Dictatorial Villa?

[Chico Hamilton III]

I don't understand why the club suddenly needs a disclaimer to be signed. On top of the drastic reduction in ticket allocations to supporters clubs, this seems to be straining relationships with supporters who do a lot of the club's work for them.

I can only speak for the Kingston Lions but Kingthing runs it and it's an absloutely thankless task. Imagine organising tickets, chasing members for payment on time and all the other logistics involved in running a supporters club and I think the few benefits they get are totally deserved. I'd certainly be attending less Villa games if it wasn't for people like him and you wouldn't catch me volunteering to take on a commitment like that.

He's a pain in the arse, Kingthing, but he's a grafter....

 

[Witton Warrior]

http://www.avfclionsclubs.co.uk/member-benefits

Not bad.

He who pays the piper calls the tune and all that?

[kiddylion]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this or if it's already being covered elsewhere,please move if it is.
What are people's thoughts on the row that now seems to be going on between the club & several of the "official lions clubs" over there code of conduct?
This has now made national & local newspapers & all over social media,just another black cloud that's dragging the club down it seems.

[Legion]

Here

[kiddylion]

Thanks

[Legion]

Update

[bertlambshank]

So some of the clubs haven't signed up?
What a mess.

[ChicagoLion]

In reply to the Official Statement.

Well if the club was not being run in such a shambolic way you would not need to worry about the conduct of supporters.

[Witton Warrior]

This reads as if there has been some targeted bullying designed to cause distress then?
If not it is a strangely specific thing to include.

[paul_e]

I really don't get the problem with this. The lions club is an associate organisation and can therefore be seen, in part, to be representative of the club. Given that there need to be guidelines from the club in how they want to be represented, which will include things which, as has been mentioned, basically add up to "don't be a prick". Some people seem to have jumped to a conclusion on what abusive behaviour means and made it a huge deal that's now been picked up in the press. A simple "can you clarify what you mean by abusive?" would have been enough to resolve things, it's clearly not intended to be a gagging order of any kind, the reaction to the suggestion that it might be that proves why it would be a fucking stupid thing to do.

I've said it before but villa fans are our own worst enemies at times, I fucking hate reading shit in the press about how awful a club we are but for some reason some fans will believe any old shit that paints us in a negative light and now are even willing to create the bad news themselves.

Read the conditions and then compare them to similar conditions at any other club and I'd be willing to bet you'll find "don't be a prick" is the common theme across all of them.  Fuck it, look at the affiliate program for pretty much any business and it will be similar.

[pauliewalnuts]

I think the problem is that it represents a different view of the Villa - Lions Club relationship, in that the LC probably don't see the club as being in a position to tell them what they can and can't do, even if that thing is something pretty obvious (although I would query whether the definition of "abuse", even if it were made clear now, would remain that way).

The Lions Club people do a lot of work for the club. They get a few perks back but, really, from what I've read, nothing like sufficient for the amount of work they do to get people to go to matches.

If you look at the terms, they also cover what people running Lions Clubs are allowed to say on their own, personal social media or web presences - that's a very, very contentious area to get in to.

This, basically:

In point seven of the code, chairmen are effectively barred from criticising club officials, even on their own personal social media pages.

It reads: “You will not partake in any abusive conversations towards anyone associated with the Club in any public forum, whether this is on a page that is personal to you and bears your name, OR on a page that bears the name of your Lions Club (including social media, Facebook, Twitter, etc).”

Also, "will not partake in any abusive conversations" - so, if you take part in a discussion on here about Paul Lambert, and some people are dishing out abuse, whereas you are being highly criticial but non-abusive, you're still taking part in that conversation which contains something they define as "abuse", so you are in contradiction of the terms.

I thought the club got unfair stick for the Ian Taylor thing, but the crucial differentiating factor is that he is an employee of the club, these people running Lions Clubs are not.

I honestly don't see why the club suddenly thought there was a reason to introduce this - you do have to wonder if it is a coincidence that there has been (unsurprisingly) a lot more criticism of the club in recent seasons.

Your point about affiliates for any other business is fair enough, but in those cases - at least in the highly affiliate marketing based area i work in - the affiliate has a relationship with the main company in order to create profit.

That is not the case with the Lions Clubs.

What this needed was common sense, not legalese, and that's the option they've gone to. Yet again, a totally avoidable cock up.

[saunders_heroes]

The instances of this mattering would be very rare, personal abuse of Lamberts family for example, or racially abusing one of our players springs to mind.

Yes, I'd agree with that, but the question is, where is the line being drawn generally?

And something like racial abuse is illegal in any case, so that would go without saying.

The cynic in me suggests that the club could easily the class criticism of the manager and chairman as "abuse" and Im guessing that's what the lions club members thought as well.

[pauliewalnuts]

The instances of this mattering would be very rare, personal abuse of Lamberts family for example, or racially abusing one of our players springs to mind.

Yes, I'd agree with that, but the question is, where is the line being drawn generally?

And something like racial abuse is illegal in any case, so that would go without saying.

The cynic in me suggests that the club could easily the class criticism of the manager and chairman as "abuse" and Im guessing that's what the lions club members thought as well.

I don't even think you have to be particularly naturally cynical to suspect that something like that might happen.

I dunno, I am not involved with a Lions Club, but if i ran one, and put in as much work as some of these people do - unpaid - for the club, then there is no way I would accept a condition that told me what I could and could not write on a personal internet presence.

I don't care if it is "only" what they term "abuse" - I'd rather I got to decide what was and was not "abuse" in my internet activity than Alan Perrins or Brian Doogan.

[cheltenhamlion]

Normally I would be level headed and read between the "worst case scenario" stuff that some of our posters immediately jump to.

But Gloucestershire are no longer Lions Club members and it takes an awful lot to get John Holder in a strop with the club.

He has been doing that job for 40 years and long before Lions clubs, with the minimal perks they receive, were invented.

No, if he is taking a stand, then I will throw my lot in with him.

[TheMalandro]

Mr Lerner certainly doesn't like criticism does he?

Like him or not, Howard Hodgson had the same when he voiced his opinion.