Can Vale / Smurf learn something

[Howjy04]

Have Johnson, Yates and Robertson left then?

Its not an attitude its a question.

 

Robo has.Unlikely that the other 2 will get a game unless suspensions or injury.

[valiant_593]

I suppose I'm considered by some as one of the moaners on here but the truth is I say it as I see it. Smurf followed Paul Wildes in full of bells and whistles. Telling us that we can lead the club into the championship but it soon changed when Norman realised that he would have to entice the less enthusiastic with a winning team. This costs money and it is clear that Norman has no wish to be a long term 'sugar daddy'. That is fair enough I suppose because it is his club and his money.

That said please Norman stop 'whipping' the fans who attend regularly because we are the converted and the other casual fans don't give a hoot if you make threats.

 

Perhaps by listening to other successful owners there may be some solution to raising the funds to keep the club on a steady climb up the league which will in turn attract more casual stay away fans. To simplify things fans like to watch winning teams.

 

Sadly letting Tom Pope leave was a major 'own goal'. Okay Uche has scored a few goals but over all his general contribution to the team is minimal in comparison to Popey's. He can hold the ball up, is without a doubt one one of the best headers of a ball in the lower leagues and was a valuable asset in defence when the opposition had a corner. Yes Pope was on decent money but his lose will probably cost us far more in the long run.

 

Now let the thumbs downs commence but can anyone really say that our forward line is as potent as it was last season?

 

Letting Pope go was not an own goal! Wake up ***!!! Did you go the bury game? Uche has scored a few goals? Hes on 5 already, thats very good at this stage, our frontline was garbage last season anyway! Pope wouldnt suit our style, not one bit.

[Yukon]

I agree with some of what you say, however, the end goal is to increase attendances. The approach you take above is not constructive at all. The original post perhaps provides a closed question with the list of possible reasons for not attending. I'd leave it open for people that don't attend to simply give their reason, without the prompt.

 

Your responses to those prompts though Yukon, are typical of a business that refuses to listen and adapt. If your customers are shouting at you, telling you what their issue is, what you don't do is shrug your shoulders and simply say tough!! That's not to say that we should bow down to every request, no matter how ludicrous it may be.

 

I personally think that our whole approach to communicating to fans is dated. What Smurf has done in terms of keeping the club alive is amazing, I am sincerely, eternally grateful. However, I really don't think it would take much to change people's views on him. I will always encourage his honesty, but it's the delivery of his honesty that needs work. Do not underestimate the stubbornness of people from Stoke on Trent. If you tell us to do something, we'll often tell you to pi88 off. If you encourage us and entice us in without patronising us, showing a decent product is on offer, then there's more chance we'll respond positively.

 

Fans warmed to Paul Wildes. Why? His whole way of communicating to fans was spot on. We felt like we were following the best club in the world at times. We seemed to have a plan, every tweet or media release was positive, everything was geared up to the club making improvements on and off the field. Since Smurf has been in charge there have seen huge improvements; the club shop, the playing budget, the Robbie Williams suite, and now we've been told about the apartments and new concourse developments in the paddock. But the way Smurf communicates this to us, it comes across as confrontational. I've done this, what are you going to do? That's all well and good, but fans are under no obligation to attend. There are so many positive things going on around the club, we just need to be better at how we communicate with fans.

 

The difference is, Paul Wildes was full of ****. He signed ridiculous deals that hamstrung the club and made promises that were simply achievable, all the time doing it with some one else's money. I'd rather a chairman who calls a spade a spade, the manure Wildes was pedallign has got us into big trouble before.

 

 

The majority list I saw above is ridiculous excuses churned out by those who simply don't want to go but won't admit it. "The food is crap" sounds a lot more loyal than "I'd rather go to the pub/ fishing/ anything you like".

The only plausible ones are cost and work, the two things that the club can not control. And before anyone goes on about the price of entry, it is what it is and it's not like our tickets are out of line with the rest of the League. If we slashed the price and then the wage bill accordingly, we'd be in the conference in 18 months

 

The approach you consider nonconstructive is one that is sick of excuses and nonsense. I'm thoroughly sick of hearing negative comments from those with an excuse not to attend. Bunch of bull****ters

[Aussie Rules]

... Perhaps by listening to other successful owners there may be some solution to raising the funds to keep the club on a steady climb up the league which will in turn attract more casual stay away fans. To simplify things fans like to watch winning teams...

