Re: Supporters' Club Survey - Results Highlights
Posted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:48 am
bm22 wrote:I think that it would unhelpful going to ER and telling them that we'll all be so much happier if the team start winning.
The Supporters' club need to be able to represent the views of supporters and collecting data like this is a fairly practical solution to this.
It is the job of Edinburgh Rugby to go to other grounds and find out what works and what doesn't, not the Supporters' Club.
We as supporters can only give opinions on the options that have been presented to us and the best that the supporters' club can do is represent those opinions. It would appear that on average supporters prefer Murrayfield on every measure on this survey.
I am actually surprised that Myreside has been rated so negatively across the board. Ratings for Myreside were given first, so these ratings are not a reaction to the rating for Murrayfield. Murrayfield may be higher due to this effect, but it doesn't explain why every single factor measured here for Myreside has an average score below 5, or why so few people would be likely to recommend Myreside.
Having seen the results of the survey in full, I personally think that if ER cannot make matches at Myreside feel more like a rugby club than matches at Murrayfield, in the opinions of people that go to those matches, then there is something very wrong.
I would say going to Edinburgh rugby and telling them we would all be much happier if results on the pitch improved would be good to be honest, because at the end of the day that’s what really matters. It’s pretty obvious but so is telling them folk want to be able to see the big screen (as per your point from earlier). Both are just common sense, so if you do one, why not the other?
I agree that the club should absolutely be going out to other grounds and finding out what works so they can implement, but you are doing the same thing by looking at what works at Murrayfield, so why do it for one stadium (that is going to overshadow every other stadium in Scotland, and a number of others in the rest of the UK) and not one that is actually more appropriate. You could easily adapt the survey and pop a note on the warriors forum asking them to fill it out. They clearly don’t need to say what they like about Myerside/MF but what works for them at Scotstoun.
Sorry I know I am labouring the point here, but when you say “supporters prefer Murrayfield on every measure on this survey.” The survey appears geared to getting that result. It’s not asking what could be improved, it’s not asking what supporters believe to be the right option/direction for the club, it’s asking them to score Murrayfield and a school ground after a trial period where limited work was done (primarily I would imagine because it was a trial). If you got any other result from that survey other than “hey isn’t Murrayfield great” then something would have gone very wrong.
For the record I’m not saying Myerside is great, it has problems absolutely but it is far more suited to a club of our size than Murrayfield is and the problems are fixable, what might have been useful is collating a list of what fans would like to see improved, rather than saying it’s not a nice as Murrayfield.
Plus I don't think you have specifically called this out, but others have. If your main reason for attending games is the comfort and surroundings, rather than what is happening on the field then that is our biggest issue right there. If we get the product right on the field then I would hope supporters would make the effort to come and see the team play, rather than looking for excuses not to, as seems to be the case just now.