Society Consultation

[Speedie85]

10 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Can you confirm the example I gave about Membership cancellation when contributions stop is accurate?  And, if it is, that you consider that fair and reasonable. And you also avoided my suggestion of a minimum amount in total to guarantee life membership. 

Please note the following from our consultation document, which is available in full here:

• How soon after stopping contributing will status be removed?
  If a member pauses or stops contributions, they will retain existing membership status for three months, giving them time to restart if needed. After that period, and if no contribution is resumed, membership status and associated voting rights will be removed except for legacy 1886-tier members, where applicable.

I believe this to be fair and reasonable. 

If you are a Society member and believe there should be a change in policy to have a minimum amount to guarantee life membership then I'd be happy to look at a detailed proposal that could go to the membership in line with the process which we are going through currently. If you'd like to take forward do pop me across a DM.

[dennyc]

1 minute ago, Speedie85 said:

Please note the following from our consultation document, which is available in full here:

 

• How soon after stopping contributing will status be removed?
  If a member pauses or stops contributions, they will retain existing membership status for three months, giving them time to restart if needed. After that period, and if no contribution is resumed, membership status and associated voting rights will be removed except for legacy 1886-tier members, where applicable.

I believe this to be fair and reasonable. 

If you are a Society member and believe there should be a change in policy to have a minimum amount to guarantee life membership then I'd be happy to look at a detailed proposal that could go to the membership in line with the process which we are going through currently. If you'd like to take forward do pop me across a DM.

I’ll certainly do that. Hardly needs much detail though. Decide on an amount and apply it. Fairly straightforward is it not? The Society maintains records of how much each member has contributed so it should be simple enough. 

As I said earlier. If you really want to distinguish between the two groups, simply remove from those that stop contributing some of the frills that attach to those that do contribute. Like training opportunities and hospitality draws. It really does come across like the Board are looking to punish those that stop contributing, even if for perfectly genuine financial reasons. Not a good look. 

 

[Stuwell2]

2 hours ago, dennyc said:

As I said earlier. If you really want to distinguish between the two groups, simply remove from those that stop contributing some of the frills that attach to those that do contribute. Like training opportunities and hospitality draws. It really does come across like the Board are looking to punish those that stop contributing, even if for perfectly genuine financial reasons. Not a good look. 

 

Not aimed at you but here my thoughts.

I fully agree that something needs to be done to encourage people to invest regularly if they can afford it but I do have some issues with the proposals.
Firstly rightly or wrongly the if you stop paying you lose the right to vote could be seen as a reprisal act on those who stopped paying last year after the (thankfully) rejected “investment” vote, which I hope it isn’t.
Secondly as previously said some of the people losing their vote will have paid in more over the years than many of the initial one off payment people like myself who have since paid for season tickets (in my case for me and my daughter - £751 this year- and once she’s earning and can pay her own I will give to the society again as I do passionately believe in it).
So as said above maybe a tapering of benefits is more appropriate ie loss of benefits over years 1&2 then loss of right to vote on board members in year 3 or 4 but leaving the right to vote on any major issues that effect the club if the total payments are in excess of £750 or membership has been 6 years or more.

One potential way of getting people to pay regularly is by saying new members can get the benefits straight away but can only vote for board members after 1 full year’s membership and on major decisions effecting the club after a further 2 or 3 years. 
This final part would also hinder any potential future attempt to flood the society with new members to unduly influence a vote in some unforeseen circumstances. 

[Spiderpig]

6 hours ago, dennyc said:

. It really does come across like the Board are looking to punish those that stop contributing, even if for perfectly genuine financial reasons. Not a good look. 

 

I'm not a WS member and never will be but I fail to see what the issue is here, if you sign up for something you need to make the required financial contributions at whatever level you agree to maintain membership and benefits etc. If you don't you lose said membership and any benefits.

If you take out a health club membership and then stop paying you can't really expect the club to say , don't worry just keep using our facilities etc, the WS is no different.

[wellfan]

I can see the reasoning behind the proposed amendments, and Philip’s responses have helped clarify the membership status issue. Ultimately, a line does need to be drawn somewhere, and this seems like a fair and reasonable approach. We’ve got a great opportunity to move forward now and further add to the coffers.

[joewarkfanclub]

The above has been a really useful debate.

I hadnt fully considered the implications of stopping my direct debit as I was one of the original legacy members, so I would continue to have voting rights.

