News Lions to wear traditional jumper...now reduced by the club to the 'commemorative hat-trick jumper'

[Hollow Knight]

Far be it from me to make demands on anyone, but The Lions Roar lads MUST jump on this, as I am sure they will. It is an advocacy group after all and we (supporters of both the Lions and Lions Roar) should have input as to how the issue is surveyed.

Absolutely. Could be a good show of faith for the club to invite a Lions Roar delegate in as a scrutineer on the voting.

 

[lionbear]

Absolutely. Could be a good show of faith for the club to invite a Lions Roar delegate in as a scrutineer on the voting.

But that would mean there is some accountability for their actions.

 

[Viceregal]

But that would mean there is some accountability for their actions.

The ECQ and the AEC are good impartial options - although the AEC is a tad busy atm ...

 

[Skoob]

Absolutely. Could be a good show of faith for the club to invite a Lions Roar delegate in as a scrutineer on the voting.

The board is aware I believe that The Roar has a voice and some good numbers, it would be timely to remind them of this. Whether they are dismissive or not should determine the next move so to speak.
In any case it will be immensely appreciated if they can find out all they can and we all can rally for a result. (The right one).

 

[Skoob]

I was only half joking when I posted this in another thread.

I reckon if they make the wrong choice of coach here, we'll be able to walk in and say "Give us back our ******* Lion" and get it.

Actually, not even half.
If we can get some deserved mileage from any guilt or PR desperation of this board, we should.

 

[dlanod]

Yep, I don't trust them at all.

If it is a mail in survey, what will stop them pulling the old "we only received 10 wanting a return to the old jumper" trick.

50 people on here sending the response by registered mail?

 

[matwt73]

Yep, I don't trust them at all.

If it is a mail in survey, what will stop them pulling the old "we only received 10 wanting a return to the old jumper" trick.

It won't be very reliable but we get the lion's roar to do an exit poll. We advertise widely and do a few things-

Ask everyone who votes for the original to email when they have sent their votes in, take names generate numbers and if the number the club announces is less raise it at the agm.

At a match do an exit poll
-did you vote ? How did you vote? That should give us a very rough percentage.

 

[Chasing the Dream]

Survey now? Report at AGM? Means another 12 months at least of jumper we don't like, when you see clubs like Port, Bulldogs and West Coast dealing with this in such a timely manner over the past few years I am truly scared.

It all ponts to a change in 2015.

We effectively only have a one year deal in 2014 with the apparel sponsor of BLK, that was confirmed to me by a club official just last night, so you could not see them changing anything dramatically for 2014.

I would have thought it would be a decent carrot for the next apparel deal............ "Look, we are changing the guernsey to what members and supporters have told us they want, imagine the sales your company will make as the apparel sponsor of the Brisbane Lions"

Any survey almost smacks of arrogance to me, they know they want to change the guernsey, they will 'announce' it at the AGM, oh how good is this board listening to their members......

In somewhat related news, if anyone wants to buy the threepeat guernsey, get on to the shop, they have discounted the remaining stock to $99 or so...

 

[spotthedog1]

This is ridiculous. You've whinged for 28 pages that you want a say. The club is now going to survey you. But you don't trust the club. So we have supporters who don't support the club. Wonderful.

It strikes me that the majority of people here don't want member consultation - they want the old jumper regardless of numbers. They're just so vocal that they automatically assume that they have the numbers.

And a TLR delegate involved? Serious? Gee, I wonder how impartial they would be. People need to remember that TLR aren't members' representative to the club. The club IS the members, the fans, the players, and the board; and TLR are a lobby group for one issue. This isn't "us vs them", but it's being turned into "us vs us".

 

[The Flying Belgian]

This is ridiculous. You've whinged for 28 pages that you want a say. The club is now going to survey you. But you don't trust the club. So we have supporters who don't support the club. Wonderful.

It strikes me that the majority of people here don't want member consultation - they want the old jumper regardless of numbers. They're just so vocal that they automatically assume that they have the numbers.

