Dec 162016
 

Stephen McCormick recently quit his role as AFC display organiser describing the club as “impossible to deal with.”

By Red Fin Hall.

Recently I wrote about the situation regarding the lack of respect and communication between Aberdeen Football Club, The Supporter’s Liaison Officer within the club, and fans/supporters trying to create a better atmosphere at games via displays etc.

It appears that in some cases they, or more factually correct, people within the club, have, at some point, been actively trying to discourage said displays.

To this end a group of supporters have written an open letter to the board of the club emphasising the need for better communication and co-operation with the supporters. The fans keep getting told, “You are the 13th man.”

Feelings within the supporters at large, is that there is not much confidence that this is true. Even with the prospect of a new stadium coming, Mr Milne only said that there: ‘may be a standing area built within Kingsford’ – not that there would definitely be one. Also there was still no mention of the possibility of there being a bar within, and not just one for the corporate guests, but a public one.

There seems, at this moment in time, a lesser dialogue between the club and the fans than perhaps is perceived.

Below is the open letter.

Dear Duncan George & Stewart

We are writing this to you regarding matters this season and seasons past involving, failure on part of AFC to adequately engage with Aberdeen supporters, treatment of Aberdeen Supporters and in more detail treatment of those in the Merkland Singing Section.

Issues such as, but are not limited to the following areas:

–    A reply to questions put to AFC as to why AFC were contacting other clubs in Scotland attempting to discourage match day supporter displays.

–   Why the club lied at recent AGM telling the floor they had been in contact with those responsible for the stunning League Cup Final display at Hampden and thanking them when this simply isn’t the case .

–    Appointinment of Community Trust chief executive as SLO just to appease UEFA competition guidelines.

–    Appointment of a Supporters Liaison Officer (SLO) into the Club without consultation with Supporters groups / Supporters Trust or wider fan base etc

–    Failure of said SLO to engage with supporters groups on a day-to-day basis in order to facilitate a more enjoyable and effective match day experience

–    Failure of said SLO to engage with supporters groups for major games and to facilitate smooth access to Pittodrie and other stadia to be visited

–    Failure of SLO to engage positively with Supporters groups and other clubs in order to facilitate a coordinated and organized approach to maximizing noise generation and fan displays at away games

–    Actively and physically segregating, pressurizing and marginalizing of fans in the Merkland Singing section from other fans through use of hostile stewarding, “dead zone” seating strips and general poor attitude shown towards supporters wishing to support their team in a positive manner.

–    Misleading information regarding occupancy of Merkland block seating in order to undermine the success of the initiative and prevention of other fans joining the section throughout the game.

–    Failure to plan effectively for League Cup Final to ensure effective noise generation in order to back the team effectively by refusing to allocate area for vocal fans .

–    Failure of AFC across internal departments (General management, Stadium Access, Ticketing, security etc in order to facilitate an organized and structured and most importantly a respectful approach to AFC supporting individuals working on an unpaid  volunteer basis in order to encourage the team positively and to enhance the matchday experience for many people.

The recent League Cup Final showed that AFC has little regard to its fans wider match day experience and even less for creating a spectacle and that the Cup final atmosphere would “look after itself” as one AFC official was quoted as saying.

Anyone who witnessed the Cup final was that those that made the effort and expense of travelling to Glasgow to set up the pre match display done a fantastic effort given that there was no input nor even the respect of reply from AFC from requests from fans made to make the day a spectacle and an positive atmosphere for the duration of the match.

The lack of Aberdeen supporter positive atmosphere generation, particularly after going a goal down (and then more) was very evident.Had there been an area for vocal fans this could have helped create a louder backing for the team.

No doubt AFC will be using footage and photography from the matches with flags, card displays etc for future marketing material, all the while actively discouraging it and disregarding the fact that positive fan interaction does make a difference to the team on the park is wholly unacceptable.

