The Day Fan Ownership Died!

[St. Sid]

It's a bollox estimate. If fans had put that much money into saints or other Scottish clubs there would be no crisis of Scottish football... Only Sid could have consumed as many pies as his figures indicated.

It is not actually.....that is based on just 1,500 hardcore supporters......we've had much than that on average for each home game....many of them will be paying a premium price over and above the season ticket.....it also discounts far flung fuds like yourself who tend to buy quite a lot of merchandise too, but don't factor into the 1,500 hardcore of supporters used to calculate the very cautious sum.

£12 million and you get a vote once every three years....is that an adequate recognition of the fans as the major investors at the club. At the moment we are not getting fan ownership...we are getting fans paying for a vote with absolutely f"k aw say in the running of the club beyond that. And still no one appears to be able to confirm anything different from that.

[Robo]

It is not actually.....that is based on just 1,500 hardcore supporters......we've had much than that on average for each home game....many of them will be paying a premium price over and above the season ticket.....it also discounts far flung fuds like yourself who tend to buy quite a lot of merchandise too, but don't factor into the 1,500 hardcore of supporters used to calculate the very cautious sum.

£12 million and you get a vote once every three years....is that an adequate recognition of the fans as the major investors at the club. At the moment we are not getting fan ownership...we are getting fans paying for a vote with absolutely f"k aw say in the running of the club beyond that. And still no one appears to be able to confirm anything different from that.

Of course, buying merchandise or food from club, or indeed a season ticket, can't be considered an investment. You're just buying stuff, not expecting a return on the money outlayed.

[Guest somner9]

It is not actually.....that is based on just 1,500 hardcore supporters......we've had much than that on average for each home game....many of them will be paying a premium price over and above the season ticket.....it also discounts far flung fuds like yourself who tend to buy quite a lot of merchandise too, but don't factor into the 1,500 hardcore of supporters used to calculate the very cautious sum.

£12 million and you get a vote once every three years....is that an adequate recognition of the fans as the major investors at the club. At the moment we are not getting fan ownership...we are getting fans paying for a vote with absolutely f"k aw say in the running of the club beyond that. And still no one appears to be able to confirm anything different from that.

And they won't confirm it, you've exposed the 'Silver Bullet' or should i say 'Lead Balloon' in 10000 hours interpretation of fan ownership. And if you look back i've been banging on about that since they revealed their intentions

[Stuart Dickson]

It is not actually.....that is based on just 1,500 hardcore supporters......we've had much than that on average for each home game....many of them will be paying a premium price over and above the season ticket.....it also discounts far flung fuds like yourself who tend to buy quite a lot of merchandise too, but don't factor into the 1,500 hardcore of supporters used to calculate the very cautious sum.

£12 million and you get a vote once every three years....is that an adequate recognition of the fans as the major investors at the club. At the moment we are not getting fan ownership...we are getting fans paying for a vote with absolutely f"k aw say in the running of the club beyond that. And still no one appears to be able to confirm anything different from that.

Sid - if you read the draft articles of association it looks like the term of appointment is for one year.

51.3 The functions of the annual general meeting shall include:

51.3.1 receiving:

(a) the statutory accounts for the previous financial year;

( to the extent that they are not included in the statutory accounts, the

profit and loss account and balance sheet for the previous financial year;

© a report from the directors on the company's performance in the previous

financial year in relation to the directors' business plan presented at the

previous annual general meeting; and

(d) the director's business plan for the current financial year;

51.3.2 resolutions to approve the appointment of:

(a) financial auditors;

( auditors of any other aspect of the performance of the company; and

© directors.

I would imagine that there would also be the ability for members to call for an EGM if there was enough support for moves to remove directors from the CIC board.

I'm not sure where the idea that fans would have a referenda on each issue at the football club came from. Perhaps it was from TsuMirren talking about the workings at MyFC but I always understood that we were buying a membership of a CIC and that as such we'd have a vote on the running of the CIC - and not the football club.

Clarity would be good though - especially over the term in office thing cause there appears to be a conflict within the draft articles as to how that would work.

[Robo]

Clarity would be good though - especially over the term in office thing cause there appears to be a conflict within the draft articles as to how that would work.