 

G'day Bon'Ami,

 

My guess is that Smurf is talking to other owners, successful or otherwise, and is learning more about the world of football as the days go by.

 

Here we have a successful businessman who knows how to make a quid or two concomitant with a generous philanthropy in and around his birthplace.

 

What I am witnessing is a man dealing with the biggest PVFC issues first whilst keeping a close watch on the smaller but equally important supporter concerns

[Aussie Rules]

I would rather have this years squad but with either Pope or someone as good as him in it!

Why have the two posters who have replied not mentioned the comments about Smurf's quotes and general complaining.

 

I have largely stayed out of debates about Tom because, like most Valiants, I love him to bits for his contribution to helping PVFC climb away from L2. Whatever the dynamics were of his time with us he put away the goals. But was, and will that be the case for him moving forward?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

1: Team performances Seem erratic and poor in certain areas

2: Poor match day experience ie food, facilities By all accounts it's improved

3: Too expensive True but needs must

4: Work schedule - nothing club can do

5: Managers tactics - We shall see..time will tell

6: Lack of pay on the gate Turnstiles - IMO it should not be a reason not to go but for some it seems it is

7: Smurfs outspoken personality- we know what he's like..embrace it!!!!

[Family Stand Terrier]

The difference is, Paul Wildes was full of ****. He signed ridiculous deals that hamstrung the club and made promises that were simply achievable, all the time doing it with some one else's money. I'd rather a chairman who calls a spade a spade, the manure Wildes was pedallign has got us into big trouble before.

 

 

The majority list I saw above is ridiculous excuses churned out by those who simply don't want to go but won't admit it. "The food is crap" sounds a lot more loyal than "I'd rather go to the pub/ fishing/ anything you like".

The only plausible ones are cost and work, the two things that the club can not control. And before anyone goes on about the price of entry, it is what it is and it's not like our tickets are out of line with the rest of the League. If we slashed the price and then the wage bill accordingly, we'd be in the conference in 18 months

 

The approach you consider nonconstructive is one that is sick of excuses and nonsense. I'm thoroughly sick of hearing negative comments from those with an excuse not to attend. Bunch of bull****ters

 

Paul Wildes - I agree it seems he got us into a lot of poor deals. However, his communication and PR skills were second to none, would you agree? Therefore, with Smurf's honesty, is there no way in this world that he could remain honest, and positive at the same time?

 

The excuses you mention. Maybe you're right, maybe it is simply fans that don't want to come again. Is that it then? Do we give up on them? Do we ridicule them and label them as bull****ters? Do you want our attendances to grow?

 

What the original post is suggesting, is that the club asks the questions. You're right there are certain reasons that are out of the club's control. Cost, work etc. What harm would come though from building up our customer database as much as possible. Ask questions, but also increase our list of potential customers. You never know there may be some quick wins that none of us have even thought about. The alternative is to do nothing and just hope the crowds return. Good luck with that.

[Fosse69]

I went to Newcastle in 1989 to see the Vale, I had to walk around the ground because there were no cash turnstiles and

[kevin_struggles]

Whilst your idea is interesting and anything to help the club and its' finances is laudable, this site is not the right place to do it.

 

OVF is a great site for information, but for a long time I have been concerned about the over-exaggerated influence a smallish number of posters have with their forum posts. Don't take it the wrong way Rob, your site is great - but it is not always producing the best results for Vale from the forum.

 

Smurf both posts and reads the forum, and I hope he realises that probably less than a quarter of Vale regulars post on it, maybe far less than that, and that of those, a large number only post occasionally whilst a few more 'vocal' ones account for most of the posts.

 

Id say that less than 100 Vale fans are shaping Vale opinion by their large number of posts, and of these we know for a fact (because they tell us) some do not go to any games, and quite a few others find geography against them and cant get to any or many games.

 

Therefore, any polls, questions, opinions etc should NOT be conducted on OVF in my opinion.

 

Despite some peoples view of the world from rose-tinted specs, there are still a lot of people who don't have or don't use the internet regularly, and believe it or not some that cant afford it. There are also those that do have the internet that choose for whatever reason, not to patronise OVF.

 

So any feedback on here MAY not be representative at all, and I for one would prefer material to be given out at the ground, at home matches where over a period of weeks a much more representative and democratic sample would be asked.

 

That also assumes that this should be done at all, which I think is up to those running the club and not fans, however well intentioned.

