| FAO Cliveo 13:26 - Jan 10 with 6281 views | real_loftus |
How was your date with Ian "3D" Taylor? |  |
| |  |
| FAO Cliveo on 13:59 - Jan 10 with 5277 views | Northernr |
It was fine, hopefully productive. It came on the back of my Liverpool match report and Chelsea match preview, which included some criticism aimed at him and the media team, so he asked if I would like to sit down with him and discuss that face to face which I didn't see any harm in. In no way was it me pretending to represent QPR fans or to speak for anybody other than myself. I basically gave him a bit of a panning on here and he wanted to discuss the points I'd raised which he didn't have to do and was appreciated.
I basically repeated what I've written on here and said on the Podcast in greater depth.
- I gave him my point of view on the way that the media team use Twitter, saying that certain aspects of it had wound people up, and that in my opinion using your own personal account for personal and official purposes perhaps hadn't worked as a tactic because he's now getting abused after matches. Pointed out a few Tweets that I thought may have rubbed people up the wrong way.
- Said that I thought the allocation at West Ham was low and the price v West Brom was very high, and that a lot of other people had said the same thing. Said that West Ham in particular showed that the 'register your interest' facility on the website wasn't working or wasn't being used enough.
- The idea of the free coach travel that was floated on the podcast came up and that may be something they'd consider, particularly after the support they got at Chelsea. I think they're looking into that. Stressed the need to contact LSA in advance so they don't end up with a coach charging £30 on a day when the club are doing them free.
- Mentioned the problem some people have with ringing the box office, getting put through to Ticketmaster, they say they can't help and to ring the box office and you just go round and round. Also mentioned that people had posted on the board about being upset to be moved out of the Lower Loft, and then a double whammy seeing Liverpool fans celebrating in there last week. Mentioned that away fans seem to be taking advantage of the Viagogo thing which could cause problems down the line.
- Official website they know has issues, all clubs with that company have the same issues, but the contract is very, very long and completely unfeasible to buy yourself out of so they've got to work with it and them.
Overall I just stressed over and over again that at the moment the communication with the supporters is quite poor (in my opinion) and there need to be more forums, rep meetings and consultations with a really wide group of supporters. Pointed out that things like the West Ham and Man City ticket issues wouldn't happen as often if they were talking to the supporters regularly.
And that I'm just one bloke moaning, they need to be talking to loads of supporters a lot of the time. In no way can I possibly represent anybody's views other than my own - not least because you lot disagree with me most of the time.
It was constructive I think, hopefully things will improve. |  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:03 - Jan 10 with 5259 views | toboboly |
so they sign website contracts the same way as they sign players. |  |
| Sexy Asian dwarves wanted. |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:04 - Jan 10 with 5249 views | Northernr |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:03 - Jan 10 by toboboly |
so they sign website contracts the same way as they sign players. |
I think it's done centrally - loads of clubs have the same crap websites from the same terrible company on the same long contract. Not an exclusive QPR problem that one at all. | | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:08 - Jan 10 with 5231 views | N12Hoop |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:04 - Jan 10 by Northernr |
I think it's done centrally - loads of clubs have the same crap websites from the same terrible company on the same long contract. Not an exclusive QPR problem that one at all. |
I remember reading the club response to this some time ago. I think the clubs have to subscribe to 1 of 2 options as dictated by the Premier League or FA or something, and the other one is meant to be worse.!
All bizarre in this day and age of hi-tec
Another question Clive, do you know whether the media team follow the various internet forums in order to try and understand what is going on amongst their 'customers' as it were? |  |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:10 - Jan 10 with 5216 views | real_loftus |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:04 - Jan 10 by Northernr |
I think it's done centrally - loads of clubs have the same crap websites from the same terrible company on the same long contract. Not an exclusive QPR problem that one at all. |
So the website contracts dont have performance standards and default clauses then? Sheesh.
Thanks for the write up, genuinely appreciated. | |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:11 - Jan 10 with 5194 views | Northernr |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:08 - Jan 10 by N12Hoop |
I remember reading the club response to this some time ago. I think the clubs have to subscribe to 1 of 2 options as dictated by the Premier League or FA or something, and the other one is meant to be worse.!
