Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: What If This Is It For The Celtics? End Of An Era Looming

Deeper Dive Into The Charter

Legal documents aren't really a fun look. There's something dry about them that takes away from what they can mean. Words like "whereas" or parentheticals for future reference immediately cause a glassification of eyeballs and headaches in many.

In the case of the vote for ratification of the Alliance Constitution and Sounders FC Alliance Charter maybe some perspective of what the Alliance Council was asking for in the Charter and how I view what it can mean for you as a fan of the team may give you a reason to vote yes to ratify the full documents. First let's look at how the club described the document;

Additionally, the Club has written a charter which recognizes the Alliance as the voice of the overall fans and supporters of the Club, and which grants certain areas for the Alliance to have control over; other areas that the Club will try and advocate the Alliance's position; and agrees that the Alliance may choose to express its views on issues involving the Club.

In short it is a more formal version of the initial goals that Drew Carey had when he launched the whole "Democracy in Sports" concept. At length it describes exactly what the Alliance can do and why the club is willing to grant its fans so this much at this time.

Star-divide

Looking deeply we get the series of whereas. They establish the importance of the organization of the fans, the support of the club for the democratic concept, the importance of the Alliance and Council having formalized systems and a recognition of the past three years of this democracy. It then specifically delegates powers. These are the things that are exciting.

  • Firing the GM: Honestly, this was the initial and only direct activity outlined by Carey. Everything else the front office talked about was influence without action. The Constitution and Charter maintain that key tenet.
  • Determining Two Charity Partners: Hey, something new! Rather than have all the charitable endeavors be a top down designation the idea to involve the fans in this decision has it roots in the concept that help the originates from the goals at the bottom of the organizational pyramid will be more effective. It makes it more likely to raise money, supply important man hours and assures that the charity partnerships are a direct reflection of what it means to be a Sounder.
  • Advise Gameday Experience: Now that's rather vague isn't it? And how it works out will be intriguing to discover. What it can mean is banning vuvuzelas, but rather than how other teams around the globe have done it by top down fiat, this would come from the fans. It could mean expanding the ability to bring in flags, or limiting it. But rather than those decision being solely by front office personnel under advice of a limited sub-group of fans this would be done through a mechanism that recognizes all members of the club
  • Decide Other Matters of Fan Experience: Kind of like amendments nine and ten of the US Constitution there's a lot of interpretation in this one. It isn't limited directly to gameday, but the way the fans and team relate outside of gameday. It can go many directions from player access to media presentation of team events. This is also where the ability to plan and organize the annual business meeting falls.

Basically there are things that the Alliance (sometimes through the Council, sometimes without) can directly determine and others were we can only offer affirmation or advice for change. That advice though would carry the weight of a group of 32,000+ members of Alliance which is outlined in the Constitution;

Membership eligibility

The primary account holder of a season ticket package containing 50% (or more) of the Sounders' MLS league games is an Alliance member. If the account has more than one seat, the account holder may designate one additional person for Alliance membership for each additional seat on the account. This designation is irrevocable and lasts until the end of the season when it was made.

Membership in the Alliance may also be purchased; the price shall be $125 a season.

While it may not seem like a lot, it is certainly a unique expansion of fan power and influence within the American sports franchise system. There are checks on the powers, in both documents, but their increase is significant.

The documents can be dry, but they need to be ratified to be empowered. Or maybe you find enough with which you disagree and you want to vote no. Just vote, that's kind of a core of any level of democracy - those with the franchise must exercise it.

Comment 40 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

dollars vs alliance

I am a bit confused. If the alliance wants to ban something to improve the gameday experience the club may or may not agree. If they do not agree it is generally because it is going to hurt them in the pocketbook which means it is really a business decision. What is going to stop them from ignoring it?

What I am getting at is really what will the alliance really be doing if anything they ask for either is something that the club will say no based on it being a business operations question or they say yes because it is what the fans want anyhow and they will be able to make more money. In either case the club is going to still do what it wants to do, with the only difference being that sometimes the alliance can pretend it affected things.

For example banning vuvazelas. What is wrong with a top down ban? Do we really care if it was us that came up with the idea or the FO? In either case they will be banned if and when it is decided that it is better for business to do it. and in either case we may eventually not have to listen to them ( or not get to bring them).

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 12:35 PM PST reply actions  

Vote out the GM!

I guess if the alliance feels overly ignored we could vote out the GM.

by lefthand on Dec 1, 2011 12:49 PM PST up reply actions  

That is great

But it does not address the issue. What does our vote mean? They either do it or don’t but will so regardless of our vote.

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 2:46 PM PST up reply actions  

yes. understood.

I am refering to gameday experience votes.

