Heard it was rather heated at times last night…

Over what?

Why would you heat an Ice lolly up?

Someone care to elaborate?

Annoys me this when you get half a story.

FAB members

Somethingfishy wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:18 am

Over what?

Somebody brought the wrong flavoured donuts

someone accidentally used the wrong pronouns

Trouble on Tracy Island?

'F A B Scottie'. 'Burnley are Go'.

Arguments over lolly ?

One member of the Fan Advisory Board has posted on X in tears following abuse they've received because they're on the FAB.

gawthorpe_view wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 8:39 am

One member of the Fan Advisory Board has posted on X in tears following abuse they've received because they're on the FAB.

I presume thats a video. Its a bit poor that a fan who doing something purely voluntary to help others is getting abuse that would leave them in a state like that. People should have a long think before they post stuff at other people.

The members that are getting stick are the ones that keep posting about seeing things first like kits etc..

It riles people up. They see it as showing off.

Or it could just be seen as getting information out to people? If they say nothing then they'll get stick for that. Seems like a no win to me

It's probably why it's not a good idea to be publicly associated with such a group. The previous incarnation under Dave Baldwin, Mike Garlick and latterly Neil Hart and Alan Pace was strictly under signed NDA to not share information given and our names were not publicly shared. It was in reality just as useless and ineffective as this seems to be because it's essentially just a box tick by the club.

It's naive to think that sharing information from a closed group in a manner such as "Wait till you all see the shirts, they're ace, we saw them three months ago" (paraphrasing) achieves much of anything other than riling 'some' people up. The make up of the group seems significantly younger this time round which probably results in this sort of behaviour. There is no excuse for any of them getting abuse and the people giving that out need reigning in, but the club should take some responsibility for clearly not owning the dissemination of information in a professional and considered manner. The only things being publicly provided should be minutes of meetings and/or survey's etc.

Were they upset because some people didn't like the shirt?

If I’m not mistaken the first episode of Mission to Burnley season 2 shows us all who they are on the FAB. Perhaps it’s something to do with that?

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 9:53 am

If I’m not mistaken the first episode of Mission to Burnley season 2 shows us all who they are on the FAB. Perhaps it’s something to do with that?

They'll probably have had to sign a waiver for that - I have seen similar happening around Turf Moor throughout last season in crowd shots in the fan zone and such (i.e, they seemed to ask permission to people to be used).

jedi_master wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 9:59 am

They'll probably have had to sign a waiver for that - I have seen similar happening around Turf Moor throughout last season in crowd shots in the fan zone and such (i.e, they seemed to ask permission to people to be used).

Yeah, signed one myself - not seen myself on the footage yet though

jedi_master wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 9:08 am

It's probably why it's not a good idea to be publicly associated with such a group. The previous incarnation under Dave Baldwin, Mike Garlick and latterly Neil Hart and Alan Pace was strictly under signed NDA to not share information given and our names were not publicly shared. It was in reality just as useless and ineffective as this seems to be because it's essentially just a box tick by the club.

It's naive to think that sharing information from a closed group in a manner such as "Wait till you all see the shirts, they're ace, we saw them three months ago" (paraphrasing) achieves much of anything other than riling 'some' people up. The make up of the group seems significantly younger this time round which probably results in this sort of behaviour. There is no excuse for any of them getting abuse and the people giving that out need reigning in, but the club should take some responsibility for clearly not owning the dissemination of information in a professional and considered manner. The only things being publicly provided should be minutes of meetings and/or survey's etc.

Getting riled up over that is pretty pathetic though.

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 9:53 am

If I’m not mistaken the first episode of Mission to Burnley season 2 shows us all who they are on the FAB. Perhaps it’s something to do with that?

Their names are already on the website under the fan advisory board section.

Personally I prefer the openness of the current FAB rather than the previous opaque stuff we used to have.

aggi wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 10:02 am

Getting riled up over that is pretty pathetic though.

Absolutely

clarets1978 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 8:52 am

Or it could just be seen as getting information out to people? If they say nothing then they'll get stick for that. Seems like a no win to me

Exactly that, it eats some folk up alive that other know before them.
Schoolyard bullies

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 9:47 am

Were they upset because some people didn't like the shirt?

From what I’ve seen, it’s more they are upset in the WAY that people have told them they don’t like the shirt, after they (the person on FAB) had said it’s a nice shirt and they like it

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 9:47 am

Were they upset because some people didn't like the shirt?

No upset that some low life’s got abusive with them over it.

Opinions on shirts are totally subjective and you will always get some people moaning anyway.

Going back to the OP, that is the sort of information most people care about, why were things getting heated at the meeting.

