Trust Board Election. Questions for Pete Martin

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Thanks Pete. My fault for not being clearer, I meant the Freehold of St James Park from the Council. I appreciate it may not be on the current radar for no doubt lots of reasons, but do you (and the others if you read this) think the Trust should consider it a long term strategy aim ?
Many thanks

From my personal viewpoint I think the idea is superficially attractive for obvious reasons but I would need a lot of convincing by others to support such an initiative. There is the actual cost of purchase of course, but my biggest concern is that owning the freehold of the whole caboodle could make the club vulnerable to a take over bid. Yes, you could argue that, if we owned SJP, a subsequent buyer might theoretically provide some of the cash to move elsewhere, but more money would be needed. Iirc, at the time of the Drivers Jonas study in 2007 it was reckoned that even a new 5,000 seat stadium at Arena Park would have cost £7million - and that excluded land costs. I know they get a lot of stock from some but the City Council are good reasonable landlords and have been so for over 20 years now. I am certain they would never threaten the existence of the football club in the city as it is seen as something of much community value.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Hi Pete

What would your opinion be on ECFC committing to being a carbon neutral organisation / ambition to support itself 100% with renewable energy?

I would certainly support it. There are things happening already in this area but, owing to other priorities, it is not top of the list and it is another area where a supporter with experience and/or knowledge of this area might be able to offer advice and guidance for free?

Currently, rainwater from the roof of the main stand is collected and stored for pumping to water the pitch. We are looking to provide compostible carrier bags for the club shop. Little things that build up over time and help to make a difference.

 

[IndoMike]

I posted this question above but I think you missed it.
"Do you have any innovative ideas for improving the Trust or the club in general, either related to the playing or non-playing side of things ?".
The campaign is a competition and I'm wondering if any candidate has any stand-out ideas

 

[Matt Russell]

Please comment on posts 24/25 on the Doug Gillard thread

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Yes. This had been addressed by the Trust Board once before, in April 2015. A vote was taken but, unfortunately, I was not present at that particular meeting as I was representing the Trust at an event in London. A vote on the question; Proposal that the Trust believe, as a matter of principle, to pay the ‘Living Wage' was taken and the result was 4 in favour and 6 against. It is recorded in the minutes of that meeting. Had I been there I would have voted 'yes', but the vote would still have been lost.

I did ask a question fairly recently about the current position of the club on the issue, but am still awaiting a response. Your nudge has reminded me to chase it up.

Hi Pete.

The national living wage is the minimum wage. Are you suggesting paying OVER that for jobs that don't require it? Seems awfully irresponsible. Would you not just pay the going rate for that job/skill/role?

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

I posted this question above but I think you missed it.
"Do you have any innovative ideas for improving the Trust or the club in general, either related to the playing or non-playing side of things ?".
The campaign is a competition and I'm wondering if any candidate has any stand-out ideas

I hadn't missed it Mike, but only just caught up with it. It's been night time here mate!

Whether these ideas are innovative, you will have to decide, but in terms of the non-playing side of the business, here are a few views of mine. It is not a finite list but simply some of the things that have immediately come into my head.....

• Maybe not a popular view, and I know we don't have a good track record in this area, but I would restore the post of CEO but be very diligent about who is appointed to the role. At the moment there is nobody taking an overview within the club structure, taking stock or giving best practice advice to the club board. I know the last CEO appointment was something of a failure, but that does not mean the concept is wrong. There are staff within the club working very hard and doing their best to improve things but, in many cases, it is being done in semi-isolation.

• Another controversial view of mine is that the move to parity on the club board has not, overall, had positive results. Superficially, having greater Trust representation on the board seems attractive and gives the impression that the Trust is better off as a result. It also means that Supporters Direct can hold ECFC up as a model to the rest of the supporters' trust movement as a major success. What you have though (and I mean no disrespect to any of our current Trust Board members who sit on the Club Board and work very hard with the very best of intentions) is a situation where, sometimes, well meaning people are pulled in two directions, mainly as a result of their legal and formal responsibilities as club directors. Their role is significantly more onerous than that of TB members. Additionally, they have their duties and responsibilities as trustees and the weight of their roles as club directors weighing down on them. It is incredibly time consuming and carries a hell of a lot of responsibility and stress. I have to ask, is that really a good place to be? I would personally advocate returning to what we had previously, in the days of Denise Watts and Rob Doidge, et. al. which was a club board of eight, with just two made up of Trust Board members (Trustees) as supporter representatives. If you have a competent club board made up of 6 people with particular skill sets, working within their own areas of competency reporting to the club board (and CEO - see above) and 2 people to represent the supporters' interests, my own view is that would work better and more efficiently. It would also make it easier, imo, for the TB to hold the CB to account. There is also a case for the Club Chairman to be a Trust Board member and that was actually a decision of the TB made and minuted some time ago, but not yet implemented.

