Yes a) I am a woman and someone always stands in front of me and b) on waiting ,it's for hip replacement. I don't mind standing during the match (and do at away games) but I need to sit at half time and prior to the game.
fair enough but how about standing areas for those that want to and seating for those that want to sit (like it used to be)
As long as those who want to sit do not have to subsidise for the redevelopment by paying extra, people are quite happy to pay for seat now and not use it, so I do not think they should pay less for being located in a standing only area.
Pretty much my view.
I said yes, as in principle people should have the choice subject to inconveniencing others, but I agree those with seats should not subsidise it.
Yes a) I am a woman and someone always stands in front of me and b) on waiting ,it's for hip replacement. I don't mind standing during the match (and do at away games) but I need to sit at half time and prior to the game.
fair enough but how about standing areas for those that want to and seating for those that want to sit (like it used to be)
As long as those who want to sit do not have to subsidise for the redevelopment by paying extra, people are quite happy to pay for seat now and not use it, so I do not think they should pay less for being located in a standing only area.
Pretty much my view.
I said yes, as in principle people should have the choice subject to inconveniencing others, but I agree those with seats should not subsidise it.
That wasn't the question though Len. Unfortunately it was a loaded question designed to produce the desired outcome. Personally I would support it, but I just like to see fair play.
If people want to say don't know they can - I've fixed it so that the question is optional now, and we will quote that. You also have an option to qualify your answer too.
Best thing would be that folks have a critical eye should join the trust and help us make surveys, but somehow I doubt they ever will.
Instead of worrying about a general football issue like safe standing, then lets hope the trust look at things closer to home first of all.
I doubt the trust is trying to change football by itself, im assuming they are asking that one question, to be able to show to our club that a majority of our fans support Charlton being one of the clubs to support the movement for SS being introduced.
Which considering that a trust is to represent the fans that love this club, seems like a good thing for them to do.
Then why change the original title to highlight safe standing as a standout thing ?
Probably because Safe Standing is an evocative debate that will attract attention to the survey.
It's perfectly reasonable for a supporters trust to want to know what the supporters they would like to represent feel about such a sensitive subject but to suggest that's literally all that's being asked at the expense of finding out more about "Charlton specific" areas is, basically, a lie.
Sorry but I can't think of a good reason why Q.10 (safe standing) was not part of Q.11 (What do you think CAS Trust should do?). Safe standing may well turn out to be the No.1 issue but I think they should have let the members decide that first.
I think the survey needs to be tightened up a bit otherwise there may be an invalid result. I am overseas, and it asks a couple of questions (where do you sit is one, can't remember the other) that have to answered before moving on. This means filling in an incorrect answer and by definition makes that survey invalid. Having worked in market research for 10 years I put forward a couple of other points......the range of 1 to 10 has been mainly discontinued by MR companies in favour of 1 to 5, except for exceptional cases. 10 possible answers especially online gives the respondent too many options and they just slide the cursor to the nearest one they think they agree with. With 5 possible answers they tend to track more to where they want to go. The other point is the number of surveys completed. Although I've been involved in surveys where as little as 200 people responded it is generally accepted that you need 500+ to achieve a result within about 2%. Please accept this as an attempt to help for future surveys rather than criticism.
I changed the title because I felt the first one wasn't enough of a headliner, unfortunately not enough characters to define it properly, it is a punchier heading than my previous headliner but the question was always in there. Sorry if its not perfect but we all have full time jobs, and some families etc, we do the best we can.
We have committed to finding out how fans feel about what Trusts should do, and how they feel about issues in football. The survey is also 'educational' in that many we speak to may not know what trusts can do, and may not until that stage know if they want to join, we have started taking members on the spot - so it is also part of the recruitment drive
I think the safe standing one is a very critical one today and worth doing research, particularly as its not clear what proportion are in favour as very little research has been done.
Whether the Trust should take that further I think is something that would be decided later as it would need to be a campaign if thats how a post AGM group would want to go, and could also come in a later survey perhaps, the facts are however that what we have proposed in the priorities is areas we can actually do. I think there is a distinction there. i.e we are proposing representing fans views in the running of the club, safe standing maybe one of those views.
Sorry if that's vague but that's all I can muster at present.
I think the survey needs to be tightened up a bit otherwise there may be an invalid result. I am overseas, and it asks a couple of questions (where do you sit is one, can't remember the other) that have to answered before moving on. This means filling in an incorrect answer and by definition makes that survey invalid. Having worked in market research for 10 years I put forward a couple of other points......the range of 1 to 10 has been mainly discontinued by MR companies in favour of 1 to 5, except for exceptional cases. 10 possible answers especially online gives the respondent too many options and they just slide the cursor to the nearest one they think they agree with. With 5 possible answers they tend to track more to where they want to go. The other point is the number of surveys completed. Although I've been involved in surveys where as little as 200 people responded it is generally accepted that you need 500+ to achieve a result within about 2%. Please accept this as an attempt to help for future surveys rather than criticism.