Ey up all! I've done a little (or not so little) report from last night's Fan Advisory Board meeting. Most of these questions were gathered from social media and Clarets Trust members, but feel free to put your thoughts, feedback and queries in this thread. We have another FAB meeting in September and I'm keen to keep addressing fans' concerns.

Apologies for the length of the write-up! Perhaps settle down with a brew in hand..

ClaretPuddle wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 5:45 pm

Ey up all! I've done a little (or not so little) report from last night's Fan Advisory Board meeting. Most of these questions were gathered from social media and Clarets Trust members, but feel free to put your thoughts, feedback and queries in this thread. We have another FAB meeting in September and I'm keen to keep addressing fans' concerns.

Apologies for the length of the write-up! Perhaps settle down with a brew in hand..

Thanks for doing that

We offered a reciprocal deal of £25 last season, not £30., so a 25% increase. Surely someone questioned the club on that.

Where did the story come from that we turned down cardiffs pricing deal?

ClaretPuddle wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 5:45 pm

Ey up all! I've done a little (or not so little) report from last night's Fan Advisory Board meeting. Most of these questions were gathered from social media and Clarets Trust members, but feel free to put your thoughts, feedback and queries in this thread. We have another FAB meeting in September and I'm keen to keep addressing fans' concerns.

Apologies for the length of the write-up! Perhaps settle down with a brew in hand..

Thanks for this update George

There can’t really be 4/5000 no shows of STH per game can there?

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:39 pm

Thanks for this update George

There can’t really be 4/5000 no shows of STH per game can there?

No chance, it's a 1/4 of our fans

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:31 pm

Where did the story come from that we turned down cardiffs pricing deal?

Not a story. Cardiff have offered a £20 reciprocal deal to every other Championship club. On the basis that we are charging them £30 next week gives you the answer.

The FAB is just an inclusivity box ticking exercise, I wouldnt really say they represented the average supporter.

Correct with away games thou, it’s totally bizarre that everything has to be a big secret, probs because the ticketing operation is pants and any surge in demand will cause an issue.

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:40 pm

No chance, it's a 1/4 of our fans

That’s what I was thinking. It’s seems ridiculously high

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:39 pm

Thanks for this update George

There can’t really be 4/5000 no shows of STH per game can there?

It will all depend on the game/day/kick off time.

I expect they'll be games this season where many decide to stay at home.

The broadcasters and this new deal in particular, have a lot to answer for. I feel the EFL deal and the ridiculous kick off times will harm the matchday attendances more than getting rid of the 3pm blackout, maybe that is the plan, to force the hands of the decision makers.

Goody1975 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:46 pm

It will all depend on the game/day/kick off time.

I expect they'll be games this season where many decide to stay at home.

The broadcasters and this new deal in particular, have a lot to answer for. I feel the EFL deal and the ridiculous kick off times will harm the matchday attendances more than getting rid of the 3pm blackout, maybe that is the plan, to force the hands of the decision makers.

The 4/5000 no-shows was quoted in relation to previous seasons, which I just don't believe!

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:22 pm

We offered a reciprocal deal of £25 last season, not £30., so a 25% increase. Surely someone questioned the club on that.

I didn’t know - more likely, couldn’t remember - that the offer two seasons back was £25. For the record, Cardiff asked us to do a reciprocal deal of £25 for next week, but we set a £30 flat fee and therefore didn’t take them up on their offer. Apologies for stating that the offer was £30 two seasons ago.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:39 pm

Thanks for this update George

There can’t really be 4/5000 no shows of STH per game can there?

On average, it was a number between 3000-4,500 I believe. I can’t quite remember the figure, sorry, I didn’t note it down. We need to take into account this was an average from last season, which puts it into perspective. But the Club noted that even in previous seasons, these numbers were similar. There are more no shows than you would anticipate and obviously because they don’t all sit in one block, it’s not immediately obvious to the naked eye on the Turf.

The point is, they are very keen to see the Ticket Exchange used more, as a way of satisfying walk-on fans, improving the atmosphere and let’s be real, getting more fans through the door to spend money in the ground! The Ticket Exchange was widely requested by fans, so I’m hoping it becomes used by habit within the next few years. We’ll see!

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 6:40 pm

No chance, it's a 1/4 of our fans

I said at the time there was about 15k turned up for the Bournemouth game on the Sunday.

There was another low one on a Sunday as well

ClaretPuddle wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 7:38 pm

On average, it was a number between 3000-4,500 I believe. I can’t quite remember the figure, sorry, I didn’t note it down. We need to take into account this was an average from last season, which puts it into perspective. But the Club noted that even in previous seasons, these numbers were similar. There are more no shows than you would anticipate and obviously because they don’t all sit in one block, it’s not immediately obvious to the naked eye on the Turf.

