What's wrong with the redevelopment thread

[davebart]

If you are looking for this topic it has been moved to the non-football section.

[cbtroman]

Bath City is meant to be run as a democratic club. Strictly speaking it still is as anyone can be elected onto the supporters society and thus board, but things lately have made me (a supporter of well over 20 years and community shareholder) to question if the club is at the very least acting undemocratically in spirt and that goes beyond a forum thread!

In other words the board believes that as it has been elected it can do basically what it likes. If it’s truly democratic then it would have to do even more than that such as releasing the minutes of meetings etc of the board and letting society members have the option to have voted against the involvement of the housing developers etc

Slightly off topic but if the thread you’re referring to was the one regarding concerns of the redevelopment and has been moved or deleted because it’s a bit unpopular than that’s anti democratic.

Some Bath City fans support the Twerton residents concerns in this and why shouldn’t we?

[Beau Nash]

This is the most important matter to affect Bath City FC in decades and as such ought to have a prominent position on the Home Page rather than be hidden away in "Other Stuff - Non Football".  

All threads / posts relating to Redevelopment should be placed there.  

Whatever anyone thinks of the opinions presented, they have been made in accordance with Forum rules and in an articulate manner.

[yuffie]

I don't easily criticise the way this forum is run - I did it for long enought to know what a thankless take is can be - but I agree that the thread should have remained here. The title is Bath City Stuff, so whilst it may not be football related it definitely falls under that category.

[bone ash]

The thread is merely a click away not deleted! It has been moved to the non football section which has always been intended for posts of a political nature. And surely no one can deny that Joe Schofield has made it very political. Provided he refrains in future from threatening posters with what he will do with comments which he disagrees with he is entitled as anyone to post on this forum.

cbtroman, in case you're not aware, this forum is unofficial and not the club's mouthpiece.

[Dave]

It should be here. Regardless of whether this is the club's mouthpiece or not, it's a mouthpiece for supporters, who are now owners. While I don't at all suspect it's the case, it does just look like supporters (now owners) burrying their collective heads in the sand over the issues raised by sticking it in a dark corner that hardly anyone looks in. I don't want to be a part of that. Whether it's political or not it pertains to the football club. Why hasn't the 290 post 'redevelopment' thread a few threads down been moved too?

[OliverH]

I don't envy the forum moderators their role but I respectfully suggest that the thread is reinstated to the main section.

[cbtroman]

Even if this is an unofficial forum it is an important tool for debate amongst the owners and as Bath City is a non league club the forum is perhaps more relevant than at bigger clubs.

I was making the wider point that a lot of decisions have been made without consent from the owners regardless of the forum thread when perhaps they should have been. If a vote could take place regarding 3G then why not votes about the relationship with developers etc?

Admittedly you have to draw a line somewhere but it’s just my view that the club is very impatient with contradictory views.

The Twerton residents against the development should join the society and get involved if City is to mean it when they say they want a thriving community club.

[Peter Newman]

We have had this sort of discussion before but it does seem that our future could be scuppered by an influx of £2 per month members. Quite frankly it seems absurd by just paying a few payments of £2 an individual can have the same voting rights as those of us who have made upfront contributions.

I accept there has to be a way of allowing those who were unable to afford a significant payment to become members but perhaps there should be a qualifying period (say 2 years ) before being eligible to vote.

[BenE]

I do think there has been a certain amount of naivity displayed. As Peter says the entire club could be destroyed by a determined carpetbagging exercise.

But I am surprised by the assertion that the club is acting undemocratically. If you want to get invoved with how the club is run then put forward motions at meetings and get involved in the process. Put yourself forward for the committee. The society is actively trying to encourage this.

[davebart]

The difference between Joe Schofield's thread and the other thread is that the earler thread focuses on how it affects Bath City and its stadium.

Joe's thread includes elements which are beyond the club's influence.

The thread has not been removed and is still active.

[Peter Newman]

I was considering putting forward a motion at the forthcoming AGM proposing there was a defined qualifying period before monthly contributors could vote on matters.
Unfortunately I am away when the AGM takes place and one of the requirements when proposing a motion is that the proposer must be there in person.

[cbtroman]

I do think there has been a certain amount of naivity displayed. As Peter says the entire club could be destroyed by a determined carpetbagging exercise.

But I am surprised by the assertion that the club is acting undemocratically. If you want to get invoved with how the club is run then put forward motions at meetings and get involved in the process. Put yourself forward for the committee. The society is actively trying to encourage this.

Perhaps a better word to use is that of a lack of “transparency” though that can often coincide with a lack of democracy depending on your own viewpoint.

As I said strictly speaking the club is democratically run and not saying there is a barrier to stand for election etc but it does seem that once the board is elected it’s closed doors.

