hill83
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by 'side' are people on different sides now?
kcic Fan Survey results + more (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter MichaelCCFC
- Start date
What do you mean by 'side' are people on different sides now?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Of course, and if you apportion any blame for the situation anywhere but one place you know what side you are placed on.
blueflint
Well-Known Member
didn't the survey show you that your not alone in loving joy
kingharvest
New Member
Survey's can often be down to how you interpret the results and of course you can clump together numbers to tell different stories.
For example, you could say that 38.6% believe the council/ACL are at least partially responsible, where as 92.6% apportion blame with SISU. For every 1 person who blames the council, there are 2.4 who blame SISU, and of the 38.6% only 3.7% blame the council/ACL mainly/entirely, where as 57.7% of the 92.6% blame SISU mainly/entirely.
For example, you could say that 38.6% believe the council/ACL are at least partially responsible, where as 92.6% apportion blame with SISU. For every 1 person who blames the council, there are 2.4 who blame SISU, and of the 38.6% only 3.7% blame the council/ACL mainly/entirely, where as 57.7% of the 92.6% blame SISU mainly/entirely.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Hill, enlighten me as to why the survey was done, why the results weren't exactly what was wanted and what is the 'Agenda'
hill83
Well-Known Member
I'd rather not say as it can't be substantiated.
The Gentleman
Well-Known Member
Oh no, we're all on the same 'side', singing from the same song sheet with one voice and every thread is filled with harmonious talk of what we all want for Christmas. By side, i mean the ones who solely blame Sisu/Otium, ones who think both are at fault but lay the majority at Sisu/Otium's door, ones who blame both but more so ACL/CCC and then the ones who say ACL/CCC completely with none levelled at Sisu. Ah, nearly forgot, you then have the ones who just what to give a balanced argument about the whole situation, they say all parties are to blame but only ever seem to have a go at the ones who who apportion any blame at Sisu/Otium. The only problem with that is that it never really seems very balanced to me.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
What kind of a reply is that? Grow a pair and say what you have to say - or are you just another cowardly troll like Grendel and shmee who hide behind anonymity to make all kinds of allegations and insults and then come back with lines like 'I'd rather not say'
hill83
Well-Known Member
Ok, so which side am I on in this then? Just so I know how to respond in the future.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Ok, calm down. I think you were hoping for far more people to be totally anti sisu. I think you are pushing the AFC Coventry agenda and even though the results for people being interested in this were low there are still things being set up for it like the seperate email group. I think you have also created an unnecessary division with the 'keep cov in cov' stuff. Obviously we all want to stay in Coventry, but for me it comes across too 'pro acl', at least initially.
Like I say this is just what I think.
And I'm not trying to insult you, I've also got no reason to hide behind anything.
MichaelCCFC
New Member
Well at least you replied whereas shmee has done a runner and Grendel just keeps churning out the insults - sadly though, you are wrong on every point. I have never joined in the having to be pro/anti sisu/acl but as this has become such a big issue I was interested to try to quantify it and move beyond people just claiming 'most fans think x, y or z'. As clearly stated the survey makes no claim to be definitive but it is reasonable to believe it is strongly indicative. So I don't for a minute believe the percentage figures are definitive but I think it is fair to say a clear majority blame sisu, only a tiny fringe element see acl/ccc as mainly/wholly to blame and a significant minority see sisu-acl/ccc as equally to blame. If you care to ask for my view rather than claiming to know what it is (which is remarkable given we have never met) you will learn how wrong you are about 'wanting' a particular result'. Similarly, I am not pushing afc (if you read anything I've said about afc you would know this rather than making ill-informed accusations) but I was very interested to gauge opinion and see if there is support or just a few people making a lot of noise. As for 'unnecessary division' again if you read stuff you would know that the Trust decided it wanted to separate off kcic, a decision I bitterly opposed and which I continue to believe was a huge mistake by the Trust.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, I've not gone deep enough into it to read all of your thoughts on the matter, so I accept that I'm incorrect.
I am aware that the Trust decided it wanted to seperate kcic off and I know you were opposed to it, personally I would have left it at that and tried to work with the SBT, but that's me.
Each group that forms is further division, the people on the hill, kcic, the sbt, etc etc. We all need to come together.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Michael, not trying to be pompous but giving you feedback.
The wording of the blame and the stadium question were poor and have lead to results that can be interpreted many ways.
You've had plenty of feedback but if you want some more:
The blame question should be a sliding scale, you should be able to answer and ratio of 100:0 to 0:100 in 10% intervals. That would remove the current argument about the people who chose the middle option.
The question about the sale should have been split into two parts: the sale price, restrictions put on the owners.
When creating surveys the trick is to A) not lead people in your questions and B) make sure that each data point is separate so it can be analysed on its own.
If you want some help I'm more than happy to knock something up with you.
The wording of the blame and the stadium question were poor and have lead to results that can be interpreted many ways.
You've had plenty of feedback but if you want some more:
The blame question should be a sliding scale, you should be able to answer and ratio of 100:0 to 0:100 in 10% intervals. That would remove the current argument about the people who chose the middle option.
