Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 193

Thread: Trust AGM

  1. #81

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by David Treharne View Post
    I'm less worried about the aesthetics of the venue than the amount of control that the Trust is likely to exert in avoiding "difficult" questions from the floor about the nature of what it does, how it views the future and what its ongoing relationship with the Club Board is. That's also laying aside the matters to do with the terrible c*ck up about the organisation and running of the AGM and increasing lethargy over decision making and the real issues of concern over an ageing Trust membership and the poor retention of the 18-25 age group. No doubt these issues will be clouded by a euphoria about such important issues as a hall of fame, a museum of artefacts and quite what graphics can be used to fill that enormous projector screen. Action, not words would be a welcome step forward.
    Do you have any facts and figures to back up your assertion regarding poor retention of the 18-25 age group?

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Exeter, Devon
    Posts
    2,741

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Russell View Post
    Do you have any facts and figures to back up your assertion regarding poor retention of the 18-25 age group?
    Yes. I do. An enormous amount of hard work has gone into improving the deal for "Junior Grecians", and the offer is an attractive one, but there is no follow-up deal for subsequent age groups.

  3. #83

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by David Treharne View Post
    Yes. I do. An enormous amount of hard work has gone into improving the deal for "Junior Grecians", and the offer is an attractive one, but there is no follow-up deal for subsequent age groups.
    Although there is an "opening offer" to younger JG's, by the time they reach 16 (the top age) their membership costs are the same as yours and mine. What sort of follow-up deal would you like to see? Would it be a reduced rate (already the minimum is just 2.00 a month) or some other sweetener?
    Last edited by Matt Russell; 09 November 2017 at 11:07.

  4. #84

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by John William View Post
    No, I don't think that follows at all, in fact I don't think it can happen: the Trust cannot simply discard the election process for reasons of convenience.

    When I was on the TB there was a view that it would not be good governance to co-opt unsuccessful candidates. I'm no longer in the loop, of course, but I suspect there will still be concern on those grounds.

    However, on this occasion the timing of events and the fact that there will be only one unsuccessful candidate means that, if I were still on the TB, I'd be willing to consider a one-off exception to that general view.

    The more I think about it the more it does in principle seem perverse that someone who puts themselves forward for election and has been scrutinised through a manifesto, hustings etc. is then precluded from being co-opted for a significant period.

    Provided of course that the TB as a whole are satisfied that any particular individual has strengths and expertise to offer the TB.

    And that the individual concerned wants to be co-opted, which cannot be simply assumed, they might be unhappy with this for the reasons outlined above.
    I think it's time for a rule change and that number of trustees on the TB should be fixed at 12. I also believe that it should be written in that co-options should only be allowed in order to fill a shortfall In this number. I've never been comfortable with the undemocratic nature of co-options.

    I don't see why all five candidates can't be appointed now there are five places available, you don't have to cancel the election, it's already being held and people have voted, simply count the votes, announce the results a declare all five appointments. What if one of the candidates had dropped out half way through, would the election have been cancelled or would the process follow through?

    I'd very much like to see all five candidates elected, as this would create a board made up of a majority of people I trust and who I believe broadly think the way I do.

    On a personal level I'm a bit miffed that Sean Devine has stepped down, as if he hadn't stood last year I'd have been elected and I always felt his candidacy a bit suspicious. However my circumstances have changed in the last 12 months so I may well have also had to resigned this year anyway.

  5. #85

    Re: Trust AGM

    Red Bill. What you seem to be saying is that if four candidates get votes in the hundreds and the fifth candidate gets under 10 that you would still want them on the TB. If the members have shown so little enthusiasm for candidate no.5, how can this possibly be right?

  6. #86

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Russell View Post
    Red Bill. What you seem to be saying is that if four candidates get votes in the hundreds and the fifth candidate gets under 10 that you would still want them on the TB. If the members have shown so little enthusiasm for candidate no.5, how can this possibly be right?
    If Sean Devine had stood down before candidates were announced, they'd all have been elected unopposed, what's the difference. As it stands Sean Devine, could have (not suggesting he has) resigned after the announcement of candidates to deliberately prevent all five candidates being appointed. So what's worse, someone being elected with relatively few votes, or the process being open to manipulation?

  7. #87
    Alistair20000's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Trying to get into Stroudy's mind
    Posts
    20,396

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Russell View Post
    Red Bill. What you seem to be saying is that if four candidates get votes in the hundreds and the fifth candidate gets under 10 that you would still want them on the TB. If the members have shown so little enthusiasm for candidate no.5, how can this possibly be right?
    I'm with Bill on this. If candidate number 5 has secured just 1 vote from the electorate that will be 1 more than any other selected co-optee. Good enough for me assuming candidate 5 remains willing to serve.
    Last edited by Alistair20000; 09 November 2017 at 11:56.

  8. #88
    exeweb.com mod Jason H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Hounslow, Middlesex
    Posts
    30,139

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair20000 View Post
    I'm with Bill on this. If candidate number 5 has secured just 1 vote from the electorate that will be 1 more than any other selected co-optee. Good enough for me assuming candidate 5 remains willing to serve.
    This - as it happens I managed to mess up completely and ended up not voting (took the ballot paper all the way to Dorset with me in order to cast my vote at the Port Vale match then forgot to bring it on the day!), but frankly I found it extremely tough to choose four out of five and would welcome all five who stood to be appointed. They have put themselves out there and, if all are willing still to serve, should be given that opportunity.

  9. #89
    elginCity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Going into Battle
    Posts
    7,589

    Re: Trust AGM

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Bill View Post
    I think it's time for a rule change and that number of trustees on the TB should be fixed at 12.
    Why 12 ? Why not be fixed at 10 as per the Bees and Dons Trusts, why do we need the two additional Trustees ?

    Simplification of the Trust should be an overriding aim, strikes me as too unwieldy at times to be effective. Easier said than done, I know, but perhaps something to aim for.

    PS Don't sell Trust membership to the kids as 2 per month, sell it as 50p a week.

  10. #90

    Re: Trust AGM

    A clear difference of opinion then from those above, though personally I'm glad that two candidates have set out their intentions should they be no.5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •