Beauty Pageants

Home » Football, Headline

FC United will not pay for Sky TV

Submitted by on November 11, 2012 – 3:00 pm9 Comments

And we didn't...

At the club’s annual general meeting, FC United members voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution banning the club from paying for Sky TV or or other subscription / pay-per-view based television channels.

The result was a clear message that supporters are proud to remain true to many of the principles they were driven by when setting up the club in 2005.

In what could be the only vote of its kind in football, 77 per cent voted in favour, with less than a quarter voting against.

A heated debate at the AGM saw points put across both for and against the resolution in a display of democracy the club prides itself on.

This unique situation provides very strong evidence for the claims the club regularly makes about ‘doing things differently’. Long may it continue.


  • scott says:

    Well done Talkative and all concerned.

  • mike box says:

    This overwhelming 77% vote is certainly true when counting votes cast. But to have a better perspective on how democratic this decision was, one would need to know the size of the FC membership, the turnout and the number of abstentions. Which unfortunately I don’t.

  • TH says:

    EVERY adult member had a chance to vote on this resolution. That is how democratic it is. You don’t get much more democratic than that.

  • mike box says:

    It’s neither doing things differently nor something to be proud of if, as estimated elsewhere, 93% of the membership didn’t vote for the resolution. If this is how democracy is supposed to work then maybe we need to work on democracy.

    The only clear thing to take from this is how un-engaged the FC membership is in AGM’s. And the way the piece is reported above is no more than grandstanding.

  • TH says:

    Any member who wishes to vote can vote. Beyond physically getting hold of them and putting a pen in their hand and forcing them to vote one way or the other, what would you like the club to do?

    Have you thought about volunteering and working on helping to get the membership more engaged if that is your concern?

    The article above is a straight news story with a celebratory edge because some of us are proud of this club and the fact it gives members the chance to vote on important issues.

    Being accused of ‘grandstanding’ about the virtues of a democratic fan-owned football club and its principled members, is hardly an insult. But thanks for trying anyway.

  • mike box says:

    Had no idea the turn out was so low at AGM. Think the club needs to re-look at digital engagement. The idea was floated before but rejected as around 10% of membership expressed an interest in postal comms. John Manning set up a digital voting system linked to everyone’s membership number – which for reasons unknown remains unused. Think it’s better to engage with a minimum 90% of membership digitally that less than 10% at meetings. And of the 10% requesting postal comms – this was their preference. Obviously some of these will be connected.

    Is there a point where democracy stops functioning? 5% turn out? Lower? Higher? Never?

    Digital engagement and experimenting with online referendums could form part of a resolution to propose for next meet.

    Have I thought about volunteering for membership? For about a millisecond. Time constraints proved to be a bridge too far. Luckily one of our match day commentators Roy Williamson volunteered in this dept and maybe it’s Alison Watt who also has an interest here. Looks like they could do with some help though.

    I’m finding it hard to see what there is to be proud of with less than a 10% turn out. As this article rightly says – 77% of those voting were in favour of the resolution. But the fact remains that this represents only 7% of the membership. Grandstanding wasn’t meant as an insult. I’m no keyboard warrior. It’s an observation about the tone of this article. A “clear message”, “overwhelming vote”, “This unique situation provides very strong evidence” – what – from 93% of the FC membership not voting in favour of the resolution? 10/10 for maximum spin. It’ll be interesting to see if the same vocabulary will be used later today from the Police Commissioner elections that no one gives a stuff about.

    No complaints about the result of the vote at all. Couldn’t give a toss about PPV. I don’t own or watch TV. Am more concerned about the consequences of the vote (ie no one in proposed clubhouse when Big United are playing = less revenues on the proposed bar). And also concerned about the appallingly low engagement of fan base.


  • TH says:

    In the time it took you to write that Mike, you could have done something constructive for your football club instead of sniping about it.

    You have the opportunity to help and do something about the issue which obviously upsets you, such is the nature of FC United and fan involvement.

    If you don’t take that opportunity, then your concerns and complaints ring rather hollow.

  • Twomowers says:

    Regardless of how many voted, this is a fantastic, no, an absolutely fucking fantastic result for the principled members of the club. Those that can be arsed to vote are those that deserve to direct the club. When one becomes a member of the club surely they know that if they don’t use their vote then they have to be satisfied with the wishes of those that do.
    I’d rather every member vote but if only 10 turn out to vote i’ll accept the wishes of the majority of the 10.
    Fucking yes. Fucking brill. Fucking grand.

  • [...] proved that principles have a place in football. They remained true to the founding principles by recently voting against having Sky TV in their clubhouse. While this is a small act it does show that a stand can [...]

Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.