From the notes accompanying the draft articles:

"25.2 Some comment is required from as many members as possible with regards to the terms of office. We have left in a standard 3 year term. However I am not sure this is correct. On the one hand we don’t want it (especially in the initial period) to be a revolving door while on the other hand we don’t what there only to be one vote for directors on day one and then no changes for three years. There needs to be some sort of initial phasing. Comments welcome "

So sounds like this is not set in stone and that there is an arguement to shorten the term. 18 months reasonable?

[St. Sid]

Of course, buying merchandise or food from club, or indeed a season ticket, can't be considered an investment. You're just buying stuff, not expecting a return on the money outlayed.

Then why are 1877 club and 87 club members being treated as investors when they are effectively buying a 5YR season ticket that gets them an exclusive specially fitted out executive box at the stadium?

We are all investing in the club everytime we chose to spend money on St Mirren rather than spending it elsewhere. However, that is not the point being made.

Is the fan ownership, actually fan ownership or is it just paying for a vote once every three years. I really don't consider that to be empowerment of the fans.

I have put up a challenge to any supporter to answer: how would the upcoming SPL vote on scumgers be managed differently by the CIC? My current understanding is that we would be in the exact same position as we are now. That is not an attack on the CIC - it is a simple enough request to see if anyone actually understands who the CIC / SMFC will actually function. I am concerned that I might be the only f'k'r that has actually looked at the CIC structure and the mechanisms for fan involvement. To date there is no mechanism for fan involvement other than the vote every three years. A vote that will be for people who haven't even cracked a light on what their plans for the club are.

Can anyone drop a hint as to what our club will look like in three years time - what changes would we expect to see through fan empowerment? How do we actually go about effecting that change? It seems that we will mark x in a box and be left at the mercy of those elected. That will pretty much give them a mandate to do whatever they like with the club and we will be able to do hee-haw about it until the next election. Empowered f"k aw.

You don't need to be against the CIC to ask questions about it. It is tie to put in a bit of effort to actually understand the CIC better and to ensure the fans are properly represented not just in a vote, but in being able to influence decisions moving forward. To date nothing has been published on that other than the draft constitution and that is looking shit from a fan perspective.

[Stuart Dickson]

From the notes accompanying the draft articles:

"25.2 Some comment is required from as many members as possible with regards to the terms of office. We have left in a standard 3 year term. However I am not sure this is correct. On the one hand we don’t want it (especially in the initial period) to be a revolving door while on the other hand we don’t what there only to be one vote for directors on day one and then no changes for three years. There needs to be some sort of initial phasing. Comments welcome "

So sounds like this is not set in stone and that there is an arguement to shorten the term. 18 months reasonable?

Yeah I suggested 18 months on the forum on the 10000hours website at the time. For me the three year period is too long but I can understand why Clyde have that in their articles because there is the potential for some potentially damaging "electioneering" if candidates were that way inclined.

Maybe in reality it's a three year term appointment which can be terminated at an AGM by resolution not to approve the directors.

[Robo]

Then why are 1877 club and 87 club members being treated as investors when they are effectively buying a 5YR season ticket that gets them an exclusive specially fitted out executive box at the stadium?

We are all investing in the club everytime we chose to spend money on St Mirren rather than spending it elsewhere. However, that is not the point being made.

Is the fan ownership, actually fan ownership or is it just paying for a vote once every three years. I really don't consider that to be empowerment of the fans.

I have put up a challenge to any supporter to answer: how would the upcoming SPL vote on scumgers be managed differently by the CIC? My current understanding is that we would be in the exact same position as we are now. That is not an attack on the CIC - it is a simple enough request to see if anyone actually understands who the CIC / SMFC will actually function. I am concerned that I might be the only f'k'r that has actually looked at the CIC structure and the mechanisms for fan involvement. To date there is no mechanism for fan involvement other than the vote every three years. A vote that will be for people who haven't even cracked a light on what their plans for the club are.

Can anyone drop a hint as to what our club will look like in three years time - what changes would we expect to see through fan empowerment? How do we actually go about effecting that change? It seems that we will mark x in a box and be left at the mercy of those elected. That will pretty much give them a mandate to do whatever they like with the club and we will be able to do hee-haw about it until the next election. Empowered f"k aw.

You don't need to be against the CIC to ask questions about it. It is tie to put in a bit of effort to actually understand the CIC better and to ensure the fans are properly represented not just in a vote, but in being able to influence decisions moving forward. To date nothing has been published on that other than the draft constitution and that is looking shit from a fan perspective.