All bizarre in this day and age of hi-tec
Another question Clive, do you know whether the media team follow the various internet forums in order to try and understand what is going on amongst their 'customers' as it were? |
Well like I say he asked if I wanted to sit down with him after reading what I'd written on here. In fact I had e-mails from a couple of departments by 9.30am the day after I posted the Liverpool match report so I think it's fair to say they're looking and reading. | | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:22 - Jan 10 with 5140 views | N12Hoop |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:11 - Jan 10 by Northernr |
Well like I say he asked if I wanted to sit down with him after reading what I'd written on here. In fact I had e-mails from a couple of departments by 9.30am the day after I posted the Liverpool match report so I think it's fair to say they're looking and reading. |
The optimist in me says that I think that's a really positive thing. Since this forum is generally constructive and your reports balanced, (unless it's Coventry we're playing), then by having the occasional rant it hits home harder and gets people taking notice. Obviously the question is whether they have any power to make changes and who they get to represent your views to, but I do take some encouragement from this chain of events.
The cynic might say that they are going for damage limitation, let you have your audience and flick a v-sign at you on your way out!
What would really be positive, is to allow you to have your say with Beard or someone in authority. Although you are 1 voice, I doubt many people on here would say that you don't represent the majority with your views.
| |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:26 - Jan 10 with 5127 views | toboboly |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:04 - Jan 10 by Northernr |
I think it's done centrally - loads of clubs have the same crap websites from the same terrible company on the same long contract. Not an exclusive QPR problem that one at all. |
Most PL teams don't have the same though I notice. | |
| Sexy Asian dwarves wanted. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Cliveo on 14:51 - Jan 10 with 5064 views | LunarJetman |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:26 - Jan 10 by toboboly |
Most PL teams don't have the same though I notice. |
Hi Clive, I can see that you asked a lot of questions/made a number of points but I can't see anything with regards to Ian's replies/comments etc.
Did he not reply to you at all on anything? It would be interesting to hear what he said back to you. |  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:52 - Jan 10 with 5054 views | Northernr |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:22 - Jan 10 by N12Hoop |
The optimist in me says that I think that's a really positive thing. Since this forum is generally constructive and your reports balanced, (unless it's Coventry we're playing), then by having the occasional rant it hits home harder and gets people taking notice. Obviously the question is whether they have any power to make changes and who they get to represent your views to, but I do take some encouragement from this chain of events.
The cynic might say that they are going for damage limitation, let you have your audience and flick a v-sign at you on your way out!
What would really be positive, is to allow you to have your say with Beard or someone in authority. Although you are 1 voice, I doubt many people on here would say that you don't represent the majority with your views.
|
I definitely don't think I represent a majority and I think it would be unfair for Phil Beard to come along and just listen to what I say just because I happen to run a website. What I see as a problem or a priority other people might not care about. I bet a lot of people on here don't care about how the club is using Twitter but for me that's a problem and something they're getting wrong ATM. As a for instance.
The cynic in you may be right. There were some specific things we discussed which can be changed/happen reasonably easily and quickly and if none of them do then I'll think it was a case of 'for God's sake somebody sit him down, make him happy, make him stop talking for a bit' because I did go off on one a bit last week and on the podcast and people are listening and reading however strange I think that is. I didn't get the impression that it was just about appeasement though. We'll see. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 15:05 - Jan 10 with 4998 views | Juzzie |
Slightly off topic but re: the website provider.... Long contracts don't suit anyone except maybe the person offering the service. It's stifles competition and the service provider can get lazy as they have a captive audience for a long time.
Long contracts often seem good to the buyer (and his/her bosses) if the price is made attractive to them. This is the problem, most people just see the £££ bottom line as that's what everything is governed by these days.
They don't actually see that maybe a poor service could be the result as because the price is so low the company might not have the resources to provide a better service due to the lower income. If they were to provide a better service, the price would have to be higher and they might not get the contract.
A kind of Catch 22 but this is where the buyer has to have the strength of conviction to maybe pay a slightly higher price with guarantees of a good service and a shorter contract over another company who may offer a lower price but want a long term deal.
Years ago my then boss was under pressure by our Fianance Director to switch suppliers because others were cheaper. We argued that although we paid a higher price, the service we got was outstanding, which it was.
It fell on deaf ears and we were forced to switch. It was a disaster. Although the invoices were cheaper, the work was shoddy and we often risked missed release dates or had to pay other companies further down the line for overtime/special couriers to make up for the time lost. Any money saved was then eaten up by these extra costs so we ended up no better off. In fact, it was worse due to all the hassle.
A few months later we switched back to the previous supplier and my boss rightly gave that "I told you so" look at the FD!
Moral of the story... you get what you pay for. Oh, and don't let FD's dictate how other depts work!
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 16:24 - Jan 10 with 4895 views | cjc |
| FAO Cliveo on 15:05 - Jan 10 by Juzzie |
Slightly off topic but re: the website provider.... Long contracts don't suit anyone except maybe the person offering the service. It's stifles competition and the service provider can get lazy as they have a captive audience for a long time.