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 4:11 PM PST up reply actions  

If you have inherent distrust in the organization

then there is little that can be said for any effort moving towards more democracy in sports. They own the team. Everything the fans can do could be limited by the club if they want to do so. Personally, I feel that more power influence by fans within all sports is good ideal and in these ideas presented are great ways to do so.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Dec 1, 2011 1:02 PM PST up reply actions  

It is not distrust

it is just pointless. The alliance votes are not going to mean anything unless you vote to do what they were going to do anyhow and then pretend it means something.

The check on the GM is a great idea. anything to do with the details seems pointless.

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 2:47 PM PST up reply actions  

Their lawyer reviewed these documents

they are public.

If they ignore this, they can ignore anything.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Dec 1, 2011 4:25 PM PST up reply actions  

I am not saying they are going to ignore it

I am saying they will say the charter does not give the alliance the right to make business decisions and will easily make a case that anything they disagree with is a business decision.

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

How could it be better?

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Dec 1, 2011 5:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Not sure

I am not really sure how it can be better. I am not really a fan of non owners controlling another mans business. So I guess I would say to make it better make fans owners.

by lysander on Dec 2, 2011 5:58 AM PST up reply actions  

The Green Bay Packers model?

As far as I’m aware, it’s the only publicly owned sports team in a major American league.

Sounders 'til I die

by SounderJunkie on Dec 2, 2011 10:51 AM PST up reply actions  

well, the Sounders certainly do support the concept

since that’s the case, how can it be better?

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Dec 2, 2011 12:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Sure they support it

What are they going to say, “no we hate democracy? We do not want our fans to have a say?”

And for the most part they will agree with what the fans say. I guess if we want it better, it could be a simple web survey that is sent out a few times a year and forget about charters and legal documents. Because in the end that is all this will be… a customer survey.

by lysander on Dec 2, 2011 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

Yes, actually most teams don't support Democracy in Sports

They are clearly making it more than a survey. It is a foundation of the team.

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Dec 2, 2011 1:15 PM PST up reply actions  

This is the very first go around with all this. It hasn't been done in the MLS anywhere.

Why don’t you give it a bit of time to see what happens. There hasn’t been a scenario yet to test how much pull the Alliance has with the game day experience.

by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 1, 2011 9:09 PM PST up reply actions  

SSFC is in the entertainment business

Public opinion may be their most valued currency as that translates fairly directly into the bottom line. If they ignore an advisory Alliance vote they risk turning their most ardent support away. That said they do hold veto power. I don’t think Ownership will wield that power lightly. If they do they most likely will have a very good reason for it and I hope they explain their decision making process clearly.

by look4wrd on Dec 1, 2011 5:09 PM PST up reply actions  

So would it not have been easier

for them to just send out a customer survey once or twice a year?

by lysander on Dec 2, 2011 5:59 AM PST up reply actions  

I would rather have a few well informed folks making decisions

than a pile of not so well informed folks.

Mob mentality doesn’t interest me.

by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 3, 2011 12:39 PM PST up reply actions  

It seems that at the very least

this process would encourage the FO to rationalize and explain the justifications for business decisions – some exec can’t on a whim decide that certain addition to the game day experience is a good idea. I feel that process, even where the FO and Alliance are at loggerheads, will lead to a more informed dialogue between the fans and FO so that the relationship can be collaborative instead of antagonistic.

If this system existed for the Mariners I bet we could have banned rally fries years ago.

by gee dub on Dec 1, 2011 1:03 PM PST up reply actions  

rationalization is a good point

But I think just having the GM vote does that.

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 2:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Procedure influences behavior.

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said re: the apparent power of the Alliance to force action against a FO that disagrees – in that there is none outside the bounds of appeals to good faith and the power to vote the GM out. However, in any institution purely procedural checks can have strong effects on the behavior of interacting parties, strong power imbalances not withstanding.

by gee dub on Dec 1, 2011 3:07 PM PST up reply actions  

I care if a ban of the damn horns comes from the fans.

It’s becomes a different arguement with the small percentage of folks who think they are cool than if it was a ban that originated from management.

Ultimately understand your point though. I suppose it’s a bit of a wait and see deal…

by SoundersForever on Dec 1, 2011 1:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Why would you be arguing with people about?

If it is banned you will have no idea who wanted to bring a horn in anyhow because they would not have one.

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 2:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Can you clarify your point?

I don’t quite understand your first sentance.

by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 1, 2011 9:10 PM PST up reply actions  

sure

You are saying it needs to come from the fans because it changes the argument with a small percentage of folks who think they are cool. My question is if the horns are banned, then why would you be arguing about horns with these small percentage of folks? Are these small percentage of folks going to be roaming Clink arguing with other fans about how they did not get to bring a horn in the stadium?

by lysander on Dec 2, 2011 6:01 AM PST up reply actions  

I was using that as an example to make a point.