 

So the idea is to find out why people arent going but you dont want to ask the people on here despite saying yourself that many of them dont go, you would prefer to ask the people in the ground, during a match, the question: why dont you go to matches?

 

I think I may have spotted a flaw in that plan.

[old sage]

Smurf has moaned/ complained about the gates.Ive given up,the support isn't there.If I was throwing money into the club I would be moaning too,a bit like fans do when we lose 2 games on the trot and complain about the team/ squad which is far better now.I'll see you all on Saturday,or maybe not ,depending what excuses surface.At least the club will have a better than normal crowd with 2000+ Blades coming.

Don't worry thee sen Howjy I will be there as ever unless work commitments dictate otherwise.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

So the idea is to find out why people arent going but you dont want to ask the people on here despite saying yourself that many of them dont go, you would prefer to ask the people in the ground, during a match, the question: why dont you go to matches?

 

I think I may have spotted a flaw in that plan.

 

There I am sure other issues that could be addressed via those who do attend but if it's about finding out why people don't attend then OVF is one valuable source I'd have thought. Not only cos there are people on here who choose not to attend and some who cannot but cos people on here will possibly know people who don't attend and their reasons.

 

I think there is much to be gained by some market research into fans that don't attend to find out the reasons as to why and maybe what could be done to address them ..not easy to contact them so all avenues including OVF should be explored.

 

I'm confident that NS has enough about him not to take what is said on OVF as representative of ALL Vale fans..he knows there are some more vocal than others. some who aren't 'mainstream' in their views and so on

[Howjy04]

Don't worry thee sen Howjy I will be there as ever unless work commitments dictate otherwise.

 

Good man.UTV.

[Aussie Rules]

The difference between Paul Wildes and Smurf, as I understand it, was one of PW using Smurf's money and wanting Smurf to take a back seat. PW may, repeat, may have been good with the talk but didn't have the pelf to walk the walk.

[robf]

I'm confident that NS has enough about him not to take what is said on OVF as representative of ALL Vale fans..he knows there are some more vocal than others. some who aren't 'mainstream' in their views and so on

 

I agree entirely. And the issue is that not all fans' views are equally influential.

 

For instance, something Mike Baggaley, Ray Williams, Phil Sproson or Lee Blakeman comments on (or indeed someone phoning Praise and Grumble or writing to the Sentinel comments on) clearly reach a much wider audience than the views of a "regular" fan on the terraces who isn't in the media/online. Similarly, more prolific posters on here have views that reach a wider audience than those who don't post (or visit) here.

 

However, I would argue that there is a wider balance and mix of Vale views on here than anywhere else. It's not an even balance (some post more than others) but it's clearly wider than say Praise and Grumble, the Sentinel letters page, the Sentinel fan pieces and any other social media space (though perhaps the Vale Facebook groups are perhaps now up there in terms of numbers).

 

However, influence and audience doesn't really matter just as long as the club read the views and (this is the crucial part) reach their own conclusion on whether they are valid or not.

[Bea Smith]

So the idea is to find out why people arent going but you dont want to ask the people on here despite saying yourself that many of them dont go, you would prefer to ask the people in the ground, during a match, the question: why dont you go to matches?

 

I think I may have spotted a flaw in that plan.

 

Another post answered your point earlier in the thread, and on the face of it your point looks reasonable. However, if the correct match was chosen, one with a large crowd (this week v Sheff U) or a boxing day match at home or Crewe for example, we would capture exactly the 'occasional' fans views by getting the 1000 or so who might be at that game but only go a few times or even once a season.

 

I'm not saying OVF should not be used at all, just that it should not be the only or even the major place where opinion is gathered. Questionnaires in local schools, shops, pubs, the Sentinel, mentions on Radio Stoke and Signal, Praise and Grumble, the other Vale fan site, Twitter, Facebook - all could and should play a part if this were to be done, and it wont be a cheap exercise if it is done properly.

 

I really hope I haven't given anyone the idea that this is an anti-OVF stance - it isn't. OVF enhances supporting Port Vale wonderfully, and adds richly to the experience with instant news, facts, stats, comments, pictures and one of my favourite parts, the history of the club and its players and supporters.

 

My only problem, and I admit some of it may be my take on things, is that the forum can be dominated by some who post endlessly and try to sway opinion - yes, I do it occasionally too. I just don't want what is said in posts to be taken as over-representative of overall Vale opinion and that is the point I was making.