Long contracts often seem good to the buyer (and his/her bosses) if the price is made attractive to them. This is the problem, most people just see the £££ bottom line as that's what everything is governed by these days.
They don't actually see that maybe a poor service could be the result as because the price is so low the company might not have the resources to provide a better service due to the lower income. If they were to provide a better service, the price would have to be higher and they might not get the contract.
A kind of Catch 22 but this is where the buyer has to have the strength of conviction to maybe pay a slightly higher price with guarantees of a good service and a shorter contract over another company who may offer a lower price but want a long term deal.
Years ago my then boss was under pressure by our Fianance Director to switch suppliers because others were cheaper. We argued that although we paid a higher price, the service we got was outstanding, which it was.
It fell on deaf ears and we were forced to switch. It was a disaster. Although the invoices were cheaper, the work was shoddy and we often risked missed release dates or had to pay other companies further down the line for overtime/special couriers to make up for the time lost. Any money saved was then eaten up by these extra costs so we ended up no better off. In fact, it was worse due to all the hassle.
A few months later we switched back to the previous supplier and my boss rightly gave that "I told you so" look at the FD!
Moral of the story... you get what you pay for. Oh, and don't let FD's dictate how other depts work!
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|
Unfortunately because there does seem to be a lack of cohesion/unity and to some extent organisation within the supporters groups and forums ( most forums understandably unless i am mistaken may have there own agendas to build on there market share) we will struggle to be taken seriously as a unified fan base.
I suppose a lot of us are confused as to who is the best group to represent us in a logical and rational fashion, so I can only presume the board are as well.
Twitter can be good if it is used in the right way but it has to be organized. It can show the owners almost immediately how we feel on certain topics that need to be addressed but it has to be structured. Unless it is led it will be just be used for discontent, back slapping or for fans who feel they know best how to run the club or team.
As has been highlighted, the key is two have more direct and organised meetings and I don't hesitate for one minute this has not been proposed by various different groups.
I would suggest one forum with the manager once a year, probably best around this time of the year, where anyone can attend which is purely on the team issues and two meetings with representatives of the board at the beginning of the season and end of season where an agreed panel of probably no more than 6 ( each with a specific role) represent the majority of fans on all other club issues ( eg. Ticket prices, allocations, development of the club, local and international marketing and how we can help each other, academy, logos, maintaining our unique club identity, the list goes on.
The problem is that until we join together as one fan base and agree on a structure and format of the panel it's hard to see how we will be taken seriously because we do seem disjointed when sadly most of us seem to agree on the main issues that need to be addressed.
The club have almost identified our own problems in that they do not know who to properly contact and so have contacted Clive. I don't blame them, he is probably one of the most logical and informed supporters out there, but as he has even said he wants to take a step back from it rather than a step foward.
The 64 million dollar question is how we create a serious panel that can represent for the majority of fans. I can't see how this is going to happen unless the club tell us what they will listen to, the best way forward and help us achieve it. Because any poor bugger who will try may be shot.
If the club had any sense they would offer a job to somebody like Clive (a dedicated fan, in other words, who understands most opinions of the fans) even though I don't particularly agree on everything he does, I can see the woods from the trees. Who works officially on behalf of the club , helps to create the structure of the fans panel, the meetings, fans communication, match reports and local marketing and events etc etc. It may be the last thing Clive would want to do and he would probably shoot me for suggesting it, so I apologize in advance.
I know there are many others out there who may suit this role but it does need to be a rational person who understands business as well.
I have no issue with anyone who represents any forum or group whatsoever and respect the time and passion they put into whatever they do in order to further progress the club so i sincerely hope i have not offended anyone but until we do unite an organize ourselves better, I feel the majority of the fans will not be represented and club will find it hard to act.
The club need the fans happy to develop commercially. They seem to be trying to develop structures and move with the times, I suppose we need to understand that and develop ourselves slightly better, so we can help them to create a better club for the fans. |  |
| Where there is hoop there's the hoops. |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 16:31 - Jan 10 with 4876 views | hoof_hearted |
Clive - you can talk for me. Your support for fans above all is vital and they clearly pay more attention to you than to the trust (to their eternal shame but so be it).
All you posters and lurkers click a thumbs up thingy on the OP to give a bit of moral support to the old journo soak without having to actually say nice things. |  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 16:39 - Jan 10 with 4829 views | Northernr |
Well to be fair you guys wouldn't really post on here if you hated me would you? Ask on WATRBs they probably think I'm a prck and they're QPR fans too. Needs a cross section of voices and opinions. | | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 16:53 - Jan 10 with 4755 views | hoof_hearted |
| FAO Cliveo on 16:39 - Jan 10 by Northernr |
Well to be fair you guys wouldn't really post on here if you hated me would you? Ask on WATRBs they probably think I'm a prck and they're QPR fans too. Needs a cross section of voices and opinions. |
Being a prck and talking for us are not mutually exclusive.