My point is that if a person feels they can help drive what happens as part of the game day experience, they are more likely to be happy with the decision that was made regardless of if it wasn’t what they wanted.

I believe your point is more of the results side that it doesn’t matter if the fan has a say because the owners will do what they want anyway ultimately.

I think my point wasn’t good relative to your point.

Regardless, I think we should give it a season or two to see how things play out before passing judgement on if the council adds value or not. This doc is the first step to telling ownership what they believe they are responsible for. If ownership agrees or not, as a group, you need to define your areas of responsibility prior to doing work.

by SoundersForever on Dec 2, 2011 4:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Very excited to see this finally happening

After 3 years of the phrase “democracy in sports” being tossed around by owners, bloggers, and some fans, I’m really happy to see things being codified into public, binding documents. Until now, it’s been very willy-nilly in how they’ve conducted votes, elections, etc. Memorable votes included the team name and the name of the marching band. There’s been the promise of a vote to keep or fire the GM, but other than that, there’s been no clarification to the extent of the power the Alliance has, what other types of votes, and how much of a voice the fans could expect in the future. After the charter and the constitution are ratified by the Alliance members, this whole “democracy in sports” thing will feel more real and permanent as opposed to a neat experiment.

by K61 on Dec 1, 2011 2:46 PM PST reply actions  

Speaking of marching band

can we get the alliance to have a vote on getting rid of the marching band?

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 2:50 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

There was a resolution passed to ban them from playing during the game

They’re awesome before and after, though. I don’t want to see them broken up.

I met a possum.

by s0merand0mdude on Dec 1, 2011 2:54 PM PST up reply actions  

well now if 50% of us disagree

maybe we can screw the other person over! :)

by lysander on Dec 1, 2011 5:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Rec'ed.

I don’t mind them before, at half, after.

I’m in the middle about the whole march to the match.

I don’t like them during the game.

by soundersfcfanboy on Dec 1, 2011 9:12 PM PST up reply actions  

I think the march is great

And moving the band to the end and giving ECS back the lead seems to have worked quite well for all involved.

by asimismo on Dec 1, 2011 9:36 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

I like when they play after a goal

Sounder’s used to play that after goals in the USL over the PA if i remember right. I think its a cool tradition

"The fans are excited. And the stadium, well, it ignites with explosion."

by DarthGreedo on Dec 2, 2011 8:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually, that's not bad in my mind either...

I personally like the band. Just not when they play during the game …and after goals I can absolutely live with…

by SoundersForever on Dec 2, 2011 4:18 PM PST up reply actions  

most definitely

before, after, and after goals, I think the band is awesome.

by Will Kier on Dec 2, 2011 11:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Sounder at Heart is a blog about the Seattle Sounders FC, with occasional forays into Democracy in Sports, Roster Management, Soccer Statistics and Life in Puget Sound. We are not the actual Sounders blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Twitter-icon_small
Fredy Montero with magic at the death vs. the Whitecaps part 1 (animated)
Small
On "fake turf" in Seattle, 2012 edition
Small
Andy Rose!

Recent FanPosts

Small
Sounders go after Drogba, yes or no?
Img957001_small
Substitute +/- Ratings
Twitter-icon_small
Fredy Montero mesmerizes Whitecaps' Joe Cannon (animated)
Acerimmer_small
Eddie Johnson Scores on Michael Gspurning? Yes indeed!
Paraguay_small
Sounders #awaysupport
Small
What's our line-up vs. Dallas?
Gopher2_small
2012 MLS Team Salary info VS Performance

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Sounder at Heart exists on Facebook - Like Us

Follow SounderAtHeart on Twitter

Sounder At Heart on Twitter

follow me on Twitter

Follow the rest of us on Twitter

Sounder At Heart (Site Feed)

Sidereal (MLS stats)

Jeremiah Oshan (top 10 soccer journalist on Twitter, Baby!)

Aaron Campeau (Villa, Mariners)

Dave Clark (beer, specfic, mideast)

Brian Floyd (all Seattle sports)

Nos Audietis (podcast stuff, snark)

Chris Coulter (photos, academy)


Managers

Tiny_dave_with_scarf_small Dave Clark

Oshan_small Jeremiah Oshan

Seattlesoccerscene_small sidereal

Nos Audietis Crew

Avatar_small Aaron Campeau

254350_1953423628277_767159_n_small dano_seattle

Authors

Img_0349_small malcontentjake

Devlin_small sum anon

Small dennyoffside

Ravelry_logo_small Abbott Smith

Special1tv_o_small Timm Higgins