Arrangements with developers etc seem to have gone too far without any real scrutiny - with perhaps the 3G pitch vote being an exception

[SteveBradley]

I personally agree that the thread should  be put back on this section of the site.

I also think that Joe Scofield's behaviour in threatening to print opinions he disagrees with out of context has been unacceptable, and that he should be told to reign it in to remain on this forum. Debate should be welcome, but hectoring and trying to silence those who disagree with you should not.

[cbtroman]

The difference between Joe Schofield's thread and the other thread is that the earler thread focuses on how it affects Bath City and its stadium.

Joe's thread includes elements which are beyond the club's influence.

The thread has not been removed and is still active.

As Bath City is now community run, I would argue that now is not the time to simply separate bath city and Twerton.

Protests from the community about community run bath city seems s very damaging thought to me!

[LB]

I do have a bit of a problem with which ‘community’ the club is actually trying to serve - is it just Twerton or the wider city as a whole?

There was a comment made a while ago I recall that one of the problems in trying to increase support was that the club was seen as being very much part of Twerton rather than of the city, and I think a lot of effort has gone into trying to widen this appeal. I don’t think the clear opposition coming out of Twerton really helps.

It is unfortunate that the two issues which are being put forward as the salvation of the club - the redevelopment and the 3G pitch - are proving so divisive, particularly when things on the pitch are looking up.

[SteveBradley]

I do have a bit of a problem with which ‘community’ the club is actually trying to serve - is it just Twerton or the wider city as a whole?

There was a comment made a while ago I recall that one of the problems in trying to increase support was that the club was seen as being very much part of Twerton rather than of the city, and I think a lot of effort has gone into trying to widen this appeal. I don’t think the clear opposition coming out of Twerton really helps.

It is unfortunate that the two issues which are being put forward as the salvation of the club - the redevelopment and the 3G pitch - are proving so divisive, particularly when things on the pitch are looking up.

The only real way to step-change the club's fortunes is through significant change. And change always unsettles some people.

[BenE]

I think it unsettles most people.

Keeping things the same helps people feel part of their recognisable environment and hence reassured and grounded. Constant change is unsettling.

But there is little doubt that things MUST change at Bath City.

[cbtroman]

Even the leaflet from the Twerton residents say they are not necessarily against ANY type of redevelopment

[OliverH]

I was considering putting forward a motion at the forthcoming AGM proposing there was a defined qualifying period before monthly contributors could vote on matters.
Unfortunately I am away when the AGM takes place and one of the requirements when proposing a motion is that the proposer must be there in person.

I think it's very important for the future health of club democracy that membership remains affordable and accessible - but I do now think there may be an argument for changing the structure to a £24 annual membership fee for new members and removing the monthly sub option. I think we are quite unusual in offering a monthly subscription. It would probably be easier for the membership secretary to manage as well.

Another measure might be to freeze new memberships between the announcement of an IGM/AGM and the IGM/AGM occurring - so that you don't get a lot of people signing up for £2/month solely in response to a particular vote being announced.

[OliverH]

I do have a bit of a problem with which ‘community’ the club is actually trying to serve - is it just Twerton or the wider city as a whole?

We must always remember that we are first and foremost a community in our own right - that is what community OWNERSHIP is about. We need to do our best to get on with and serve other communities, but we have a right to take the necessary steps to preserve the existence of our own 129-year-old community.

[LB]

I do have a bit of a problem with which ‘community’ the club is actually trying to serve - is it just Twerton or the wider city as a whole?

We must always remember that we are first and foremost a community in our own right - that is what community OWNERSHIP is about. We need to do our best to get on with and serve other communities, but we have a right to take the necessary steps to preserve the existence of our own 129-year-old community.

Oliver, I think you may have misunderstood my post. As a supporter of 50 years plus I totally agree that the most important thing is the survival of the club, and in the absence of any other option I accept that going down the community route offered the best chance of achieving this. The point I was trying to make was that, for me at least, it isn’t always clear who or what that community is.

[OliverH]

Thanks LB - my point is that the community of a community-owned asset is essentially what we, the owners, make it - when people hear "community" they often automatically think in terms of location, neighbourhood, etc, so you get confusion about "which community is the club for" - but to me the community route was an alternative to private ownership, gathering its own community around it through open ownership, not saying "we are a community club therefore we serve X community over there". It's in the long term interests of our community to get on with other communities (eg Twerton residents), but we will disagree at times or find our interests opposed. We shouldn't allow people to then use our community-owned status as a stick to beat us with.

[BenE]

It is an interesting point. I am not sure that anyone else thinks of it in this way. 

For one thing one of the articles of the new structure is to engage with the wider community.

Maybe it should have been made clearer what community ownership, as opposed to supporter ownership, actually means.

[Maurice Ashman]

I had always assumed that Olivers' view is the case.

[Sponsored content]