Although the 2 thumbs up aren't a great sign. Maybe I should have dumbed it down a bit. | | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 10:07 - Jan 11 with 4476 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Just emailed Ian Taylor with a small query, and got an email back instantly. Very impressed. |  |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 10:17 - Jan 11 with 4449 views | MelakaRanger |
We may not all agree with you Clive, all the time.
But I would suggest that, 95%+ of the time, your views represent the views of the vast majority of 'proper' fans
Your reporting and comments are always clear, sincere and well thought out. And I believe we (the loftforwords members/fans) are lucky to have you as our de-facto spokesman in dealing with the club.
Luckily the Club seems to be prepared to talk to you and to listen to you. That can only be of benefit to both the club and us fans.
Keep up the good work.
|  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 10:26 - Jan 11 with 4424 views | ngbqpr |
Every football fanbase is divided. We all have differing opinions on many aspects of our clubs. That's why we have forums - there would be little need if we all agreed.
Most of our best football in recent years (IMHO of course) has been when we've played 4-2-3-1...but there are still times sections of the crowd will chant "442". and many of my mates stick to the "we should always play 2 upfront, especially at home" mantra.
It's the same for off field stuff - for everything the majority will agree on (eg WHU allocation), there will be something that splits everybody (see yesterday's debates about the merits or otherwise of Phil Beard)
I accept for the size of our fanbase we have more messageboards than most (which I think reflects the passion & commitment of the fanbase, but also it's diverse views); and the number of 'fan groups' is also disproportionately large - again reflects that passion & those differing views, but must be confusing to successive new boards - all a bit People's Front of Judea / Judean People's Front
That QPR is such a strange, unpredictable beast is arguably part of, if not its charm, then certainly one of the things that keeps us hooked
Who woke up this morning expecting to hear Cotterill was coming on board? |  |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 10:36 - Jan 11 with 4406 views | simmo |
There are a lot of mouth breathing c*nts in every fan base, and we are not short of a few. I also think though that on the whole we know our football. The proper support at QPR is loyal and realistic and place the running of the club and commitment of the players over success.
This is a perception built over years and years and the board are obviously catching up. If they spoke to enough people or to the key figures like Clive that speak for others they would get positive and realistic ideas of what to change, all of which would make QPR a better club. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 11:18 - Jan 11 with 4367 views | smegma |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:26 - Jan 10 by toboboly |
Most PL teams don't have the same though I notice. |
At the start of the season there was a press article about many clubs who were having major problems with their club website,all provided by a 'preferred partner' of the FA/PL. |  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 12:56 - Jan 11 with 4264 views | robith |
We talk about twitter but the way the club uses facebook infuriates me, as a user but also as someone who works in marketing and communications.
They use facebook like twitter and they're two very different channels. Nothing like logging into facebook at lunch and my entire feed being swamped by minute by minute status updates of an under 7s match. I've had to unlike. Sent a note to the club but heard nothing |  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 13:49 - Jan 11 with 4172 views | baz_qpr |
| FAO Cliveo on 14:26 - Jan 10 by toboboly |
Most PL teams don't have the same though I notice. |
It was a football league contract was it not? and a class A lesson of not what to do in digital development |  | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 13:58 - Jan 11 with 4150 views | toboboly |
| FAO Cliveo on 13:49 - Jan 11 by baz_qpr |
It was a football league contract was it not? and a class A lesson of not what to do in digital development |
Dont know but ive looked through a lot of the PL teams and most dont have the same. Wigan have the same so I dont think it was just for FL or ex-FL teams. Just seems very strange to tie yourself down to something that is awful, it's not as if making a website is that hard anymore either. | |
| Sexy Asian dwarves wanted. |
| |
| FAO Cliveo on 15:48 - Jan 11 with 4106 views | baz_qpr |
| FAO Cliveo on 13:58 - Jan 11 by toboboly |
Dont know but ive looked through a lot of the PL teams and most dont have the same. Wigan have the same so I dont think it was just for FL or ex-FL teams. Just seems very strange to tie yourself down to something that is awful, it's not as if making a website is that hard anymore either. |
its the same company, and I guess it would depend when the deal was done. Any mass system that forces everyone to use the same template is nuts anyway. | | | |
| FAO Cliveo on 23:26 - Jan 11 with 4005 views | GloryHunter |
Any mention of your missing Fan of the Year trophy, Clive? |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