Well, the 1877 and 87 club members are shelling out a lot more than a tenner a month, and in the case of the 1877 club they're buying a significant shareholding in SMFC. The important point is that they still only get 1 vote as a member of 10000 hours.

My own expectations of 10000 hours are that the fans will own a majority shareholding in SMFC, preventing a Reg Brealey character ever getting has hands on the club, that we'll get to vote at the 10,000 hours AGMs, and that if you so wish you could stand for election to the CIC board. As others have said already, I didn't ever get the impression that the CIC would be run of the basis of referendums for every issue.

[St. Sid]

From the notes accompanying the draft articles:

"25.2 Some comment is required from as many members as possible with regards to the terms of office. We have left in a standard 3 year term. However I am not sure this is correct. On the one hand we don’t want it (especially in the initial period) to be a revolving door while on the other hand we don’t what there only to be one vote for directors on day one and then no changes for three years. There needs to be some sort of initial phasing. Comments welcome "

So sounds like this is not set in stone and that there is an arguement to shorten the term. 18 months reasonable?

Good man Robo.....all I am asking is for fans to start to look at matters like this. Every other f'k'r has had their say in this apart from the fans. There are other niggles I have with the constitution too.

It would be great if all fans could print off the draft constitution and highlight the areas they are concerned about whether it is that the point is unacceptable, ambiguous or quite simply so jibber jabber that no cnut understands it.

Stu, you mention fans being able to call an EGM. From memory there needs to be a significant majority of fans calling for the EGM. Happy to be corrected on that. However, it is usually the case that the communication mechanisms make that very difficult if not impossible. I think we need something in place that not only allows a practical way for an EGM to be called. As well as that I would like to see a mechanism for fans to call for a special vote - that should not be the decision of 10000 Hours - and it should be binding to the SMFC as well as the CIC Board. Again it should be a practical process rather than some unworkable majority bollox that would require a miracle of communication to pull off.

We need functional empowerment, not lip service articles in a constitution. To date I haven't heard much of anything on the detail of this.

[Stuart Dickson]

Then why are 1877 club and 87 club members being treated as investors when they are effectively buying a 5YR season ticket that gets them an exclusive specially fitted out executive box at the stadium?

We are all investing in the club everytime we chose to spend money on St Mirren rather than spending it elsewhere. However, that is not the point being made.

Is the fan ownership, actually fan ownership or is it just paying for a vote once every three years. I really don't consider that to be empowerment of the fans.

I have put up a challenge to any supporter to answer: how would the upcoming SPL vote on scumgers be managed differently by the CIC? My current understanding is that we would be in the exact same position as we are now. That is not an attack on the CIC - it is a simple enough request to see if anyone actually understands who the CIC / SMFC will actually function. I am concerned that I might be the only f'k'r that has actually looked at the CIC structure and the mechanisms for fan involvement. To date there is no mechanism for fan involvement other than the vote every three years. A vote that will be for people who haven't even cracked a light on what their plans for the club are.

Can anyone drop a hint as to what our club will look like in three years time - what changes would we expect to see through fan empowerment? How do we actually go about effecting that change? It seems that we will mark x in a box and be left at the mercy of those elected. That will pretty much give them a mandate to do whatever they like with the club and we will be able to do hee-haw about it until the next election. Empowered f"k aw.

You don't need to be against the CIC to ask questions about it. It is tie to put in a bit of effort to actually understand the CIC better and to ensure the fans are properly represented not just in a vote, but in being able to influence decisions moving forward. To date nothing has been published on that other than the draft constitution and that is looking shit from a fan perspective.

Sid my reading of it is that it is community ownership. The community is being asked to pay for membership of a club which will in turn by the 52% shareholding which is on offer from the consortium. It's not necessarily fan ownership because membership is open to non fans - like myself.

From the articles it looks like there will be an "Election Campaign" every three years although this could be up for discussion. However there is still an AGM every year where members can oust the directors and put forward their own resolutions. I'd also expect that there would be some sort of mechanism where an EGM could be called by members if there was dissatisfaction over any issue.

As for the SPL vote on Rangers I don't know that there would be much difference. In both cases the St Mirren board would meet discuss their voting intentions and when a delegate is sent to the SPL meeting he'll have been instructed how to vote. However where there is a difference is that right now if the St Mirren support are angered by the way the club votes it can't oust the directors as they hold the majority voting rights at any AGM. Post CIC there would at least be a route for members of the CIC to oust their representatives on the St Mirren board.