We request the following:

–    AFC immediately engage with their staff & AFC fans representatives in order to stop these negative aspects reoccurring
–    Appoint a fan elected SLO – one that has a wide understanding or proven background in match day supporter participation, supporter liaison, match day display management.
–    Empower the SLO to form a positive working relationship with the Aberdeen support and other clubs respective SLO’s to ensure that the team, the supporters (the customers) are all given the correct priority support to ensure forward progress is made on all levels.
–    Ensure that the SLO is meeting the reasonable expectations of the Club, AFC support and wider regulatory bodies such as the Police and other Football Clubs etc.
–    The SLO is active in meeting with AFC fans to gather detailed information on future stadia requirements from the “in game” perspective.

We have a supporter in mind, someone who has engaged with the support and more importantly is respected by the support .The same fan has put on many a spectacle at Aberdeen FC games at home and away for the best part of 20 years .He has organised some of the best displays in the UK, helped add colour to AFC centenary events.Always paid tribute to fans who have sadly passed. He is great with the kids and young fans and always gets them involved .

The fans trust him and he’s known throughout the support as he’s always present .

We have a petition that hundreds of fans have signed asking that the club appoint Stephen McCormick as our Supporters Liaison Officer. With the amount of work he has done over the years, dealing with clubs up and down the country, having to deal with the SFA and SPFL he has already proven he has a vast knowledge of modern day football and its supporters.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Signed

Dons fans voice collective.

Also, in my last article regarding this, I mentioned that Stephen contributed out of his own pocket. It has since been pointed out to me that the displays have been fully funded by fan contribution. He is the organiser, and has only contributed as a fan. He wished this to be clear.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Aug 162012
 

The growing coalition of groups opposed to the development of Union Terrace Gardens and the associated borrowing continues to grow; Kenneth Watt tells Aberdeen Voice about the young people of Aberdeen, who ultimatley will have to live with – and potentially pay for – the Granite Web, should it proceed.

A group of young people who are under 25 and live, work or are educated in Aberdeen handed an open letter on Wednesday 15 August 2012 to ACC leader Barney Crockett in an attempt to convince councillors to vote against the proposed £140,000,000 ‘Granite Web’ development on the grounds of an unsound financial case.

The group who formed over social media towards the end of last week are concerned about the £92m loan and use past cuts to education, social care and youth services as examples of why they believe Aberdeen City Council cannot afford this “financial gamble.”

Leading the group is Kenneth Watt, a youth councillor in the city. Kenneth says:

“We are making it clear to our elected members that there are significant numbers of young people who do not want to see our generation exposed to yet more cuts to services which we all rely on.”

“Last week’s reports of businesses in favour of the development turned out to be fictional and we are trying to show the people of Aberdeen that real young people will not sit back and watch the council gamble away our futures.”

“The £20m Art Gallery Grant in the business case, for instance, does not appear to exist. This would involve the council spending over £20m plugging the gap. That’s enough to rebuild a school, yet money is being invested in a project that is not needed.”

“We are urging councillors to say no to the City Garden Project and be realistic about finances. Our generation should not have to suffer more.”

“The simple message is this: the City Garden Project is too big a risk. Councillors need to put young people first.”

Read the content sof the letter here.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
May 142012
 

In the wake of the local council elections in which the issue of developing Union Terrace Gardens appeared to play a major role, Craig Adams was compelled to write to the newly elected council ahead of a meeting which may well determine the progress of the City Garden Project. Craig shares his letter with Aberdeen Voice readers.

Dear Councillors,

I am writing to you with regard to the upcoming vote on The City Garden Project. The issues surrounding this project have been extensively debated, and to revisit them would be a waste of an email.
I’m guessing that many of you will long ago have formed your own personal opinion on the project, whilst others will, like your constituents, remain in two minds.

Instead, this email will concentrate on issues surrounding the recent public referendum.

I am not a supporter of any particular political party. At local elections I vote solely on the credibility and apparent integrity on the individual candidates. In national elections I usually spoil my ballot paper (and make no excuses for doing so). There is no political agenda here.

Many experts are sceptical of referendums, a view that some of you no doubt share. The purpose of representative democracy is largely to ensure that the people taking the decisions have thoroughly researched the details. Few people voting in a referendum are unlikely to be as well – informed.

It’s somewhat counter-intuitive that the larger the response to a referendum, the less informed the decision is likely to be. While referendums are a necessary part of democracy they are only appropriate under certain circumstances, and must be applied with great discretion.

