into the wilderness.
A short break then commenced during which I chatted with Peter Wilson from the Watford Trust and some of the guys from the newly launched Luton Trust before the morning workshops began. There were 4 to choose from:
– Supporters’ Trusts and dealing with the media – a session looking at how Supporter’s Trusts can make the best of the opportunities available in the media.
– Training and advice for Trust Treasurers – a session focussing on how best to manage that responsibility in your spare time without creating unnecessary bureaucracy.
– Football in the Community – an explanation of the football in the community scheme and examples of ways in which Supporters’ Trusts can work effectively with the scheme and promote the club and Trust.
– Working at a Plc Club, the AGM and buying shares – Understanding and working with a Plc club, strategies for share acquisition, proxy voting and AGM’s.
We have been acknowledging the fact that QPR 1st needs to develop and further promotion and publicity regarding the Trust within the media for a while now, so with that in mind Juzza attended the media session.
Not so long ago, Graham and I attended a football in the community seminar at Birkbeck College, and with us being keen to enhance relations between the Trust and the QPR football in the community scheme, Graham attended this particular workshop.
And with us being especially keen on looking at different and varied strategies regarding our own Plc club relating to share acquisition and share holder meetings, I took myself off to the Plc club session.
This was chaired by Sean Hamil (our very own original caseworker) from the Celtic Trust and there were two speakers on the top table. The first was Sam Jaffa – who is a Communications Consultant, (he used to be a journalist for the BBC who worked on all news outlets) and who has gained vast experience regarding corporate entities, is also a keen sportsman; and the second speaker was Peter Wilson – who is membership secretary for the Watford Trust.
Sam gave a good talk, emphasising on the need for all Plc clubs to show good practice, which as he stressed basically comes about from proper communication from boards to its shareholders. He emphasised that when supporters trusts enter into strategies for share acquisitions and proxy voting that a plan involving as much outside help as possible in order to help with publicity is essential. Not only does it give the Trust credibility on the outside but it will also make club boards sit up and take note of its supporters.
He spoke about the lack of real communication between club boards and its fans and related a little tale of how, with him being a Leeds Utd fan himself, following the sacking of David O’Leary along with a number of other staff there, had written to Mr Risdale to offer his company’s services for free relating to marketing issues. Some days later he received the standard letter back from the club thanking him for his application for the manager’s job but that he would need to apply in the usual manner!
Peter then spoke about Watford’s recent experiences – the sale and leaseback of Vicarage road followed by the setting up of the Watford Trust and their aim to raise much money in order to buy it back – and within our folder was a presentation pack that they had devised.
The Watford Trust is probably the most organised in this Country. They have published a book on the history of Watford, which has sold out already and has raised funds for their aim; they made a video all about their Trust and its aims and the club gave its permission for it to be shown on the screen within Vicarage road prior to home games; they were runners-up in the business of the year for Watford competition; and they now have a large bloc of Watford Leisure holdings shares, proxied to them by shareholders to be held in trust, for the 12 months since they sent their original invites to shareholders.
The presentation pack went through the various steps they took which enabled them to gain such results regarding the number of proxy votes they have under their Trust umbrella and whilst I bow down in complete respect to Peter and the other Watford guys and gals (as mentioned above I had a good chat with him prior to this session based on their business acumen and their achievements in this respect) if the Chair of your Trust is an ex director of the company BP, then it does make it rather apparent that for a trust like that, it’s far easier for them to reach out and begin associations with the various business community around their area, due to their Chair’s contacts, than it is for a Trust such as QPR 1st, which frustratingly for us means having to start from scratch when it comes to attracting interest from the business community from our surrounds.
However, it’s no good feeling sorry for ourselves, and again, this is an important part of our own Trust that does need looking at.
The Watford boys also have a superb relationship with their club hierarchy, and Peter was able to go to their club secretary a while ago, talk to him/her about the wording for a proxy form which was agreeable to both sides (the secretary looked into their articles of association and helped with this issue) in order to enable them to send out to all shareholders in Watford Leisure holdings inviting them to proxy their votes to the Trust for the next 12 months.