You would hope that whoever is on the board would be aware of how the fans wanted him to vote and you'd hope that they'd listen to you but then you could say the same thing about governments and it never works out that way either.

The thing is though, even if you were in a MyFC situation where members were given a referenda to ask their opinion, when it comes to the actual vote it would be down to the individual sent in to represent the club to vote in the required manner.

[St. Sid]

Well, the 1877 and 87 club members are shelling out a lot more than a tenner a month, and in the case of the 1877 club they're buying a significant shareholding in SMFC. The important point is that they still only get 1 vote as a member of 10000 hours.

My own expectations of 10000 hours are that the fans will own a majority shareholding in SMFC, preventing a Reg Brealey character ever getting has hands on the club, that we'll get to vote at the 10,000 hours AGMs, and that if you so wish you could stand for election to the CIC board. As others have said already, I didn't ever get the impression that the CIC would be run of the basis of referendums for every issue.

From the very first document:

"By becoming a member, you as an individual or organisation can get access and exert influence on the future operation and development of St Mirren Football Club."

I believe that your version of the CIC above does not deliver on the above statement. Why wouldn't you want to use our financial power in the CIC to negotiate on our ability to exert further influence beyond a vote every three years? Surely, the idea is for us to be able to influence matters such as the SPL vote. I do not see any significant change in the fans abaility to influence that decision. All the blah, blah was about greater transparency.....what happened to that - are we just getting the same bollox as you get at AGM's from traditional ownership models?

[Stuart Dickson]

Stu, you mention fans being able to call an EGM. From memory there needs to be a significant majority of fans calling for the EGM. Happy to be corrected on that. However, it is usually the case that the communication mechanisms make that very difficult if not impossible. I think we need something in place that not only allows a practical way for an EGM to be called. As well as that I would like to see a mechanism for fans to call for a special vote - that should not be the decision of 10000 Hours - and it should be binding to the SMFC as well as the CIC Board. Again it should be a practical process rather than some unworkable majority bollox that would require a miracle of communication to pull off.

We need functional empowerment, not lip service articles in a constitution. To date I haven't heard much of anything on the detail of this.

No issues with any of that at all Sid. In fact I'd actively support that so long as it wasn't being done on every single issue. I wouldn't like to see a special vote being called for after every defeat so fans can vote on whether to sack Danny Lennon or not - as an example.

I've no idea how an EGM would be called - my only experience of this was at Motherwell AC where it took a petition of just 10 paid up and voting members as specified in their constitution.

[glenburn ed]

Any body who buys shares are buying something that has no actual value, the 52 pc will always win

[St. Sid]

No issues with any of that at all Sid. In fact I'd actively support that so long as it wasn't being done on every single issue. I wouldn't like to see a special vote being called for after every defeat so fans can vote on whether to sack Danny Lennon or not - as an example.

I've no idea how an EGM would be called - my only experience of this was at Motherwell AC where it took a petition of just 10 paid up and voting members as specified in their constitution.

Cheers Stu, I'm not looking to get too specific on any of the points being thrown up; however I agree with your point about special votes getting out of control. In areas Iike that above I would expect to see the community - not 10000 Hours work on exclusions that would manage out scenrios like votes for sacking a manager.

A similar exclusion list could be developed for the clause about expenses and payments for Directors too. Again it should be the community - not 10000 Hours working on that.

The fan involvement appears to be getting excused away as the "successful businessmen" also happen to be fans as well. However, a board made up of "successful businessmen" is hardly representative of the St Mirren Community, which was supposed to be the entire f'k'n point of it all.

Is the end result of this going to be vote for your favourite ex-Board Member in the hope that they'll throw you a few sausage rolls in return?

I liked the old makeup, were there were allocated Director roles. x-number of "successful businessmen" - x number from the "community members" - x number from the general membership. It now looks like the Directors need to be approved based on their skills and 10000 Hours get to do the approving. The Directors also appear to be able to vote an elected director off of the BoD by simple majority within the CIC Board without referal back to the general members.

The constitution has been written with all the advantage sitting with 10000 Hours BoD rather than the "community". The three year period of Directorship without election is a prime example of this. The community focus does not seem to be there any more. It appears to be about control and protecting the BoD rather than handing any genuine influence to the community.