I think a balance has to be struck somewhere between fairness to members who have contributed significantly and protecting the Society from any skullduggery.

How about, all new members who contribute monthly will attain lifetime membership and voting rights once they reach the £300 legacy membership fee?

That way, we move forward but are seen to do so in a fair and equitable manner.......

 

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

I'm not a WS member and never will be but I fail to see what the issue is here, if you sign up for something you need to make the required financial contributions at whatever level you agree to maintain membership and benefits etc. If you don't you lose said membership and any benefits.

If you take out a health club membership and then stop paying you can't really expect the club to say , don't worry just keep using our facilities etc, the WS is no different.

I take your point re gym membership but I think that is a totally different scenario. With gym membership you get the use of the facilities, equipment and  a personal trainer to guide you along. So it costs the gym for upkeep and to have you as a member, for which they should be reimbursed. No question. And the more members the greater the cost. And with a gym etc, folks pay a subscription where effectively with the WS supporters are making a donation with no expectation of any tangible return.
With the Society, how much does it cost them each week to retain a Member who has paid in a sizeable some over the years, but can no longer afford to contribute? The Society do have running costs but not tied directly to Member numbers as a gym, sports club etc. 

I do agree being an active Member should be reflected in some way though, in comparison to a non active Member. 

[Electric Blues]

54 minutes ago, joewarkfanclub said:

The above has been a really useful debate.

I hadnt fully considered the implications of stopping my direct debit as I was one of the original legacy members, so I would continue to have voting rights.

I think a balance has to be struck somewhere between fairness to members who have contributed significantly and protecting the Society from any skullduggery.

How about, all new members who contribute monthly will attain lifetime membership and voting rights once they reach the £300 legacy membership fee?

That way, we move forward but are seen to do so in a fair and equitable manner.......

Good points. I joined in 2016, so not a "legacy" member, but when I add it up I have paid the best part of £2.5k over the last 9 years and I'd hate to lose the right to vote. As @Brazilian says, you never know what's round the corner, finances wise.

I think your "lifetime membership" idea has merit, although the initial qualifying amount might need to be higher to reflect the passage of time since 2015, and it would probably need a pre-agreed mechanism for periodic resetting to compensate for future inflation.

[dennyc]

4 minutes ago, Electric Blues said:

Good points. I joined in 2016, so not a "legacy" member, but when I add it up I have paid the best part of £2.5k over the last 9 years and I'd hate to lose the right to vote. As @Brazilian says, you never know what's round the corner, finances wise.

I think your "lifetime membership" idea has merit, although the initial qualifying amount might need to be higher to reflect the passage of time since 2015, and it would probably need a pre-agreed mechanism for periodic resetting to compensate for future inflation.

I agree this has been a worthwhile discussion, with valid points made on both sides. At least, prior to voting, it has been highlighted what the implications are for folk like yourself who joined after 2015 and who for whatever reason might have to stop contributing in the future.  When you quantify the amount you have contributed so far, it certainly justifies the debate. 

[Villageman]

24 minutes ago, Electric Blues said:

Good points. I joined in 2016, so not a "legacy" member, but when I add it up I have paid the best part of £2.5k over the last 9 years and I'd hate to lose the right to vote. As @Brazilian says, you never know what's round the corner, finances wise.

I think your "lifetime membership" idea has merit, although the initial qualifying amount might need to be higher to reflect the passage of time since 2015, and it would probably need a pre-agreed mechanism for periodic resetting to compensate for future inflation.

I too am in the position of @Electric Blues and have no issues with the "legacy" members. What I do have issues with is a person paying say £5 to join some months/years ago then cancelling the DD and continues to have voting rights. May I remind all that at last years abortive takeover some 4/5000 persons had voting right but around 1500 only contributed financially. i do not need to remind people that it was a critical vote and would have been influenced either way by those who I perceive to have no further interest in the WS.

I will throw in two further comments. Yes times are hard especially for some but is £5 pm to continue membership an unreasonable request.

Lifetime membership ( at a higher rate than the £300 in 2015) is a suggestion but would it encourage members to stop their contributions. There is no doubt in my mind that WS and therefore MFC need subs to continue for both to be successful. 

[weeyin]

Do we have any numbers that can be shared regarding non-contributing members whose status will be changed?