Referendums work best when the facts are few and the choice is simple. A divided result is not a good outcome. There also needs to be a clearly defined winning line, its position determined by the context of what is being proposed.

There were several other issues surrounding the referendum on The City Garden Project, beyond whether or not it was appropriate or conclusive. The first was the wording of the question. I recall as a teenager going shopping with my mother for a new school uniform. The trousers that she picked were unfashionable. She told me “well it’s either those or you go to school in your underpants”.

The referendum question was loaded in a similar way, in that it ignored any option for Union Terrace Gardens other than Sir Ian Wood’s desired outcome. The implication being – this or nothing. The propaganda that followed reinforced the message that Union Terrace Gardens would be left to rot unless the CGP was built. In my experience the electorate were not split into two camps as has been suggested, rather there were those who wanted:

(a) the CGP

(b) some sort of improvement

(c) any sort of improvement except the CGP

(d) UTG restored and improved or

(e) no money spent at all

You’ve doubtless encountered that same spectrum of views amongst your constituents.

The question was not a good fit for public sentiment. On the subject of Scottish independence it is claimed that minor syntactical changes could be worth a swing of 15%. While it’s debatable whether that figure is accurate, there’s no doubt that choice of wording does exert significant influence. In this case it’s not inconceivable that it exerted enough influence to alter the outcome.

The second issue concerns the fairness of the PR spend. The original consultation process was entirely about The City Garden Project. The design contest was also wholly about the CGP. Both of those exercises were orchestrated by a PR company. There’s also the whole controversy surrounding the ‘unregistered CGP campaign group'(?) who leafleted every home in the city.

Taking everything into account it’s clear that there was a substantial disparity in PR spend, and that is simply not fair. The problem with this is that it gives the wealthy and powerful the impression that PR companies can engineer referendums to produce specific outcomes, and that it boils down to a matter of risk vs. reward. Allowing that to pass without comment introduces a dangerous precedent.

Finally there is the issue around the integrity of the result. The Returning Officer has not permitted anyone to examine the marked register. While that position may comply with the specific lettering of ‘a law’, it certainly does not adhere to the spirit of The Law. This is extremely pertinent as the result was close and there is considerable contention surrounding various aspects of the voting.

For those reasons I’d like to make two basic points surrounding the referendum on The City Garden Project:

1) A referendum was not appropriate in this instance.

2) A poorly fitting, badly worded question and one-sided PR spend, resulted in an outcome that was far from conclusive.

Based on the above, and also taking into account questions over the integrity of the vote, it is clear that the course of this referendum was perverted. In my opinion, the closeness of the result, combined with disagreement over what constitutes conclusive, and the questions surrounding it’s integrity, effectively render the outcome of the referendum invalid…

…however from the result it can be inferred that the public are in favour of improving the gardens – just as they are generally in favour of regenerating the rest of the city centre, but we didn’t really need a referendum to discern that truth.

What I’m asking you to do, is to set aside the outcome of this disastrous referendum when you vote on the future of Union Terrace Gardens, and instead vote for whatever you believe is both right for this city, and truly representative of what people want. That’s why we elected you.

Walk in the Light
Craig Adams

Dec 212011
 

By Bob Smith.


Christmas Eve in the 1940s
A myn o’t as tho’ twis last nicht
The livin room fire wis aye bleezin
An aathing wis bonnie an bricht

Paper chines hung fae the ceilin
An slap bang in the cinter a bell
Ti a wee loon in short troosers
Aathing  jist lookit richt swell

A Christmas tree wi didna hae
Oor roomies they war ower sma
Bit wi plunty o ither decorations
Aa nivver gied iss a thocht ava

A’d scriven ma letter ti Suntie
An sint it awa up the lum
An if he micht lave fit a wintit
Losh he wid fair be ma chum

On Christmas Eve on the wireless
Carol singin ma mither thocht braw
Good King Wenceslas he look’t oot
Aa he saw roon aboot wis sna

Ma lang sock a wid lave hingin up
It wis peened ti the muntelpiece
An ower aside the fireplace grate
Fer Suntie a’d lave a fine piece