Many thanks for the observations... for a home crowd of c. 15,000, the stats theory says we only need 266 to get a 95% confidence that the answers are accurate. We go for more to get more people involved and we do a couple of hundred face to face interviews to make sure that a random selection is giving similar results to those who self select on the web. I like the idea of reducing to five answers as that will probably speed up collection and make the survey easier to complete.
We learnt a lot in terms of design from survey #1 so that we will be getting a much more accurate picture of who uses what websites, as in the East Stand 4X% use Charlton Life etc. This in turn impacts how we will promote the trust going forwards.
There have been many comments on the questions - there can be no change now on survey#2 but there will be another survey before the end of the season so if anyone wants to assist in design please inbox me.
Well as one of the 200 plus paid up members of the trust, I have given one view on the survey re safe standing which appears to have caused some issue. I want to see the trust getting involved with Charlton Athletic matters. Eg: Ticket prices, Policing (Palace away) than being concerned with general football issues.
I have completed every survey so far, and even came to one of your meetings at the Conservative Club in September, when one of the committee asked myself and AFKA, should we have a trust? My answer to that was a firm yes and I came away that evening very impressed with the set up that i witnessed and made sure that I let other Charlton fans know of this.
Please keep up the good work, but please don't take offence if I disagree with the safe standing issue question. As asked for at beginning of the thread, what a supporters trust should do? Your shout!
shirty5, no offence taken - I appreciate input, did you get my message about attending the phase ii launch? I mailed a few but only the exec turned up, no one else responded let alone attended
this is one of the many problems we face, manpower, we are not professional market researchers but despite that we are having a fairly decent stab
The main thrust is about what a trust should do, but as with survey #1 there are other questions, we have been consistent in that.
The best way of influencing and indeed making the Trust better is by attending cte meetings and getting stuck in. Aside from that we do pretty well considering, I think most would be surprised how sparse our resources are if they were a fly on the wall.
So it looks like we have a small group forming here, shirty5, addick2000, off_it, you can run the rule over the next survey, and if keen/able help me deliver it on the cold we streets of Charlton.
any issues pls drop us a line - chair@castrust.org
(graphic by Stig)
This thread has 800+ views but we have 130 surveys filled in online so far! Please complete the survey and put in comments especially if you have time or ideas to help the trust develop.
We need as many fans as possible to let us know their views so that we can approach the club and demonstrate that we have knowledge and understanding of the fan base.
I agree that the Trust should concentrate on more parochial matters directly relevant to Charlton.
That said the purpose of a survey, particularly in the early stages of an organisation, is to ascertain exactly what members and potential members want from it so the safe standing issue was a perfectly valid question to raise. Standing is a regular contentious issue on here after all!
It seems to me that if sufficient answers are received, combined with constructive debate here and on other forums, the survey will have fulfilled its purpose admirably even if it might not satisfy marketing purists!
shirty5, no offence taken - I appreciate input, did you get my message about attending the phase ii launch? I mailed a few but only the exec turned up, no one else responded let alone attended
this is one of the many problems we face, manpower, we are not professional market researchers but despite that we are having a fairly decent stab
The main thrust is about what a trust should do, but as with survey #1 there are other questions, we have been consistent in that.
The best way of influencing and indeed making the Trust better is by attending cte meetings and getting stuck in. Aside from that we do pretty well considering, I think most would be surprised how sparse our resources are if they were a fly on the wall.
So it looks like we have a small group forming here, shirty5, addick2000, off_it, you can run the rule over the next survey, and if keen/able help me deliver it on the cold we streets of Charlton.
I never received a e mail or message re the phase ii launch. Re your comment of attending meetings/stuck in, work commitments are always going to be an issue to help out, however constructive criticism will always be given.
I haven't filled it in as I am still uncomfortbale with having to give my email address. I also do a lot of this stuff for work and I've always made it an option so as not to put people off, there are other wyas to verify it. You will find that it is the people with the unpopular views that are less likely to fill it in if they have to give personal detials.
So why don't you do it for us then? We need people to help in all areas to spread the load. This board is teeming with professionals (whos input I completely respect) and give time voicing their opinions about all kinds of things, what an organisation we could be if we could tap into that successfully. We are unpaid and not specialists in these areas, having said that we do take advice and do a pretty decent job of it I think considering all that.
Incidentally this system records the number of incomplete surveys and it is very low 4 out of 175 I think so far, and all of those were due to a formatting issue re 2 pages which I fixed very early, and all answered the safe standing question. I appreciate there will be some like yourself who don't even attempt for the reason you mention, just as there will also be some who refuse our face 2 face approaches. However if the former were significant I would expect there to be incomplete surveys on the email address field alone and there aren't any.
