Message to Both Boards.......

[CREDYGRECIAN]

I don't want to agree with this but am beginning to do so.

But who would want to buy us at the moment? If I was a very rich Devon resident with no greedy grandkids to leave my wealth too, maybe, but how many of those are there?

who would want to buy Wrexham ? who would want to buy Carlisle ? it happens…

the company looking to purchase Reading have just purchased Nuneaton Borough….

 

[denzel]

I would just like to point out that 'Caldwell Out Out' is a double negative ....

Not if you're familiar with the work of Mickey Flanagan

 

[C j phill]

Us not owning the ground is said to be the biggest barrier to a potential viable private owner, but I’m not sure that rings true anymore with the rising popularity in owning English football clubs especially among our rich American friends.

Irrespective of ground ownership, what would be the attraction to anyone in wanting to own a professional, league 1/2 EFL club with limited ground capacity, or little scope to expand?

 

[that man again]

The structure of the boards is one that I have long since grumbled about. The mere fact that we have 2 boards ought to give an indication that, the 'we own our football club' line is, in some ways a fallacy. Instead we, the 'owners' appoint one board who, though I am sure are pleasant and aimable people, seem to have little concern regarding the important issues of holding the club board to account. There are numerous examples of this both in recent and past times, many of which have been highlighted on these forums.

So, the trust board appoints a club board to run the club for them. These people on the board have free reign, knowing that the money we, the 'owners' put in allows them free licence to do whatever they want, ultimately paying scant attention to those that there are accountable to. So we have this bizarre situation where, in any other club the fans can protest against the club board but, at our club there seems to be a level of protection for them in the shape of the trust board. Consequently, the 'owners' seem to have less sway in influencing decisions then could normally be possible.

I appreciate that the counter argument is that the trust board can look to influence things should they choose to do so and those that have trust membership can vote as to whom they wish to have as a serving trustee. The reality though, as I have stated above is different.

The whole thing needs a root and branch review if the trust is going to survive and, thereafter thrive moving forward. The trust needs to show its teeth otherwise members will, if they have not already started doing so, cancel their membership. It seems an absurdity to me that we have allowed a situation of having a club board, made up of a variety of persons most fans could not even name, being able to do exactly what they want. The club board should, largely speaking be made up of serving trustees and, instead of having this part time CEO, they should employ a competent, experienced CEO to handle the day to day running of the club. That person would hold sway and be responsible for the day to day running but, would have the same, singular vote as any other board member and would have ultimate accountability to us, the owners.

The club board are laughing at us.

 

[Bridgy 81]

I appreciate that as Manager of the team Gary has to take a large proportion of the responsibility for how it performs as he’s the person who leads on training, tactics, selection and motivation.
Presumably he’s also had a significant involvement in recruitment as he seems to know (through previous roles) most of the players we’ve signed during his tenure.
However, the boards appear reluctant (admittedly as an outside observer) to take any action against his position.
So, it does make me wonder why.
The options I can come up with are:
1. They think he’s doing ok and/or with him holding the reins things will improve.
2. They don’t want the financial or reputational hit of terminating his contract early.
3. They somehow feel partly culpable for some reason for the way that our current squad is so lopsided and disfunctional.
If it’s #1 then I suppose as our elected or appointed decision makers they’re entitled to hold this view (although it seems like there’s reducing evidence to support this stance and an ever increasing number of people dissenting).
If it’s #2 (financial) I can’t give an opinion with any authority on this as I don’t know the details of that information, but there may still be an argument to take a short term loss (however painful) to protect against longer term financial losses e.g. tumbling attendances, relegation, loss of lucrative commercial opportunities.
If it’s #2 (reputational) then that’s not a legitimate reason, in my opinion.
If it’s #3 then they shouldn’t hide behind the Manager whilst he takes most of the brickbats.
Publicly admitting any mistakes they may have made in that regard (to the fans of a fan’s owned club) would be the honest and honourable thing to do.

 

[Egg]

The structure of the boards is one that I have long since grumbled about. The mere fact that we have 2 boards ought to give an indication that, the 'we own our football club' line is, in some ways a fallacy. Instead we, the 'owners' appoint one board who, though I am sure are pleasant and aimable people, seem to have little concern regarding the important issues of holding the club board to account. There are numerous examples of this both in recent and past times, many of which have been highlighted on these forums.