Awa ti yer bed ma mither wid say
Suntie disna cum tull yer sleepin
Nae argument noo fae you a’ll hear
Or maybe yer present he’ll be keepin

 

Fae ma bedroom winda a peered oot
Ti see Suntie’s reindeer in the sky
Bit nae maitter foo lang a lookit
They nivver wid cum wanner’n by

On Christmas morn a hash’t ben
Ti see if ma letter hid bin heeded
A aye wis maist affa feart ye see
Maybe Suntie he cwidna read it

Afore ma verra een there wis
A widden boat ye pulled on wheels
Made a fun oot in later eers
By een o oor local chiels

Stappit in the lang sock ye’d fin
An orange an a fyow chocs
A  drawin book fer ti colour in
Wi crayons in a braw box

Christmas it wis a time fer bairns
Growen ups they preferred Hogmanay
Bit wi the kids o yesteryear they bade
Aroon the fire on a caul Christmas Day

Noo fowk  awa back in the forties
Didna hae  the siller ti splash oot
Bit bairns they war mair contintit
Than eens nooadays a’ve nae doot

.
.
.
© Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2011

Jul 152011
 

Old Susannah looks back at the week that was and wonders who’s up to what and why.  By Suzanne Kelly.

 

 Tally Ho! First some good news this week: In a speech to graduating students, our very own Sir Ian Wood has said ‘his generation’ is responsible for many problems that the next generation will inherit. I suppose everyone who is in the great collective of people of his age have had equal power to improve the world as this particular billionaire oil magnate has.
Never before have so few done so much to get rid of a Victorian  Garden.  Fifty Million pounds – of his  own money –pledged to building a parking lot with a bit of grass over it,  conveniently adjacent to his friend Stew’s plot of land.

Could there be any better use for that kind  of money?

I wonder how much of the  remainder of his fortune will be used for the current African drought/famine crisis, to counteract poverty in the UK, to improve care for the elderly, to  buy jewellery for attractive statuesque blondes. I hope everyone in Ian’s  generation is sitting up and taking notice.  It’s your fault – one of the richest men in your age bracket says so.

However, it is with a heavy heart and tears in my eyes that I must report that the News of the World has closed and the Murdoch takeover of  BskyB is off.  I have been crying over my pints of Brewdog for the last few days, so much so that people have mistakenly think I am laughing so hard I’m crying.

This must be quite a blow for Rup; at least he has his loving young wife Wendy and friend Tony Blair to comfort him (Tony and Rupert spoke quite a bit just before the UK joined in the Iraq takeover – sorry Iraq War).  That nice Rebekah Brooks was photographed while being drive away from NotW HQ in a rain-spattered car; it reminded me of the photo of Maggie Thatcher tearfully leaving No. 10 – which also made me very sad indeed.  Cheers!

They said he was ‘no oil painting’, but this has now been disproved.

Bad news close to home as well – one of our Labour Councillors is having a hard time over a dodgy old boiler (no, not you Kate). Councillor Hunter allegedly doesn’t have the correct credentials to fix gas boilers, which is rather unfortunate for someone who works fixing gas boilers.

The P&J had a splendid photo of Richard Baker, Labour MSP for the story it printed about Hunter. The picture of Baker’s caption had a scoop-of-the-year quote: “I know the man” Baker said.  I take back everything I’d ever said about the Press & Journal now that they’ve uncovered local Labour politicians are known to each other.  We should tell the authorities.

But at this rate I’ll not get on with any definitions, so here we go:

Public Spending:

(modern English phrase) Governmental use of funds to procure benefits, goods or services which may be of temporary or lasting significance, generally for the benefit of the public at large.  See also Common Good fund, applicable in parts of Scotland.

There is more trouble in Paradise this week, I am sorry to say.  Sadly, some people are being rather negative about our very own Lord Provost having his portrait commissioned.  They said he was ‘no oil painting’, but this has now been disproved.  This fantastic event will be justly commemorated with a joyous celebration, courtesy of The Common Good Fund.

What could be more reasonable?  The portrait cost £9,000 (I guess we could not find any RGU graduates in need of a commission), and hopefully the Chain of Office in the painting will have been gold-leafed on by Italian craftsmen flown over for the purpose.   I so look forward to attending this party!