[Kmcalpin]

Just to add my tuppence worth on a specific, perhaps academic, point. Reference is made in the consultation document to a changeover date of 21 May 2105; specifically the date when the Society moved to a monthly subscription model. That isn't quite my recollection, which to be fair, is a little hazy. I do recall that monthly subscriptions were introduced around this time, but for a considerable period lasting several years, it was never made clear to legacy members like myself, that we would be encouraged to then pay monthly as well. There wasn't a clear transition point clearly communicated to members for quite some time.  I wrote to the Society on several occasions to ask that this be made clear without much success. So there was considerable confusion amongst many legacy members about the changeover. In short and irrespective of precise dates, there was long period of confusion.    

[dennyc]

2 hours ago, Villageman said:

I too am in the position of @Electric Blues and have no issues with the "legacy" members. What I do have issues with is a person paying say £5 to join some months/years ago then cancelling the DD and continues to have voting rights. May I remind all that at last years abortive takeover some 4/5000 persons had voting right but around 1500 only contributed financially. i do not need to remind people that it was a critical vote and would have been influenced either way by those who I perceive to have no further interest in the WS.

I will throw in two further comments. Yes times are hard especially for some but is £5 pm to continue membership an unreasonable request.

Lifetime membership ( at a higher rate than the £300 in 2015) is a suggestion but would it encourage members to stop their contributions. There is no doubt in my mind that WS and therefore MFC need subs to continue for both to be successful. 

Again a valid view regards £5 contributors opting out early doors. I would have thought safeguards could easily be put in place to ensure no abuse of the system…..retained Membership after 4 or 5 years continuous contributions or when an agreed total level of funds paid in is reached….£400/£500?

It just feels wrong that someone like Electric Blues could donate so much…all after 2015…and then possibly hit circumstances that end his Membership. I am not talking about someone who has chipped in £50 and then bailed out. But he is not alone as an example.

When the WS was established much talk took place about how it might deter folk from donating if they knew their Membership would be cancelled if contributions stopped, for whatever reason. So the lump sum contribution, life time Membership was a compromise. No one seems to have an issue with those Legacy Members. It’s just strange that someone who has contributed thousands over the years by way of post 2015 contributions could be binned without a thought, unlike me who paid a lump sum pre 2015. Surely there has to be some sort of middle ground? And having some sort of Lifetime target might actually encourage newbies to sign up. And boost funds at a faster rate. 

Interesting discussion though. 

 

[dennyc]

35 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Just to add my tuppence worth on a specific, perhaps academic, point. Reference is made in the consultation document to a changeover date of 21 May 2105; specifically the date when the Society moved to a monthly subscription model. That isn't quite my recollection, which to be fair, is a little hazy. I do recall that monthly subscriptions were introduced around this time, but for a considerable period lasting several years, it was never made clear to legacy members like myself, that we would be encouraged to then pay monthly as well. There wasn't a clear transition point clearly communicated to members for quite some time.  I wrote to the Society on several occasions to ask that this be made clear without much success. So there was considerable confusion amongst many legacy members about the changeover. In short and irrespective of precise dates, there was long period of confusion.    

I would add that for years the WS records were a shambles with incorrect or no EMail or home addresses on file. A fact admitted by the new Board early doors and highlighted by the folk that stated they received no correspondence regards Barmack. And not everybody reads SOL or P&B for info. So how many of the Members on file in 2015 missed out on info re the changed contribution structure. I for one received no correspondence either on line or written. And my details were up to date. As recently as last week we were told some records are still incomplete despite strenuous efforts by Admin.

Basically, not everyone was made aware of the change to Monthly Subscriptions.

The current Board have done a heap of work and are righting many wrongs. But they inherited a minefield and any change and the implications need to be understood. But things are certainly better than they were. 

[weeyin]

Maybe it could be as simple as inviting the members who are going to be removed to respond to an invitation to opt in to the 1886 tier. If they don't respond, then they are removed.

That might cut down on the inactive members.

 

[dennyc]

2 hours ago, weeyin said:

Maybe it could be as simple as inviting the members who are going to be removed to respond to an invitation to opt in to the 1886 tier. If they don't respond, then they are removed.

That might cut down on the inactive members.

 

I think that is a decent suggestion. Subject to them having contributed funds in line with others moved to the 1886....or whatever level is seen as sufficient. There hase to be safeguards but there are options. Just needs to be a willing. At least it is being discussed now and the Board are aware of concerns....from either viewpoint.