The point is, they are very keen to see the Ticket Exchange used more, as a way of satisfying walk-on fans, improving the atmosphere and let’s be real, getting more fans through the door to spend money in the ground! The Ticket Exchange was widely requested by fans, so I’m hoping it becomes used by habit within the next few years. We’ll see!

Tbh I can understand the numbers for last season (I some times wished I was in those numbers ), but it sounds like they are including those ST that were resold on the exchange in those numbers

Nice one George

not read the thread, but just posted the latest blog from Martin Cloake (whose blogs I have shared before) about FAB's on the MMT

Chester Perry wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 7:40 pm

A new piece from Martin Cloake's blog The Football Fan on the issue of Fan Advisory Boards - the Premier Leagues vehicle of choice for Fan engagement with clubs - as always it is filled with the experience and knowledge of being involved in supporter groups

We need a conflab over FABs
Why clarity over the purpose of Fan Advisory Boards is needed, and why the way we talk about football fans is important.
https://martincloake.substack.com/p/we- ... -over-fabs
https://archive.ph/cMvwM

ClaretPuddle wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 7:33 pm

I didn’t know - more likely, couldn’t remember - that the offer two seasons back was £25. For the record, Cardiff asked us to do a reciprocal deal of £25 for next week, but we set a £30 flat fee and therefore didn’t take them up on their offer. Apologies for stating that the offer was £30 two seasons ago.

Sorry, yes two seasons ago. Last season we had the £30 PL limit.

Leisure wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 7:16 pm

The 4/5000 no-shows was quoted in relation to previous seasons, which I just don't believe!

Obviously it relates to previous seasons, the point I was making was that the number of non-attendees relates to the game/day and kick off time. I think the figure quoted will be worst case scenario rather than an average.

The games moved from Saturday 3pm kick offs will be more affected than others.

So I then digressed to talking about how this season will be badly affected due to the crap TV deal.

Thought it was brilliant how Pace shut them up in the FAB meeting when they were moaning about shirt sponsorship. It’s either that or sell Anass. Room soon went silent

TPClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2024 9:52 am

Thought it was brilliant how Pace shut them up in the FAB meeting when they were moaning about shirt sponsorship. It’s either that or sell Anass. Room soon went silent

I had to laugh when Pace said he would have to put 5 or 6 million in himself if not for the gambling sponsor.

There's no evidence of him putting any of his own money into the club and he never will.

TPClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2024 9:52 am

Thought it was brilliant how Pace shut them up in the FAB meeting when they were moaning about shirt sponsorship. It’s either that or sell Anass. Room soon went silent

I too thought it was hilarious when our leveraged up to the ******* eyeballs American hedge fund debt loader owners were willing to sacrifice their own religious beliefs and backtrack on the promise they made to have another think about slapping a giant betting sponsor on the front of our shirts because our finances are on a knife edge and they know the alternative is selling off our most sought after players which could derail their plans of getting back on the gravy train which is literally the only thing that makes their business plan workable and if it doesn't there's nothing stopping us doing a Bolton or Portsmouth.

Looooooooool just bare jokes that.

ClaretPuddle wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09, 2024 7:38 pm

On average, it was a number between 3000-4,500 I believe. I can’t quite remember the figure, sorry, I didn’t note it down. We need to take into account this was an average from last season, which puts it into perspective. But the Club noted that even in previous seasons, these numbers were similar. There are more no shows than you would anticipate and obviously because they don’t all sit in one block, it’s not immediately obvious to the naked eye on the Turf.

The point is, they are very keen to see the Ticket Exchange used more, as a way of satisfying walk-on fans, improving the atmosphere and let’s be real, getting more fans through the door to spend money in the ground! The Ticket Exchange was widely requested by fans, so I’m hoping it becomes used by habit within the next few years. We’ll see!

Maybe this number was those who’d left by half time last season!

BigGaz wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 10, 2024 10:33 am

I too thought it was hilarious when our leveraged up to the ******* eyeballs American hedge fund debt loader owners were willing to sacrifice their own religious beliefs and backtrack on the promise they made to have another think about slapping a giant betting sponsor on the front of our shirts because our finances are on a knife edge and they know the alternative is selling off our most sought after players which could derail their plans of getting back on the gravy train which is literally the only thing that makes their business plan workable and if it doesn't there's nothing stopping us doing a Bolton or Portsmouth.

Looooooooool just bare jokes that.

Oh aye let’s sell our best players just so we can all clap about a shirt sponsor.