I shall buy a new hat.  I’m thinking of getting my own portrait done, and may well pop out to one of those photo canvas printing places in Union Square Mall or similar for the £39.95 photo on canvas.

After all, it’s Common Good money paying for the  whole event – so I am taking this opportunity to tell everyone who pays taxes in Aberdeen to show up at the party.  If the Council has any objection to us all enjoying the party we’re paying for, I invite them to get in touch with me.

From my point of view the portrait and party represent all the best of public spending:  not only do we get a great party for our important citizens, but all of us will have a lasting reminder of the Lord Provost and all he has done for us.  In a previous column I complained that our City Councillors no longer had the taxpayer paying for their beautiful photo Christmas cards – this expenditure more than makes up for my disappointment.  I may suggest we do a statue as well; they are all the rage at present.

You would have thought with everything the LP (as his friend calls him) has done for Stewy and Ian, they would have clubbed together to pay for the bling portrait

Early rumours that a protest march will coincide with this monumental event are very disappointing.

I would hate to see marchers carrying pictures of our Lord Provost down Union Street on the day and/or holding a parallel party at some suitable venue.  If I’ve been spotted buying paint, brushes and sign-making material, it is purely coincidental.

The cost of outfitting our Lord Provost and his wife for a year … £10,000

The cost of a portrait of our Lord Provost … £9,000

The cost of a party to celebrate the portrait … £4,000

The cost of a blonde woman to guard said Provost and his bling necklace …  unknown

The cost of the Lord Provost casting the crucial tie-breaking vote that opened the floodgates on developing Union Terrace Gardens: PRICELESS

You would have thought with everything the LP (as his friend calls him) has done for Stewy and Ian, they would have clubbed together to pay for the bling portrait.  After all, one good turn deserves another, and what are friends for?

Whistleblower:

(modern English noun) a person who is aware of public or private sector corruption, malpractice or unlawful act(s) who comes forward to expose it.

Private Eye’s current issue has an excellent work concerning NHS whistleblowers and how badly they have been treated – and how vital their whistleblowing has been.  If you get the chance, please do pick it up.

Here in Aberdeen obviously there is nothing going on in government which needs any exposure.  All invoices are always above board, every councillor declares their interest in advance of any relevant vote, land deals are always done to get best market value, and everything’s just rosy.

As I touched on last week, the City has written to its employees to warn them not to use ‘social networking websites’ to make any comment about their managers or the Council.  Many of you have sent me copies of your letters – after all the letters are not marked ‘confidential’ – so why not? You have been wondering what is or is not appropriate to post on websites or ‘disclosing in any medium’.  Here’s the Council’s sage advice from those letters (asterisks are mine):-

“to clarify what is regarded as unacceptable*, so there is no doubt about what is being referred to, would include:

“Publishing defamatory or generally unacceptable* comments, views or information about the Council, its employees, clients or customers (including school pupils) in any medium including social networking sites;

“Publishing any photographs of clients or customers in any medium including social networking sites without first obtaining formal permission;

“Breaching confidentiality by disclosing  information relating to the Council in any medium, including social networking sites, to persons not authorised to possess it”.

*Old Susannah is no lawyer, but if you’re going to set out to define what’s ‘unacceptable’ and you use the word ‘unacceptable’ in your first point, you’re not doing a great job. In fact, I’d say it’s ‘unacceptable.’

Again, I’m no lawyer, but it might have been a good idea to mention in these great letters that there is legislation protecting whistleblowers.  It doesn’t often protect these people as well as it should, as the Private Eye Whistleblower article points out.

However, if you know of something going on that is wrong, then you should forget all about it because you fear the City’s ‘discipline’ procedure which is mentioned later in the letters. I did not read all of the City’s whistleblower policy – but here is a taster of that policy:-

“…The policy allows individuals to voice their concerns in relation to information they believe shows serious malpractice or wrongdoing within Aberdeen City Council.   It allows for this information to be disclosed internally* without fear of reprisal and independently of their line management if appropriate.  The Public Interest Disclosure Act (1999) gives legal protection to individuals against being dismissed or penalised by their employers as a result of publicly* disclosing certain serious concerns.”