• I think there ought to be a review (possibly by an outside agency) of the earning potential of the club facilities outside of matchdays. I am very much of the view that we do not use the facilities to their maximum potential, particularly in the evenings. A major review of the downstairs bar in the SJC is needed and it needs improvement in the same way that the upstairs areas have been improved. The bar is frequently like a morgue on weekday evenings and it is a big waste of a potential earner.

• I have long thought that we do not make as good use as we could do of potential volunteering help. Those that do volunteer (and bless 'em for doing so) tend to be the same people, over and over. A campaign to attract volunteers is needed and someone to take control of it and create a skills and availability database so that people can be called on at short notice to assist in whatever their area of competence might be needed.

As regards the playing (football) side, there has long been the position that the Football Manager is given an annual budget and he uses it however he sees fit. That is a long standing agreement and I think that autonomy is right. PT reports to the club board at regular intervals and, by and large, the system works (Especially this season! ) Consequently, there is very little innovative thinking that could be brought to the table because I do support that policy. I do believe it is the role of the club and Trust boards to consider specific one-off requests from the Football Manager for improvements in facilities, equipment or additional funding for players, that impinge on the ability of the team to do well. Both boards must then do a cost-benefit analysis and make a decision whether a request is met or not, depending on the need and availability of financing at that time.

Hope the above helps!

 

[Terryhall]

I would certainly support it. There are things happening already in this area but, owing to other priorities, it is not top of the list and it is another area where a supporter with experience and/or knowledge of this area might be able to offer advice and guidance for free?

Currently, rainwater from the roof of the main stand is collected and stored for pumping to water the pitch. We are looking to provide compostible carrier bags for the club shop. Little things that build up over time and help to make a difference.

Thanks Pete and good to hear that there are already good initiatives underway (and hopefully more to follow.) Far from an expert in the area but definitely something I feel strongly about.

 

[Red Bill]

Hi Pete.

The national living wage is the minimum wage. Are you suggesting paying OVER that for jobs that don't require it? Seems awfully irresponsible. Would you not just pay the going rate for that job/skill/role?

No it isn't.

This was discussed recently on another thread (sorry can't remember which one). The minimum wage is £7.20, the living wage which was discussed at the meeting that Pete alludes to, is a figure proposed by several groups (again you'll have to do your own research to find out which ones) was reckoned to be the amount necessary to provide someone in full time work with a bare minimum living standard and accepting that the minimum still left full time workers in significant hardship. This was I think at the time of the meeting (which I attended) £8.25. The principal that Pete is supporting here is that as a community club we should not be paying our employees an amount that simply leaves people scraping by on the edge of poverty. Even the Tories pathetic National living wage is set at £7.50, 30p per hour above the national minimum.

 

[John William]

Post #16.

I agree 100% with all this.

A small group at the Club looked at the potential of improving the usage of the OTR (old school) building after the redevelopment including the idea of a daytime coffee bar etc. for the 300+ students (I imagine the developers are not providing any such facilities). But we would want (need?) to buy out the OTR company first, perhaps a good use of any windfall from Ampadu or ANO.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Hi Pete.

The national living wage is the minimum wage. Are you suggesting paying OVER that for jobs that don't require it? Seems awfully irresponsible. Would you not just pay the going rate for that job/skill/role?

I think you are confusing the 'Living Wage' with the 'National Living Wage' (easily done!) . The 'National Living Wage' was launched by George Osborne in 2015, it represents the government’s aim of raising the wages of those aged 25 and older to £9 an hour by 2020. The decreed hourly rate will change each year in April until it reaches the £9 target.

The 'Living Wage' is a voluntary code (not a statutory one) where companies can pay above the minimum wage if they choose to. The current adult rate is, iirc, £8.45 per hour. Personally, I do not think that is an excessive adult rate and would continue to support its introduction. Is it wrong to want people to earn a wage they can actually exist on? Ultimately, of course, it is a decision for the club and not the Trust and it is likely that other TB members would not support its introduction in any event, especially those who are closer to the finances and sit on the Trust's Finance and Governance Group (which I don't) and I would trust in their judgement on such matters, aside from my own stance on it.