[Guest somner9]

Cheers Stu, I'm not looking to get too specific on any of the points being thrown up; however I agree with your point about special votes getting out of control. In areas Iike that above I would expect to see the community - not 10000 Hours work on exclusions that would manage out scenrios like votes for sacking a manager.

A similar exclusion list could be developed for the clause about expenses and payments for Directors too. Again it should be the community - not 10000 Hours working on that.

The fan involvement appears to be getting excused away as the "successful businessmen" also happen to be fans as well. However, a board made up of "successful businessmen" is hardly representative of the St Mirren Community, which was supposed to be the entire f'k'n point of it all.

Is the end result of this going to be vote for your favourite ex-Board Member in the hope that they'll throw you a few sausage rolls in return?

I liked the old makeup, were there were allocated Director roles. x-number of "successful businessmen" - x number from the "community members" - x number from the general membership. It now looks like the Directors need to be approved based on their skills and 10000 Hours get to do the approving. The Directors also appear to be able to vote an elected director off of the BoD by simple majority within the CIC Board without referal back to the general members.

The constitution has been written with all the advantage sitting with 10000 Hours BoD rather than the "community". The three year period of Directorship without election is a prime example of this. The community focus does not seem to be there any more. It appears to be about control and protecting the BoD rather than handing any genuine influence to the community.

Rea's experiment and your money to fund it! Did you really think you'd get genuine fan representation (without creating layer upon layer of sausage role thieving memberships).

I know there are a some that see fan ownership as a group of well intentioned but seriously dillusional characters that would happily crash and burn the whole project if someone shouted 'WTF was that Gowser' from W3.

However the model i think Sid subscribes to, and one (If it ever came into being, even a 10000 hours version) I would support is that where there will always be a guaranteed minimum two fan (ordinary members) seats on the BoD of SMFC.

Forget polls to pick the team, and brand of coffee on the pie stall. The cic should appoint/confirm it's general manager/chief exec, that would require a full vote for approval, then let them get on with their job, which includes recruiting/retaining the right management, coaching, backroom and playing staff. The Bod with fan reps is there to oversee the big steering decisions of the club, and to hold budget holders to account granting appropriate approval and space to operate in.

one year to eighteen months term for all BoD, all need majority vote to become/remain BoD members. I.e. no one is bullet proof on the operational board. If you want to bestow peerages then they can sit with the £25k boys as non execs.

Shouldn't this be our minimum?

[davidg]

3 members, 7 guests & 2 anonymous users reading the thread.

Looks like not many share the views that the takeover date will be "The Day Fan Ownership Died".

[Guest somner9]

3 members, 7 guests & 2 anonymous users reading the thread.

Looks like not many share the views that the takeover date will be "The Day Fan Ownership Died".

So if they all agree with you Atkinsons revelution can count on 12? maybes?

[Stuart Dickson]

3 members, 7 guests & 2 anonymous users reading the thread.

Looks like not many share the views that the takeover date will be "The Day Fan Ownership Died".

Wait till the word gets out that it was actually the day Somner said he would support a Sid proposal....

[St. Sid]

Rea's experiment and your money to fund it! Did you really think you'd get genuine fan representation (without creating layer upon layer of sausage role thieving memberships).

I know there are a some that see fan ownership as a group of well intentioned but seriously dillusional characters that would happily crash and burn the whole project if someone shouted 'WTF was that Gowser' from W3.

However the model i think Sid subscribes to, and one (If it ever came into being, even a 10000 hours version) I would support is that where there will always be a guaranteed minimum two fan (ordinary members) seats on the BoD of SMFC.

Forget polls to pick the team, and brand of coffee on the pie stall. The cic should appoint/confirm it's general manager/chief exec, that would require a full vote for approval, then let them get on with their job, which includes recruiting/retaining the right management, coaching, backroom and playing staff. The Bod with fan reps is there to oversee the big steering decisions of the club, and to hold budget holders to account granting appropriate approval and space to operate in.

one year to eighteen months term for all BoD, all need majority vote to become/remain BoD members. I.e. no one is bullet proof on the operational board. If you want to bestow peerages then they can sit with the £25k boys as non execs.

Shouldn't this be our minimum?

Good to see you back in the world of the sane somner9.

