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.

[Kmcalpin]

Just looking through the proposals for adult membership again. I'm not 100% sure that the issue of ad hoc top ups has been fully addressed. For example, a legacy member who paid in a considerable lump sum prior to to 2015 and who then tops up by say £50 per annum (less than the £60 threshold).  I get that the number of members in this situation may be very small but...

Matters will be easier once  the app is released. I do think tough that there are ways to simplify this issue as shown by Weeyin's suggestion for example. 

Whatever your views though, take your chance to vote by tomorrow's deadline. The Society Board has invested a lot of effort and time into working up these proposals and deserves a good response.  

[Busta Nut]

Anyone who paid a lump sum to join has had 10+ years of membership, that's plenty.

Give them until the end of the year and they then need to start contributing again. 

[dennyc]

24 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

Anyone who paid a lump sum to join has had 10+ years of membership, that's plenty.

Give them until the end of the year and they then need to start contributing again. 

No doubt how many feel. And I get that.

But way back then those folk purchased a life membership for whatever lump sum they were asked to pay. You may not like it but that is the deal the Society willingly entered into. And it provided a much needed boost to the funds ingathered on day one.  I suspect that is why the route you suggest has not been tried. And also why, when these new proposals were first looked at. so called Legacy Members were protected. To the annoyance of some it appears.

But if you seriously want to cancel the contract that was legally agreed,  then how do you feel about refunding them the sum paid? Not a serious suggestion by the way but appropriate.  After all, it is not as if those Members really get anything tangible from being a Member..... other than the feeling of helping their football Club. Any monies paid are effectively donations. Perhaps the real challenge should be to try and encourage those Legacy Members to start up a regular payment. Rather than threatening them that is. Some already do contribute monthly and I know a good few...myself included....who are considering doing so given the progress we have seen of late Board wise and operationally.

Also, setting aside the Society,  if you entered into an agreement to purchase something outright, be it a pair of football boots or a house...... or a Membership, would you react positively to being asked to pay again several years later? For something you already own. I think not.

If the Society adopt a rule from now on that future contributors must make regular monthly payments or pay an annual fee then that is a different matter as those signing up accept those terms when joining. 

But it is an issue that deserves discussion. If only to clear the air.

[wellgirl]

So basically at the outset if someone paid 300 pounds in a one off payment they got life membership? If I'm wrong someone can correct me 

[dennyc]

15 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

So basically at the outset if someone paid 300 pounds in a one off payment they got life membership? If I'm wrong someone can correct me 

Some paid more than £300. Some folk also bought more than one Membership....for kids and partners etc. The WS Board were looking to gather in funds quickly to get things started. Others opted to pay monthly as that was more affordable for them. I know I paid more than  £300 as I checked with Sally. From memory there were various levels but records are held to confirm who paid what. 

But yes you are correct in that Life Membership was the agreement. Might upset some newer Members but that was the deal back then. Different if someone joins now under revised terms. fair enough, they know what they are signing up to.

Hope that explains things a wee bit. You might need some of that Isle of Wight wine to help though.

[Villageman]

Without sharing my opinion again on the "1886" group if you have evidence life membership was part of the deal please let us see it.

I have a undated document from around that time that offers benefits in return for certain levels of payment.

[wellgirl]

9 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Some paid more than £300. Some folk also bought more than one Membership....for kids and partners etc. The WS Board were looking to gather in funds quickly to get things started. Others opted to pay monthly as that was more affordable for them. I know I paid more than  £300 as I checked with Sally. From memory there were various levels but records are held to confirm who paid what. 

But yes you are correct in that Life Membership was the agreement. Might upset some newer Members but that was the deal back then. Different if someone joins now under revised terms. fair enough, they know what they are signing up to.

Hope that explains things a wee bit. You might need some of that Isle of Wight wine to help though.

Im not upset at all. My personal circumstances when I took the membership out in 2017 was that a payment every month suited me (because I was broke) - but I've tripled my payment since I signed up even though I'm not paying a fortune still. 

Maybe only slightly upset that I could have paid 300 quid and had more money left over for wine (joking). 

[dennyc]

8 minutes ago, Villageman said:

Without sharing my opinion again on the "1886" group if you have evidence life membership was part of the deal please let us see it.

I have a undated document from around that time that offers benefits in return for certain levels of payment.

I can only tell you what I was told at the initial meetings I attended and what I understood to be the case when I made my payment. Same as other folk who attended their presentations.  Hopefully their are official records/minutes from those meetings although given the time that has passed that might be a stretch. Also, let's be honest, the WS record keeping was not the best. The current Board appear to believe that such a deal was made, otherwise why ratify it now?

But if you have documents that prove life membership was not the intention, then by all means make them public.

[dennyc]

5 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Im not upset at all. My personal circumstances when I took the membership out in 2017 was that a payment every month suited me (because I was broke) - but I've tripled my payment since I signed up even though I'm not paying a fortune still. 

Maybe only slightly upset that I could have paid 300 quid and had more money left over for wine (joking). 

I was not referring to you when I commented that some might be upset.  If you took it that than way, then apologies. I was really trying to just explain the logic at the time. Red or white?