And a TLR delegate involved? Serious? Gee, I wonder how impartial they would be. People need to remember that TLR aren't members' representative to the club. The club IS the members, the fans, the players, and the board; and TLR are a lobby group for one issue. This isn't "us vs them", but it's being turned into "us vs us".

So much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

 

[POBT]

But you don't trust the club. So we have supporters who don't support the club.

I can support the club and not trust them. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It strikes me that the majority of people here don't want member consultation - they want the old jumper regardless of numbers. They're just so vocal that they automatically assume that they have the numbers.

My personal view is that the vote is the important first step to show the club the groundswell of support for change. And it legitimises any decision to revert back to the traditional design.

Others have a different view. Not sure that it really matters.

And a TLR delegate involved? Serious? Gee, I wonder how impartial they would be.

Why do they need to be impartial? That's how scrutineering works - you get reps from all parties together to keep an eye on each other. Do you expect them to rig the voting once they are involved?

People need to remember that TLR aren't members' representative to the club. The club IS the members, the fans, the players, and the board; and TLR are a lobby group for one issue.

No they aren't. They spoke out about the change of coach. They spoke out about the lack of fixtures in Melbourne.

This isn't "us vs them", but it's being turned into "us vs us".

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Std: weeks after we knew for a fact that at least forty had sent in letters (and over a hundred more had emailed) about their anger about the current jumper and the process that saw it born, Angus Johnson went to the media and said they had received less than 12 and that a good number of them were positive.

So yes, forgive us for not trusting the board unquestionably (as opposed to the "club") on this on and wanting to find out a little bit more about how they are going about it. Especially as every other club that has gone down this line has had a reasonably transparent online process. If the club goes down the path of a secretive and antiquated mail-out questionnaire then questions could reasonably asked why.

And how come you are so willing to distrust someone from the Lions Roar merely being allowed to have a glimpse at the process yet trust the club all the way?

You aren't exactly the voice of logic and reason on this matter that you like to portray, you apparently have just as much as an emotional reaction to all this as anyone else. We get it, you have a different subjective opinion on how accountable the board needs to be to members, that's fine. You've made your point over and over.

 

[Jorgo]

So much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

QFT.

 

[spotthedog1]

I don't think blindly trusting anyone is great, and I'm not suggesting that anyone is infallible. However, if we are going to set up a scrutineer, they should be impartial. This could be done quite easily, with no risk. It looks a little like this. "We have appointed Such and Such marketing firm to conduct the mailout, survey, and report on the results". Or "Though we will be conducting the survey in house, the outcome will be reviewed by XYZ Audit Firm."

Either of those options are more reliable than "We have a TLR representative here with us".

Even then, I don't think it's necessary, because I don't think that the board should release the results. And yes, I acknowledge that the old lion would probably win a survey about 60-40. A survey is only one portion of the decision. There are more factors than just that, whether they go back to the old, stay with the current, or design a new.

Regardless, I do trust our board more than I trust our members. The reason is - they know what they're doing. We see time and again that people think that they could do a better job than our coaches, even though our coaches are professionals, see more data, receive more advice, are more connected with our players, and understand the game better than us. Yet people think that they are right and coaches are wrong, just because they disagree with a call. The same thing is happening here. Fans are not board members, and anyone here who thinks they are qualified to do the job is a moron (short of a past playing career, or specific expertise in business, finance or law).

 

[Hollow Knight]

Coaching and jumper preference seem to be two separate and non-comparable concepts. Not going to dignify that silliness beyond that.

Was ridiculous when Tony Kelly used the same strawman in 2009 and it is ridiculous now.

You seem to be also wilfully and repeatedly trying to claim that people here are demanding the run the process. That is clearly not the case. Massive difference from that to the club extending goodwill to say "we've got the surveys all received and we are ready for the staff to count them, you are welcome to have one of your people come in and observe the process". No need at all to hire expensive consulting firms, although that would be a good system.