The question about the sale should have been split into two parts: the sale price, restrictions put on the owners.
When creating surveys the trick is to A) not lead people in your questions and B) make sure that each data point is separate so it can be analysed on its own.
If you want some help I'm more than happy to knock something up with you.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
To be honest I am more surprised that this many people solely blame SISU.
Most on here say it is mostly SISU's fault and a smaller blame apportioned to the council.
So that is a very high number blaming solely SISU, when you think about it and quite a low figure blaming both.
I was expecting 70-80 % both
10-20 % just SISU
0-5 % council.
Although i didn't participate in the survey, partly through the aftermath of the threat of sueing fans making any response from me being somewhat emotional, I feel that it offers some background to our current plight and where a fair sized proportion of fans sit as a baseline. It offers the opportunity to encourage more wider media interest. At least you are trying to keep positive Michael, and I know your heart is in the right place with this i.e. no personal agenda. It was pretty obvious when I met you before the Colchester game (a brief encounter on the Hill).
Not really sure why the Trust didn't support KCIC, maybe due to uncertainties about how the Hill protests would work out (the Brentford cat calling incident thankfully seems to have been a one off).
Not really sure why the Trust didn't support KCIC, maybe due to uncertainties about how the Hill protests would work out (the Brentford cat calling incident thankfully seems to have been a one off).
hill83
Well-Known Member
That could be wording again, I voted equally to blame, although I don't think this is the case, it's mainly Sisu to blame, but not enough for me to vote: It is all/mainly the fault of sisu.
Take mainly out and we'd get a different result. All and mainly are different things. I think the percentages you are talking about would be about right with better wording.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
You need a 5 point scale then..
mainly SISU
mostly SISU, partly CCC/ACL
even
mostly CCC/ACL, partly SISU
mainly CCC/ACL
mainly SISU
mostly SISU, partly CCC/ACL
even
mostly CCC/ACL, partly SISU
mainly CCC/ACL
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Just spent 5 minutes knocking something up to show what I'm on about.
If you want me to work on this Michael so you can use it for a future survey, let me know and I can give you admin rights to it.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1xxoaU3Irxg4azHvLpEuNFaYsFWgoNuz-itty8g9S5Bg/viewform
OK, someone's filled it in, this is not a survey. There are no restrictions on multiple votes and I haven't finished it at all. Just wanted to show how to lay out the questions.
If you want me to work on this Michael so you can use it for a future survey, let me know and I can give you admin rights to it.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1xxoaU3Irxg4azHvLpEuNFaYsFWgoNuz-itty8g9S5Bg/viewform
OK, someone's filled it in, this is not a survey. There are no restrictions on multiple votes and I haven't finished it at all. Just wanted to show how to lay out the questions.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
That one is much better with the sliding scale of blame rather than one or the other or equal
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I've just filled it in for you. I thought the questions were much better apart from the Ricoh one. There should have been an option along the lines of any sale being beneficial to both parties. At market value or below market value doesn't sit right. If a sale did happen then it would a deal would be done. It's not as black and white as you suggest with your four options. Still better than the other one though.
Nick
Administrator
To be fair I think he just did it as an example but its a much better base where it's not either or.
With the Google ones can they be locked down so only one submission?
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah I had the most trouble wording that one.
I've added another option in, but it still doesn't seem right.
Again: This is not a survey, just me brainstorming how the questions should look.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Only with a very complicated work around or by requiring a google sign in (which still wouldn't do it, I have 7 google accounts!)
If you were to run it, you'd need to transfer the questions into a proper survey app which prevents multi-vote.
Edit: a quick google seems to suggest this Wordpress plugin would do the job, blocks by cookie, IP and/or username. Still not perfect (I could vote once at work, once at home and once on the McDonalds WiFi) but would stop the casual trolling.
http://wordpress.org/plugins/yop-poll/
Edit 2: Or SurveyMonkey it seems. I'm signing up for an account and will try to move the questions over.
Last edited:
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Sorry, wasn't meaning to be critical as I know you just knocked it up as an example. When are you going to publish the results?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What about something like quicksurveys.com? There will always be ways around online polls to be fair
Have I just unwittingly agreed to run a fan's survey?
I've got a lesson in 5 minutes, but if tonight there's a want for this, I'm happy to spend some time on it.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Ah, everyone knows that 62% of statistics are completely made up.
In terms of the blame game, I think it's clear that there are three groups. Mostly/All SISU's fault, Mostly/All ACL's fault, Equal blame. I'm not sure the proportions within those groups really matter, or are likely to influence the final outcome of the Ricoh 'negotiations', or even if there are any. I also think it's tricky to accurately assess the figures via a self-selecting internet survey, but that doesn't mean that it's not fun.
The single key metric here, imho, is the vast (and from TF's statements, unexpected) decrease in fans since we've moved to Northampton. That should tell all parties something, but I think will be of particular concern to SISU given that they are entirely concerned with making money. It might also apply a little pressure to the FL/FA, via the media, as we're now beginning to see.