*Once again Old Susannah is not a lawyer, but on the one hand the City says you can disclose information internally – the act says you can publicly disclose serious concerns.  Back to that Council  letter :-

“…if you make comment on your employment/employer via social networking sites or by other electronic means and this is brought to the attention of management you will be held to account for those comments.  Such behaviour will be viewed as contrary to the Council’s Employee Code of Conduct, which is being updated to reflect this issue and will be dealt with under the Managing Discipline procedure.”

I hope everyone who got a letter is suitably frightened.

So to clarify:  in the larger world of the UK, it is acknowledged that there are times when public disclosure is allowable.  Here in Aberdeen you have the right to complain internally, and if you go public with something, you will be…disciplined.  I’m very glad to have cleared that up. It is just as well nothing ever goes wrong or is untoward in our city.

But if you are one of the lucky letter-holders, you might want to brush up on the Public Disclosure Act – just in case you ever find something in our City is not quite as it should be.  (Call me; we’ll talk).  Obviously no one would ever make an anonymous Facebook page or blog (whatever that is) and air their grievances anonymously.

Finally, just as proof there are plenty of good news stories out there, not only does the Aberdeen Voice bring them to you, but one of the Voice’s contributors has a rather nice blog.

I guess this blog thing is a ‘social network’ thingy that has the City so very worried.  This ‘rxpell’ chap and I often seem to be along similar lines – he’s written things in the past just before I planned to, and has made a nice job of it.  (Unfortunately he does tend to veer towards sarcasm and cynicism sometimes – which of course I cannot really approve of).  The clues to the blog’s content are in the link below:
http://rxpell.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/blundergate-boilergate-briefgate-buffetgate/

Now off to buy that new outfit and hat for the portrait demonstration – sorry, I mean portrait unveiling.

Next week:  probably: still no progress on FOI requests on land deals or deer.  Hopefully: Aberdeen Voice art competition announcement.  Definitely:  more definitions

Jul 082011
 

Is control over the future of the City Centre and its Victorian Union Terrace Gardens falling into the hands of unaccountable, unelected agents?  Mike Shepherd believes it is, and sends his thoughts to our Councillors.

Councillors,

Council documents make it clear that you were expected to sign off the design brief for the City Garden Project at the full council meeting on June 29th.  The design brief is intended not only to give specifications for the civic square covering the Denburn, but also to provide details for the usage of the large underground space beneath the square.

There is a problem however; the full specifications for the design brief did not appear to be ready in time for the 29th of June.

Although a design brief has been issued, you have only been informed of the usage of only 6,000 square metres of the 56,000 square metres of accommodation space under the civic square (for an arts centre).

There is also intent to provide conference, exhibition and meeting space of unspecified size. The open space is described as a contemporary 21stcentury garden.

Given that these plans are designated for council-owned land, that the area is zoned as public green space in the local plan and the council have been asked to borrow £70million through a TIF scheme to fund it, then it would be reasonable to expect councillors to approve the specifications for the site.

You have now lost control over the City Garden Project. A non-elected body has now made decisions as to what our city centre should look like.

It now turns out that this will not be the case. You are not being asked to approve the design brief.  I have been informed by a council officer that:

“it was decided, by members involved in determining the agenda for Council meetings, that there was no need to obtain Council approval for this.”

The intention is to hand out the design brief to short-listed companies for the architectural competition on the 21st of July. The next full council meeting is not until the 17th August.

You have now lost control over the City Garden Project. A non-elected body has now made decisions as to what our city centre should look like. They have decreed that the Denburn should have a “contemporary 21st century garden”, not you. It is this body that is also deciding what the large underground concourse should be used for. If conference and exhibition facilities are to be  provided, then this will clearly have implications for the future of the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre at the Bridge of Don.  However, this is not a decision that you will have any control over unless you turn down the city square plans.

The public should be extremely worried about the loss of democratic control over the City’s assets. The public were ignored when they voted against the City Square in a public consultation last year, now the powers given to our councillors are being bypassed too.

I would ask you to assert your right to decide on our behalf what happens in our city. I would request that you insist that the approval or otherwise of the City Square design brief should be a matter for the council meeting on the 17thof August.

Mike Shepherd.