So, the trust board appoints a club board to run the club for them. These people on the board have free reign, knowing that the money we, the 'owners' put in allows them free licence to do whatever they want, ultimately paying scant attention to those that there are accountable to. So we have this bizarre situation where, in any other club the fans can protest against the club board but, at our club there seems to be a level of protection for them in the shape of the trust board. Consequently, the 'owners' seem to have less sway in influencing decisions then could normally be possible.

I appreciate that the counter argument is that the trust board can look to influence things should they choose to do so and those that have trust membership can vote as to whom they wish to have as a serving trustee. The reality though, as I have stated above is different.

The whole thing needs a root and branch review if the trust is going to survive and, thereafter thrive moving forward. The trust needs to show its teeth otherwise members will, if they have not already started doing so, cancel their membership. It seems an absurdity to me that we have allowed a situation of having a club board, made up of a variety of persons most fans could not even name, being able to do exactly what they want. The club board should, largely speaking be made up of serving trustees and, instead of having this part time CEO, they should employ a competent, experienced CEO to handle the day to day running of the club. That person would hold sway and be responsible for the day to day running but, would have the same, singular vote as any other board member and would have ultimate accountability to us, the owners.

The club board are laughing at us.

You begin by saying the Trust board isn't doing its job in holding the club board to account. You then go on to say the club board should comprise, in the main, serving trustees – this suggests that you think the people who aren't capable of holding the club board to account will be capable of running the club [IMO an even bigger ask].

I was privileged enough to serve on the Trust board for a good few years from the very start of fan ownership. It soon became all too obvious that the supporters who made up the Trust board didn't have the expertise to run a football club with a multi-million pound turnover, hence the two-board arrangement.

I imagine that remains the case today. If you want trustees with the skills and expertise to run a football club then that probably excludes 99 per cent of Trust members. IMHO the two-board arrangement, with the power resting, ultimately, with the Trust board makes perfect sense. The issue, if there is one, is with the personnel serving on the two boards.

As an aside, you say: 'The club board are laughing at us.' It's a good line, but it's nonsense – they're doing what they think is the right thing in, what one can only imagine, are pretty trying circumstances right now. Russell & Lewis were 'laughing at us' when they were taking away the gate receipts in suitcases while the club went to rack and ruin.

 

[that man again]

You are right to highlight what seems to be a contradiction but you miss out the rather important point about the CEO which, really is a large crux of my argument and you will see my argument for that structure and negates the apparent contradiction. I appreciate that is one that you, indeed others may not share of course.

And of course there is a huge difference between the current board and the Lewis & Russell days, but I don’t think that is the best comparison. From an ECFC point of view, yes. But there are plenty of boards at other clubs where, IMO they seem to be a lot more competent.

 

[fred binneys head]

But there are plenty of boards at other clubs where, IMO they seem to be a lot more competent.

I'd be interested to hear those examples.

 

[Egg]

You are right to highlight what seems to be a contradiction but you miss out the rather important point about the CEO which, really is a large crux of my argument and you will see my argument for that structure and negates the apparent contradiction. I appreciate that is one that you, indeed others may not share of course.

And of course there is a huge difference between the current board and the Lewis & Russell days, but I don’t think that is the best comparison. From an ECFC point of view, yes. But there are plenty of boards at other clubs where, IMO they seem to be a lot more competent.

Putting the CEO issue to one side for a minute, I agree wholeheartedly there are clubs with eminently competent boards. My point is that if you don't think our current board is competent, you're unlikely to improve the situation by demanding the club board is comprised largely / mainly of trustees. Rather, it seems to me, you're inadvertently making the case for the two-board arrangement which is already in place and heightens the likelihood that the club board will be made up of people with the required skills and expertise to run a League One football club.

 

[that man again]

Putting the CEO issue to one side for a minute, I agree wholeheartedly there are clubs with eminently competent boards. My point is that if you don't think our current board is competent, you're unlikely to improve the situation by demanding the club board is comprised largely / mainly of trustees. Rather, it seems to me, you're inadvertently making the case for the two-board arrangement which is already in place and heightens the likelihood that the club board will be made up of people with the required skills and expertise to run a League One football club.

I make the case for an alternative. A one board structure headed up by an experienced CEO with the majority of that board filled with trustees.

I am not saying what I am advocating is perfect nor full proof. It is simply an idea.

But, and going back to my original point, I am still of the view that the current structure is not, in its present guise working.