In Praise Of The Club`s Owners.

[Bittners a Legend]

Maybe OTT wording but the implication I read as a voter (Yes Coleman I AM a trust member) was that these candidates stood with a slant of working against the situation with Tisdale's contract.

Completely bonkers that you still think that changing the rolling contract is anything other than in the best interests of the football club. Tisdale might want you to believe that changing the contract is "anti-Tisdale" but it is actually just an attempt to get the business to be run in a sensible manner.

What do you imagine the club would have done had we been relegated to the Conference with Tisdale on a 2 year rolling contract? Strange and slightly worrying that people still don't get the point of the whole thing or have a mindset that anything that challenges the status-quo, even for the greater good, is anti-Tisdale. Perspective have been lost a long time ago.

 

[LDNGrecian]

Completely bonkers that you still think that changing the rolling contract is anything other than in the best interests of the football club. Tisdale might want you to believe that changing the contract is "anti-Tisdale" but it is actually just an attempt to get the business to be run in a sensible manner.

What do you imagine the club would have done had we been relegated to the Conference with Tisdale on a 2 year rolling contract? Strange and slightly worrying that people still don't get the point of the whole thing or have a mindset that anything that challenges the status-quo, even for the greater good, is anti-Tisdale. Perspective have been lost a long time ago.

It was only a bad contract if you didn't think he was doing a good job. No one had any worries around the roller when we were in League 1 or the fact he was signed to a one year roller when he joined. It only became an issue when we hit a patch of bad form due to injuries. Thats when Tis needed the backing and trust that he was doing a good job rather than the ultimate signal that we have no faith in him.

To the second para: my main issue is with people now claiming (with hindsight of incredible form over the last 18 months) that it was a renegotiation rather than termination of a contract. If it were renegotiation we wouldn't have needed to give notice on his contract.

 

[grecIAN Harris]

Is there anything in Trust or Board minutes that says the club approached Tis to ask him to renegotiate his contract before serving notice on his current one?

 

[Antony Moxey]

why was it The Trust who forced through the termination of Tis's contract.

They didn’t and haven’t. FFS how many times does this have to be explained?

 

[grecIAN Harris]

They didn’t and haven’t. FFS how many times does this have to be explained?

So the club board decided it was the right thing to do and vote offered to The Trust was pointless because it was already a done deal??
Of course they didn't, the termination was instigated by The Trust on the back of that vote.

 

[Matt Russell]

I would politely suggest that at the time the AGM motion was being discussed and tabled for seconding etc, the form wasn't all that bad. It is hardly the fault of the Trust members who tabled and seconded the motion, that the form dropped off a cliff such that the club happened to be bottom of the league by the time the vote came around.

I agree that the eventual timing was unfortunate and that it has led to a complicated perception of the AGM motion on all sides - but I don't think anyone can really be held accountable for that. Equally, the AGM (which from a governance perspective is the correct time for such a motion to be brought and considered by the membership) is at the same time every year - I hardly think it would have been fair to move the AGM to the summer months (when most if not all members are on holiday for at least some of the time) purely in order to accomodate a motion that might rock the boat. Again from a governance perspective, one ought to arrange the AGM for a time when the maximum number of members are expected to be able to attend (which as I understand it is why the AGM is scheduled for a matchday, when City will be at home, at a venue as close to SJP as possible, and away from typical holiday periods.)

Disagree. I think both Club AND Trust boards are responsible for letting this get to a stage where any "complicated perception" could occur.

 

[squiz]

So why doesn’t the trust take a more progressive approach with its 4 directors to the progression of the club, its 4 appointments make it possible for them to control the clubs policies, targets etc. So the statement that the club does this & that as opposed to the trust is smoke & mirrors. The trust needs to take the lead to move the club forward this might mean taking tough decisions but at the moment it seems we are dawdling along patting ourselves on the back because we have sorted the ground, had some time excellent rewards from the academy. So let’s use the momentum of 2 play off final losses & the new ground to build momentum towards next season. Sort the manager issue out & get the players we need to get automatic promotion next year.

 

[Bittners a Legend]

It was only a bad contract if you didn't think he was doing a good job. No one had any worries around the roller when we were in League 1 or the fact he was signed to a one year roller when he joined. It only became an issue when we hit a patch of bad form due to injuries. Thats when Tis needed the backing and trust that he was doing a good job rather than the ultimate signal that we have no faith in him.

To the second para: my main issue is with people now claiming (with hindsight of incredible form over the last 18 months) that it was a renegotiation rather than termination of a contract. If it were renegotiation we wouldn't have needed to give notice on his contract.

You literally don't get it or are deliberately missing the reality.

It was a bad contract because, regardless of whether you thought he was doing a good job at the time or not, we were completely hamstrung should he go on to do badly or the club want a change. We wouldn't give a well performing player a two year rolling contract would we? The issue is not his performance but whether he was removable without it hurting the business. Oh and some people did say it was a bad contract at the time.

Secondly - your main issue is incorrect. You clearly weren't in the room at the time of the discussion and vote and you are clearly refusing to ignore the motion. That is up to you but you are wrong. It isn't a matter of perception. The motion, as you know, specifically requested the renegotiation and none of the discussion in the room from people supporting the vote was about Tisdale leaving as manager. It was about a contract which gave an element of control back to the club.

 

[Super Ronnie Jepson]

You literally don't get it or are deliberately missing the reality.

It was a bad contract because, regardless of whether you thought he was doing a good job at the time or not, we were completely hamstrung should he go on to do badly or the club want a change.

If a manager does well for a sustained period then has a run of bad results then does that make him a bad manager that needs to be sacked?

 

[squiz]

So what happened to the renegotiation in the 18 months since November 2016, the decision should of been made by now & we should have a signed contract with a manager either PT or A.N other but instead of that we are 9 Weeks from the new season with no manager.
That is nothing to be praised about