I remember when I wrote to Paul English and David Davies prior to this year’s AGM, informing them that we had the permission of 1% of the shareholding within Loftus Road Plc relating to some special items we would like entered within the paperwork, and appealed to their better natures. I didn’t get a reply from Paul whereas David just said that his priority was to the remaining majority. Fair enough, but there was no sign of any compromise whatsoever and it’s the hitting against this kind of blank wall that we find so frustrating.
This issue was actually brought up by several others in the room who asked Peter what the Watford boys and girls would have done had they encountered an attitude not quite as forthcoming as the one they received and Peter admitted to not knowing the answer. What he did suggest was that for Trusts who do have problems with their club boards when it comes to communicating/working together amicably etc, to perhaps suggest to those boards to have a chat with the Watford Chair/chief executive who could maybe give an explanation about the good and positives that a Trust can achieve if the offer of a more amiable working relationship is agreed upon, and honestly accepted, by both sides.
The session ended far too quickly for my liking (though we had been talking for well over an hour) because I could have talked about this particular issue all day, but it was now time for lunch and so everyone made his or her way to the Gunners pub just down the road where a buffet lunch had been laid on. I caught up with Juzza and Graham who both informed that there had been some useful information gleaned from the sessions they each attended and that there was plenty for us to store away for future reference.
It was then back to Highbury Stadium for the afternoon workshops, which were on the following issues:
– The duties of a Trust Secretary – a session looking at the role of the secretary, making sure the Trust operates according to legal requirements and how secretaries can manage these.
– Football Supporters Federation – How Trusts can work with other supporters’ groups and why Trusts should join the FSF and help push the supporters’ agenda forward
– Co-Operatives UK – a session about the umbrella organisation for co-operative organisations in the UK.
– Fundraising – a session on Trusts who have successfully raised money talk about how they did it and what you can learn from them.
Due to our newly launched Hoops Fund initiative, Graham attended the fundraising session, and with us being an affiliated organisation to the FSF, Juzza attended that workshop. Being secretary for QPR 1st, I attended the session on this issue, and a very enlightening and highly thought provoking one it was too.
Steve Warby, a development officer for Supporters Director, chaired the session, whilst Helen Barber, who is currently a legal services manager for Co-Operatives UK.
Helen spoke about the functions of the industrial and provident society (ips) secretary, and of both the practical and moral functions which he/she needs to implement. Practical include things such as the calling of meetings; minutes; ensuring awareness of relevant Quorums, resolution and administrative requirements; knowledge of the members register; full awareness of account and annual return issues; knowing exactly when balance sheet and auditors reports are needed by; the need for a society seal; any changes in the rule book and data protection issues.
There was also one other piece of interesting info for us ips groups in that there are some changes and modernisation within minor company law taking place relating to the industrial and provident societies act. A private action bill is taking place following a report from the strategy unit of the cabinet office, in which it is looking at changes relating to the rules for ips’s regarding donations and investments.
We will be most interested to hear the outcome of this report because basically it will mean slight changes as to the amount that we will be able to accept as an investment (though this does not affect any monies given to us via donations).
Whilst I was more than aware of all of the above, the discussions which took place caused much more interesting information and with most of us taking part in the discussions being the secretaries for our ips’s, we came away feeling invigorated by the amount of information and advice we’d gleaned. Either that or we’re all totally barmy and need to get ourselves lives! It also served as a reminder that as a fully registered ips in its own right, thus making us a corporate entity, all of us connected to QPR 1st should now and again remind ourselves of this fact, and yes, feel proud of this fact.
A short break then commenced and catching up with Juzza and Graham again, they mentioned how they too had enjoyed the sessions they attended. I also spoke to some of the Bees United guys there (the Brentford Trust) and unsurprisingly the main topics were the play offs and Martin Rowlands. They really rate Rowlands and though they will be sad to see him leave Brentford, they feel that a move is probably the best thing for the player himself regarding his career.
The closing plenary of the day was a session named From Opposition to Power. Brian Lomax chaired it and on the panel were:
Steve Beck – Chairman, York City Football club
Rob Bradley – Chairman, Lincoln City Football club
John McGlashan – Director, Brentford Football club
Andy Williamson – Director of Operations, The Football League
John Nagle – The Football League
It was basically a discussion, featuring supporters who are now full directors or even chairmen at their football clubs, on the issues they now face in helping run their clubs from managing the expectations of supporters to dealing with agents. It was a good session but with the football league guys also being on the table, some of the discussion was detracted away from the main theme.