So yeah... Massive, massive difference, but then again, you already knew that. Feels like you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

[POBT]

Appreciate the more measured response spotthedog1

I don't think blindly trusting anyone is great, and I'm not suggesting that anyone is infallible. However, if we are going to set up a scrutineer, they should be impartial. This could be done quite easily, with no risk. It looks a little like this. "We have appointed Such and Such marketing firm to conduct the mailout, survey, and report on the results". Or "Though we will be conducting the survey in house, the outcome will be reviewed by XYZ Audit Firm."

That would be fine with me. I still don't see the issue with TLR being involved but independent oversight from an auditor would be more than satisfactory and probably preferable. This is about transparency and fairness, after all.

 

[Viceregal]

When we run the elections (AEC/ECQ) we have boxes which are sealed in front of partisan representatives (usually one each from Lib and Lab but others could if they wanted to), observed through the day, opened after checking same seals are not broken again under observation then sorted/counted etc under they eyes of same extremely biased partisan scrutineers ... why, because they have a vested interest in it all being counted right and because we have a vested interest in it being transparent and, possibly more importantly, being *seen* to be transparent. There are many people who don't like the govt, don't like to vote etc but I have yet to hear someone seriously cast aspersions on the credibility of the aec (an organisation that you must be both non-political and again *seen* to be non-political to even work for as a casual let alone a permanent!). Compare this to the system(s) over in the US for a stark contrast.

So ... we have an issue to be looked into ... the jumper.
- Is there a current level of mistrust between the parties - yes
- Are there doubts about the credibility of the anticipated overseeing organisation - yes (eg 12 emails, KPIS etc)
- Have there been open / transparent votes on similar issues in the past - yes
- Were these run using a 'postal vote' system - not at all
- Have the mail protagonists vs the current change indicated that they will abide by the results if the majority voted for the current jumper - yes
- Will those same protagonists believe the Board if they turn around and say the result of xxx to xxx any more that a group of people at a poker table would believe me if I told them I had a royal flush but refused to show them the cards ... invisible dice may work for Big Jule but not in real life (unless the Board are cheating gangsters of course!) - no
- Is it relatively easy and cheap to set up a proper, secure online system and have other clubs already got them in place so it is pretty much the programming version of a cut and paste to do it for us - yes

Unless it is an open and honest process there is no point in doing it except for potential spin purposes.

Admittedly if I was the Board I would be thinking along the lines of trying to build unity in my fractured supporter base - so I would look for the most vocal of my 'enemies' (say the TLR mob) and paint them as the representative of the forces of reaction/conservatism/radicalism that way if I win then no one else can come again (one enemy not one hundred) and if they win then I have them on my side so to speak. I would get them to confirm they were happy with the questions / process (you can't argue with what you were a part of) and use my position to try and sway the wider base (as opposed to the perceived fringe element already identified) to maintain the status quo. Of course if I *was* such a consultative type Board I would have previously discussed with the Fitzroy Board before changing the logo, had a member consultation about change the jumper instead of what my grand daughter thought was cute the robust focus group told me, and I would maybe even have a better financial position since I would have had better attendances at games, more merchandise sales, more memberships and a greater sense of inevitable destiny coming upon us due to my united respectful and remorseless pride of lions.

Then again I am not on the Board so ....

 

[Hollow Knight]

Killer post Viceregal. Nailed it. I read it twice.

STD is entitled to his opinion but I just can't personally agree with the level of opacity and unaccountability he believes a board should hold. And yeah, god forbid they go over and above on an issue as a show of stakeholder engagement rather than continual botched bare-minimums.

