TUFC Consultation Survey 2017

[Gullscorer]

Just announced on the O.S. :
http://www.torquayunited.com/news/artic ... 02462.aspx
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/ZLNTLNT

[jackgladman]

Is it me or does that survey look more like a marketing data collection rather than a way to find out a way to better the club?

[MellowYellow]

Exactly my sentiments Jackgladman. Its looks like a ploy to gather evidence for the Mayor with leading questions like question 11:- " To reach and sustain Football League status, the club needs to have a new stadium ..." Who wants to disagree with reaching Football League status? However, the answer to that question might well be 100% 'No' if they continued the reasoning namely: ' so we can obtain the freehold and build on Plainmoor'! Until I see the next seasons club and players budget; the retain list and size of squad I will not be partaking in any of GI's property development shenanigans disguised as in the interests of Torquay United.

[Yorkieandy]

To be fair it's at least a lot more engagement and consideration than fans have received under previous regimes so credit for that. If only GI were genuine then i'd be pretty satisfied with such a survey.

As it is though. They're not so therefore the survey means bugger all.

[Lloyder5]

Is it me or does that survey look more like a marketing data collection rather than a way to find out a way to better the club?

I can see how some of the data gathered could be used to support a bid e.g. 90% of respondents said the toilets we inadequate or parking was poor, therefore this supports our plan to build a stadium with fantastic toilets and a car park.

I will wait for the discussion on this site before responding, as it might be useful to have a collective approach.

[happytorq]

It's carefully constructed so that if you agree with one part of one specific question, you're seen to be agreeing with all of it. That question is this one:

"To reach and sustain Football League status, the club needs to have a new stadium with the ability to grow capacity?"

People might think "ooh, I want to be in the Football League!" and check agree. Then GI can take this to their meetings with the council and say "look, we did a survey, the fans want the new stadium!". Even if some of us do think that ultimately a new ground will be required, I don't think that time is now, and these questions are designed to be binary and force you into saying that.

Putting this is the midst of a 30 question survey, buries it, and encourages people to blithely check agree or strongly agree. I hope we don't fall for it.

There should be a question saying "When do you think TUFC will need a stadium?" but that will produce too many responses that aren't very helpful for the owners' purposes.

You see the sort of leading questions a lot in surveys designed with an agenda. Part A is only tangentially related to Part B (if at all)

"Given that murderers are bad, do you think we should ban shovels?" - you don't want to say that murderers are not bad, do you?

[Plainmoor78]

It's carefully constructed so that if you agree with one part of one specific question, you're seen to be agreeing with all of it. That question is this one:

"To reach and sustain Football League status, the club needs to have a new stadium with the ability to grow capacity?"

People might think "ooh, I want to be in the Football League!" and check agree. Then GI can take this to their meetings with the council and say "look, we did a survey, the fans want the new stadium!". Even if some of us do think that ultimately a new ground will be required, I don't think that time is now, and these questions are designed to be binary and force you into saying that.

Putting this is the midst of a 30 question survey, buries it, and encourages people to blithely check agree or strongly agree. I hope we don't fall for it.

There should be a question saying "When do you think TUFC will need a stadium?" but that will produce too many responses that aren't very helpful for the owners' purposes.

You see the sort of leading questions a lot in surveys designed with an agenda. Part A is only tangentially related to Part B (if at all)

"Given that murderers are bad, do you think we should ban shovels?" - you don't want to say that murderers are not bad, do you?

I agree with all your points. For those reasons I am not taking part in the survey and I suggest that anyone who is should consider their responses very carefully.

[Richinns]

I agree whole heartedly about the way this survey is put together and how leading the questions are towards the outcomes GI want but the trouble with boycotting it is that only the happy clappers and misinformed will complete it producing the exact outcomes desired.
GI will use this as evidence to support their plans and will state "it is what the fans are telling them".
A very sly approach but is ignoring it worse than completing it to give your views as best as you can within this twisted and biased template?

[Soupdragon]

Interesting that we should be told that the Herald Express would be running the fans consultation, yet here we are with the 'consultation' on the free Survey Monkey app online.

[Dazza]

It's again says all anyone needs to know about GI (unfortunately). Like the initial ( non) press conference, like the website response to the Guardian article, like the handling of the transfer deadline, like the question and answer sessions it's very very amateurish. I honestly have been shocked by just how poor their pr actually is. They come across time and again as sharp but unprofessional. It's absolutely clear why their track record is as it is.

[Wraysburygull]

Seems to me that the answers to Q11, parts 1 and 3,should be "strongly disagree" . We do not NEED the new stadium to achieve and sustain league status although of course it could be the way to go if everything is above board,with all the usual caveats expressed on here by pretty well everyone.There is a comment section at the end of the question where I will explain why I strongly disagree, and point out that the question is misleading .

[tomogull]

Seems to me that the answers to Q11, parts 1 and 3,should be "strongly disagree" . We do not NEED the new stadium to achieve and sustain league status although of course it could be the way to go if everything is above board,with all the usual caveats expressed on here by pretty well everyone.There is a comment section at the end of the question where I will explain why I strongly disagree, and point out that the question is misleading .

Those were my thoughts as well. I don't understand why there's a question - Do You Use Fans Forums? What is the relevance of Forum use when drawing up a five-year plan?

[Dazza]

It doesn't even say that. It talks about a stadium with the ability to grow capacity. It's not actually saying is it what the starting figure for capacity will be. It certainly isn't intended to be more than Plainmoor's current capacity otherwise it surely wouldn't be couched like that. Is it possible in fact it could of course be referring to a capacity of National League requirement ( well below the current capacity figure at Plainmoor ) but having the ability to equal or exceed it when we got back in the Football League.?

[Louis]

Those were my thoughts as well. I don't understand why there's a question - Do You Use Fans Forums? What is the relevance of Forum use when drawing up a five-year plan?

That was my favourite one to answer :na:

[MellowYellow]

Dazza, do you mean something like the creation of a new ground for Scarborough Athletic Football Club as part of a £15 million leisure development with a 4G football pitch, and a 2,000-capacity stadium fit for national league (if they make it) as it will have a 500 seated stand when complete. I expect staying in the Conference has messed GI's five year plan up; no doubt why Mr Osbourne was so emotionally exhausted after the North Ferriby game.