Anecdotally I wonder how many football fans are going to be put off having their two penneth, they do not have to give their name and address either, not many I suspect. We do however consider this very point, and will continue to in later surveys.
Comments
I said yes, as in principle people should have the choice subject to inconveniencing others, but I agree those with seats should not subsidise it.
Best thing would be that folks have a critical eye should join the trust and help us make surveys, but somehow I doubt they ever will.
If so its the second time you've suggested I haven't joined. Maybe I should ask for my money back if that's your attitude mate?
Which considering that a trust is to represent the fans that love this club, seems like a good thing for them to do.
It's perfectly reasonable for a supporters trust to want to know what the supporters they would like to represent feel about such a sensitive subject but to suggest that's literally all that's being asked at the expense of finding out more about "Charlton specific" areas is, basically, a lie.
We have committed to finding out how fans feel about what Trusts should do, and how they feel about issues in football. The survey is also 'educational' in that many we speak to may not know what trusts can do, and may not until that stage know if they want to join, we have started taking members on the spot - so it is also part of the recruitment drive
I think the safe standing one is a very critical one today and worth doing research, particularly as its not clear what proportion are in favour as very little research has been done.
Whether the Trust should take that further I think is something that would be decided later as it would need to be a campaign if thats how a post AGM group would want to go, and could also come in a later survey perhaps, the facts are however that what we have proposed in the priorities is areas we can actually do. I think there is a distinction there. i.e we are proposing representing fans views in the running of the club, safe standing maybe one of those views.
Sorry if that's vague but that's all I can muster at present.
We learnt a lot in terms of design from survey #1 so that we will be getting a much more accurate picture of who uses what websites, as in the East Stand 4X% use Charlton Life etc. This in turn impacts how we will promote the trust going forwards.
There have been many comments on the questions - there can be no change now on survey#2 but there will be another survey before the end of the season so if anyone wants to assist in design please inbox me.
Well as one of the 200 plus paid up members of the trust, I have given one view on the survey re safe standing which appears to have caused some issue. I want to see the trust getting involved with Charlton Athletic matters. Eg: Ticket prices, Policing (Palace away) than being concerned with general football issues.
I have completed every survey so far, and even came to one of your meetings at the Conservative Club in September, when one of the committee asked myself and AFKA, should we have a trust? My answer to that was a firm yes and I came away that evening very impressed with the set up that i witnessed and made sure that I let other Charlton fans know of this.
Please keep up the good work, but please don't take offence if I disagree with the safe standing issue question. As asked for at beginning of the thread, what a supporters trust should do? Your shout!
Survey done.
this is one of the many problems we face, manpower, we are not professional market researchers but despite that we are having a fairly decent stab
The main thrust is about what a trust should do, but as with survey #1 there are other questions, we have been consistent in that.
The best way of influencing and indeed making the Trust better is by attending cte meetings and getting stuck in. Aside from that we do pretty well considering, I think most would be surprised how sparse our resources are if they were a fly on the wall.
So it looks like we have a small group forming here, shirty5, addick2000, off_it, you can run the rule over the next survey, and if keen/able help me deliver it on the cold we streets of Charlton.
We need as many fans as possible to let us know their views so that we can approach the club and demonstrate that we have knowledge and understanding of the fan base.
That said the purpose of a survey, particularly in the early stages of an organisation, is to ascertain exactly what members and potential members want from it so the safe standing issue was a perfectly valid question to raise. Standing is a regular contentious issue on here after all!
It seems to me that if sufficient answers are received, combined with constructive debate here and on other forums, the survey will have fulfilled its purpose admirably even if it might not satisfy marketing purists!
I never received a e mail or message re the phase ii launch. Re your comment of attending meetings/stuck in, work commitments are always going to be an issue to help out, however constructive criticism will always be given.
So why don't you do it for us then? We need people to help in all areas to spread the load. This board is teeming with professionals (whos input I completely respect) and give time voicing their opinions about all kinds of things, what an organisation we could be if we could tap into that successfully. We are unpaid and not specialists in these areas, having said that we do take advice and do a pretty decent job of it I think considering all that.
Incidentally this system records the number of incomplete surveys and it is very low 4 out of 175 I think so far, and all of those were due to a formatting issue re 2 pages which I fixed very early, and all answered the safe standing question. I appreciate there will be some like yourself who don't even attempt for the reason you mention, just as there will also be some who refuse our face 2 face approaches. However if the former were significant I would expect there to be incomplete surveys on the email address field alone and there aren't any.
Anecdotally I wonder how many football fans are going to be put off having their two penneth, they do not have to give their name and address either, not many I suspect. We do however consider this very point, and will continue to in later surveys.