Rob Bradley struck me as being a real down to earth character (the Lincoln Trust have a good and positive relationship with him and the board and I could see why) whilst John McGlashan raised a few smiles when he admitted that Ron Noades hadn’t been the easiest of people to work alongside with.
The football league guys skirted around the issues that some of the reps from the Luton Trust rose relating to the concerns at their club but at least they had a presence there.
The conference ended just after 5pm and as usual I came away from it feeling re-energised. Due to having to go into work in a couple of hours, I was unable to stay behind and chat with others as I would have liked, but I did make sure I collected my copy of the newly launched Supporters Trust handbook. This is a quite excellent publication and I take my hat off to whoever was involved with it. There are some superb suggestions and since the weekend I have continually kept referring to it. The recommendation is for the Chair, Secretary and Treasurer of each Trust to have one, with one being spare for whomever else (4 to each Trust).
One of the things we have been talking about amongst ourselves for a long time now is the need of a room on matchdays to enable fans/members etc to pop along and find us if need be. We are still looking into this matter, and once we secure somewhere I would specifically like to have our spare handbook on display so as everyone can browse through it should they so wish. As the saying goes watch this space.
Along with Juzza, the second conference of the weekend we attended was the FSF Fans Parliament. So I found myself back on the tube early the next Saturday morning returning to Highbury Stadium. The first part of the meeting, introduced by Co-Chairman, Ian Todd, were the formal proceedings including the announcement of the newly elected officers for the organisation; approval for these officers and for the ones newly elected onto the FSF National Council; approval of the financial reports; and approval for ring-fenced financial reserves (relating to when the organisations were 2 separate bodies up until a year ago) to be allocated equally between the now amalgamated one body and that these funds be used to develop ideas, schemes and campaigns.
All motions (except for the last which was being moved on to a bit later) were approved and the next item on the agenda was to be a talk from Alan Keen MP, who is Chair of the all-party Parliamentary group. Unfortunately Alan was unable to make the meeting at the last minute and so Lord Faulkner spoke (no, not that one!) who gave a robust speech on the greed in the game and also on the Wimbledon situation (he was a Wimbledon fan but following the decision which allowed them to move to Milton Keynes he became a keen follower of AFC Wimbledon).
He received warm applause and the next item were the FSF awards to its Fans, and Football writer of the year.
The fans award went to York City Football Club and to a standing ovation Steve Beck (York City Chair) picked it up.
The FSF football writer of the year award went to Martin Samuel (from the Times) whose articles on Wimbledon and the West Ham/Lee Bowyer issue especially stood out this past year.
Martin was unable to pick the award up himself because he was covering the rugby taking place down under but Nicole Hammond, of the Wimbledon Independent supporters association, picked it up on Martin’s behalf.
The conference then moved on to the main theme of the day that was the proposed Fans’ Blueprint for football. There were a number of motions – 12 in all – and there were 22 proposals in all relating to the various motions.
Motions 1 & 2 were for the approval of the FSF financial reserves (approved) and for the Fans blueprint to be adopted and debated during the course of the rest of the day (approved). The various motions took place during different times (i.e. not in numerical order) I have listed them in order to keep things simple. In between the various motions going on there was a break for lunch (after which a fire alarm went off in the stadium which put things back by half an hour or so) and a speech by Andy Burnham MP who spoke about supporter organisation and financing, and also managed to put in some good words on behalf of the Trust movement.
Motion 3 – Police Charges, proposed by the National Council – was a proposal asking conference to support the football authorities in opposing proposals to charge football clubs for the cost of policing outside the private grounds of the football club. It was further called for independent research of the charges made by police forces to football clubs and for the FSF to be represented on the Home Office Working Party looking at this matter.
After discussion from the floor, which most disgruntled fans agreed with, the motion was passed.
Motion 4, proposed by the Brighton & Hove Albion Supporters Club – Sale of away supporters’ tickets – was asking conference to seek regulation from the football authorities requiring matches for which away supporter’s tickets must be purchased in advance to be announced as such at least four weeks in advance of the scheduled date of the match, except in exceptional circumstances.