To be honest I have just been f'k'ng about as I reckoned if I took the CIC-knocking stage then I wouldn't have to read your pish.

The CIC is 110% the way to go, I am just trying to get people to read the constitution first and foremost, and to be absolutely clear on what they are signing up to. There's been page upon page of pish posted on the CIC and the reality of it got lost eons ago amongst the shitey debates that have gone on.

People should empower themselves by:

• seeking to understand the financial risks in relation to the debt - difficult to do as the numbers are still being formed - the deadline date should hopefully provide clarity in terms of the figures
  
• seeking to understand how the CIC with actually function and their role within it if any
  
• seeking to understand what the key players actually stand for....we don't even know who the key players will be beyond REA / Tony F / GLS and I certainly don't have a clue as to any of their personal plans for the club - once voted in they will push their own personal agendas not ours - so we need to know what their aims / goals are and make sure they are aligned with ours. I have yet to meet an elected representative that actually represents the people that elected them - especially f'k'n cnutcillors.
  

Very little if any information is currently available relating to the above. It needs to be provided if we are to be genuinely empowered. Otherwise we will have nothing more than an empty vote and a BoD that represents themselves - not the fans.

[Guest somner9]

Below is what i could support, but important to note 10000 hours does not guarantee that some one from the rank and file (ordinary members) will ever be voted onto the SMFC board. Instead you have to be a "Superfan" (16000 shares, Playing legend, from ayrshire etc)

However the model i think Sid subscribes to, and one (If it ever came into being, even a 10000 hours version) I would support is that where there will always be a guaranteed minimum two fan (ordinary members) seats on the BoD of SMFC.

[Reynard]

3 members, 7 guests & 2 anonymous users reading the thread.

Looks like not many share the views that the takeover date will be "The Day Fan Ownership Died".

It does get a bit tiresome reading about the weary Wullies "concerns" ad nauseum. Most folk will have been out enjoying the weather rather than listening to a bunch of f**king Eeyores whining.

[TsuMirren]

Any body who buys shares are buying something that has no actual value, the 52 pc will always win

That's really no change to how it is now.

[glenburn ed]

That's really no change to how it is now.

Why spend £25,000 then

[Robo]

From the very first document:

I believe that your version of the CIC above does not deliver on the above statement. Why wouldn't you want to use our financial power in the CIC to negotiate on our ability to exert further influence beyond a vote every three years? Surely, the idea is for us to be able to influence matters such as the SPL vote. I do not see any significant change in the fans abaility to influence that decision. All the blah, blah was about greater transparency.....what happened to that - are we just getting the same bollox as you get at AGM's from traditional ownership models?

I think that depends on what your expectations were to begin with. There are degrees of influence that you could exert, but I don't think it's fair to say that members of the CIC would have no influence at all over the running of SMFC. My opinion is that it would be unrealistic, and perhaps inappropriate, for members to have influence over the day to day running of the club but, to use your example about the SPL vote, members could call a general meeting to vote on the issue and influence could be exerted on the SMFC board via the 10000 hours board (correct me if I'm wrong, but more than 50% of the SMFC board would be made up 10000 board members?).

[St. Sid]

I think that depends on what your expectations were to begin with. There are degrees of influence that you could exert, but I don't think it's fair to say that members of the CIC would have no influence at all over the running of SMFC. My opinion is that it would be unrealistic, and perhaps inappropriate, for members to have influence over the day to day running of the club but, to use your example about the SPL vote, members could call a general meeting to vote on the issue and influence could be exerted on the SMFC board via the 10000 hours board (correct me if I'm wrong, but more than 50% of the SMFC board would be made up 10000 board members?).

Liking all of that; however there will need to be a practical mechanism in play for that to work.

Obviously there are areas that the fans can't get involved in and there will still be areas of commercial confidence that will not be for our eyes. However, there does have to be practical mechanisms in place that make it possible for the general fans / community to influence on issues of such as the SPL vote and the charges for disabled fans.

It could be the case that we are limited to x number per season and we submit a list of issues that we would like to influence. The fans then shortlist what we will be voting on at the AGM. Its a bit like how user groups work for software. Folk submit requests for voting at the user group and the users shortlist the items for development in future releases of the software via a vote at the AUGM. It should also be noted that the CIC membership has predominently been driven via the Internet so there might be possibilities there for as and when required issues we may wish to influence.

Edited May 24, 2012 by St. Sid