From my point-of-view, regardless of any survey, NOPM is still the best way to apply pressure to resolve this. Appreciate others differ.
In terms of the blame game, I think it's clear that there are three groups. Mostly/All SISU's fault, Mostly/All ACL's fault, Equal blame. I'm not sure the proportions within those groups really matter, or are likely to influence the final outcome of the Ricoh 'negotiations', or even if there are any. I also think it's tricky to accurately assess the figures via a self-selecting internet survey, but that doesn't mean that it's not fun.
The single key metric here, imho, is the vast (and from TF's statements, unexpected) decrease in fans since we've moved to Northampton. That should tell all parties something, but I think will be of particular concern to SISU given that they are entirely concerned with making money. It might also apply a little pressure to the FL/FA, via the media, as we're now beginning to see.
From my point-of-view, regardless of any survey, NOPM is still the best way to apply pressure to resolve this. Appreciate others differ.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Yep, the market value one is a difficult one because no one knows what the market value is and just pluck figures out of the air. And if we don't know what the market rate is how do we know what a discounted rate is?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Nick
Administrator
Yep, the market value one is a difficult one because no one knows what the market value is and just pluck figures out of the air. And if we don't know what the market rate is how do we know what a discounted rate is?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
And who ever pays market value when it comes to a house or car, they a always haggle.
Astute
Well-Known Member
57.7% blame SISUE. 34.9 blame them equally. 5.3% blame the council.
So as Grendull says 40.2% blame the council. But 92.6% blame SISUE. 2.1% didn't vote on this question but Grendull also adds them to the council's fault number.
I voted that they were both at fault. But that was because of the wording of the question and what has gone on over the years. Personally I have the council at about 20% to blame. But when the build of the stadium was going on SISUE were innocent. They were not even at our club. The problem stands at 100% with who was running our club. Going for a big build like this without the finances and selling HR. Using the money to keep our club afloat. Then selling the clubs share for just 6m and then using this to keep the club afloat. Some on here say we had the right to buy back HR. But we couldn't even pay the bills. This is how we ended up with SISUE.
The reason I have the council at 20% of the fault was for not reducing the rent earlier. But the rent that was set would have been about the amount payable for repayment for the loan needed to do the build. This is why I put the ones in charge of our club at the time fully at fault. The same people that say that the council shouldn't have refinanced the loan are the same ones complaining that the council shouldn't put money into the stadium. So what is wrong with them charging enough rent to cover the repayments so they weren't using taxpayers money from the start? It took them until SISUE stopped paying the rent to refinance the loan. I also blame them for saving our club from not having anywhere to play. After all this is what they did whilst not using taxpayers money.
The reason SISUE are mainly to blame now is that they have done things totally the wrong way. There is no reason for us to be in Northampton other than getting the Ricoh on the cheap. They could have had the Higg's part for about 6m. But they pulled out. They want the whole thing for a similar amount it seems. They don't care about our fans or club. So to me they have gone from being innocent to at least 80% to blame.
So as Grendull says 40.2% blame the council. But 92.6% blame SISUE. 2.1% didn't vote on this question but Grendull also adds them to the council's fault number.
I voted that they were both at fault. But that was because of the wording of the question and what has gone on over the years. Personally I have the council at about 20% to blame. But when the build of the stadium was going on SISUE were innocent. They were not even at our club. The problem stands at 100% with who was running our club. Going for a big build like this without the finances and selling HR. Using the money to keep our club afloat. Then selling the clubs share for just 6m and then using this to keep the club afloat. Some on here say we had the right to buy back HR. But we couldn't even pay the bills. This is how we ended up with SISUE.
The reason I have the council at 20% of the fault was for not reducing the rent earlier. But the rent that was set would have been about the amount payable for repayment for the loan needed to do the build. This is why I put the ones in charge of our club at the time fully at fault. The same people that say that the council shouldn't have refinanced the loan are the same ones complaining that the council shouldn't put money into the stadium. So what is wrong with them charging enough rent to cover the repayments so they weren't using taxpayers money from the start? It took them until SISUE stopped paying the rent to refinance the loan. I also blame them for saving our club from not having anywhere to play. After all this is what they did whilst not using taxpayers money.
The reason SISUE are mainly to blame now is that they have done things totally the wrong way. There is no reason for us to be in Northampton other than getting the Ricoh on the cheap. They could have had the Higg's part for about 6m. But they pulled out. They want the whole thing for a similar amount it seems. They don't care about our fans or club. So to me they have gone from being innocent to at least 80% to blame.
duffer
Well-Known Member
Unless, of course, the seller doesn't have a need to sell.
Or the seller has a legal duty to prove that they've gained the best possible return for the asset in question.
And the market value of a car or a house, represents the market value on the open market, and typically takes into account room for negotiation or the option to walk away and offer elsewhere if that negotiation fails because of, say, the unreasonableness of the purchaser.
Other than that Nick, the car/house sale model fits our situation precisely.