 

[Skoob]

Trust for the board is at a low and has been that way for a very long time.
I would not be at all surprised if the survey included the current and 2 NEW designs thus not giving us who want it an option of the desired Guernsey.
TLR are an advocacy group giving individuals a collective voice. I want my voice heard and I trust that group to give it the best chance of being so.
I would be happy for an independent to audit survey results but would be even happier for TLR and other groups to have some input as to what the survey asks. Wording and options are very important as we saw with the republican and daylight saving surveys of the past. They were geared for a negative response and so desired change was not achieved. (Or given a chance).
We don't want 10 apathetic or known 'paddlepop' supporters surveyed, nor do we want an irrelevant focus group asked.
TLR have the support of a good number of members and supporters and also have very sound knowledge of the workings of the club. They also have their ear on occasion.(At least they have met with them).
TLR are a valuable and trusted resource for ordinary members.
We just want this done right this time.

 

[Jorgo]

Killer post Viceregal. Nailed it.

Am a fan.

 

[Hollow Knight]

TLR are an advocacy group giving individuals a collective voice.

Yup, they emerged out of a vacuum of missing stakeholder engagement created by the club. If the club opens the channels more and treats supporter feedback as a valuable resource rather than an inconvenience, TLR becomes obsolete, which is pretty much the end goal.

Am a fan.

I thought it was the most thorough and robust appraisal of the situation I've read to date.

 

[spotthedog1]

Fair point Viceregal. I still don't think it's ideal. The reason:
Let's say that member survey is one factor. Let's say the others are:

• future changeability (because in 50 years time, fans may find the logo old and boring)
• Marketing consultation,
• Future logo development proposals
• A survey of non-member fans (read: future growth in our member base)
• A survey of non-fans (read: future growth in our supporter base)
• A survey of middle- or high-school students in Brisbane (read: where most of our growth will come from, and most of our marketing will target)

If it comes down to 60-40 as I would expect, I would suggest that it would be considered a close call. For this example though, it's 51-49. TLR are there, any they are TRIUMPHANT, and demand the old lion back. Never mind that the marketing professionals and the business professionals have declared that the other five factors have varied outcomes... the current members, who've proved that they're with the club no matter what, are 51-49 in favour of the old. Should we change?

Very well reasoned post though... even though i'm not a fan of the concept.

Coaching and jumper preference seem to be two separate and non-comparable concepts. Not going to dignify that silliness beyond that.

Only recent comment I have a problem with. You suggest I'M being obtuse? You know damn well I wasn't comparing coaching with the jumper. I was comparing fans thinking they know better than the coach on football matters, with fans thinking they know better than the board on running a football club.

I've said before that I reckon our board have sucked at selling to us - the club's preferred method of engagement being "click LIKE to support our boys in the 2nd half" is just stupid. But at the same time I can look past that, and say that even though their member engagement sucks doesn't mean they suck at strategy and brand development.

 

[adey115]

My fear.....

Let's say its 40/60 as suggested further up the chain in terms of "for the Paddlepop 40%" and "for anything else 60%". (I actually believe it will be more like only 20% support for the Paddlepop, however I digress.)

But - we're given three choices:
Paddlepop
Original
Modernisation of Original

And the non-Paddlepop vote gets split 30% to each of the two.....
Um, in that scenario, Paddlepop wins.

Hence I'm hoping its a two fold survey:
a) do you want the Paddlepop - yes/no?
b) if not, which of these designs do you want?

 

[Hollow Knight]

My fear.....

Let's say its 40/60 as suggested further up the chain in terms of "for the Paddlepop 40%" and "for anything else 60%". (I actually believe it will be more like only 20% support for the Paddlepop, however I digress.)

But - we're given three choices:
Paddlepop
Original
Modernisation of Original

And the non-Paddlepop vote gets split 30% to each of the two.....
Um, in that scenario, Paddlepop wins.

Hence I'm hoping its a two fold survey:
a) do you want the Paddlepop - yes/no?
b) if not, which of these designs do you want?

Either that or a preferential, order them in preference 1-3 type system. Eliminate the least popular option and distribute their second preferences to the other options.

All stuff that can be done very easily online with SurveyMonkey.

 

[Lionator]

I don't understand some of you guys. Your message has cut through. This is a big win for the anti paddlepop.

Let us wait and see what the board does next before more inflammatory comments are made about how evil our board is