The motion was passed.
Motion 5 – Independent regulation, proposed by the Brighton & Hove Albion Supporters Club – calling for an independent statutory regulation of the game.
The motion was passed.
Motion 6 – Wimbledon FC, proposed by the Wimbledon independent supporters association – this conference notes the impending move of Wimbledon FC Ltd to Milton Keynes and feels that the club should have a name that reflects the conurbation where it plays. The Football League now considers Wimbledon FC Ltd’s conurbation to be Milton Keynes, as confirmed by Sir Brian Mawhinney in the League’s press release regarding the granting of permission to play in the National Hockey Stadium. Conference feels that the name “Wimbledon” has a proud history and should be left to those who are committed to the area and to football within it – namely AFC Wimbledon. Conference calls upon football writers and supporters to refer to the club as “Milton Keynes” at every opportunity and to state that the club is a new club, as most supporters of AFC Wimbledon view it.
Conference further calls upon the FA and the Football League to do everything within their power to ensure that the club does not masquerade as something it is not – a club form south-west London – and urges action upon the appropriate authorities to ensure that the club do not gain a competitive advantage from having Football in the Community schemes operating in two localities.
Motion was passed.
Motion 7 – Welsh International Work, proposed by National Council – Conference notes that there is currently no similar work being undertaken on behalf of Welsh fans. It therefore authorises National Council to provide some funding, backed by initial practical support and advice from the Development, International and Administrative officers of the Federation, to establish a Welsh International committee and group of volunteers.
Motion was passed.
Motion 8 – FSF Divisions, proposed by National Council – permission for an effective regional structure to take place to enable the developing health and progress of the Federation.
(There were many points made in the doc too many to type out presently but if anyone wants to see these recommendations I will sort it for you).
Motion was passed.
Motion 9 – FSF Development, proposed by Paul Matz -called for the need to ensure a sustainable and long-term structure, and particularly prioritising membership recruitment and participation, asked for National Council to devote appropriate resources to promote these priorities and to ensure that the development of the Federation continues to ensure that it seeks to represent and recruit all football fans in England and Wales.
Motion was passed.
Motion 10 – FA disciplinary procedures, proposed by Sunderland AFC supporters association – a motion to call upon the FA to modify its disciplinary procedures to remove the opportunity for clubs to adjust the games in which a player’s suspension will take effect by their decision whether to appeal and when to lodge the appeal.
Motion was passed.
Motion 11 – Players disciplinary procedures, proposed by Sunderland AFC supporters association – calling for league and cup competitions to be subject to independent disciplinary penalty procedures.
It was felt that this particular motion did not coincide with the above and it was agreed for National Council to have a look at it at their next meeting.
Motion 12 – 2012 Olympic games, proposed by Steven Powell – called for a UK team to be entered into the football competition should the bid be successful.
This caused some debate and the majority voted against so the motion was not passed.
There were also some interesting debates on blueprint proposals (relating to some of the 22 as mentioned above) relating to supporter culture, racism and conduct, and especially a debate on the Safe Standing issue. There were some good points raised in the for and against arguments and it seemed as though the majority in the room were in favour for areas of safe standing if only for the fact that those who wish to stand during games can do so within safe standing areas and not get in the way of those who prefer to sit at games, enabling them to see all ninety minutes without being continually interrupted by those who keep standing up during matches!
The finalised blueprint was approved at the end of the meeting and the FSF officers and National Council members now have to go away with the unenviable task of attempting to get the football authorities to listen to them.
Again, as with the previous days’ conference, I was very impressed by some of the debate which took place and it was a real shame that more people involved within the game, from those high up, to the grass roots fans, could not be present. A point I raised at one time during one of the debates.
For those who could make it (I had actually booked myself to attend initially) a tour of the Highbury Stadium (the dressing rooms, the marble halls, trophy room etc) was taking place straight after the meeting. But with it now being early evening, and with the supermarket run to still be done for our household, I left straight after the conference finished.
I hope you have enjoyed reading this report and if there is anything you would like to know relating to either of the conferences, then please contact me on info@qpr1st.co.uk
Tracy