How does the average fan think "THE TRUST" operates?.

[Dylan]

Ha ha!

Nice one and I look forward to your reply as soon as the sausages are cooked.

 

[citydrinker]

Ha ha!

Nice one and I look forward to your reply as soon as the sausages are cooked.

T'was chicken. Sausages tomorrow at the earliest.

So wrong again Joey!.

 

[HH12]

Er.. Ted Baker is a British clothing retail company with pre-tax profits exceeding £24 million on a turnover of just shy of £197 million on results to feb 2011.

As a partner it looks good, but we don't fit their profile.

As a person, as I am sure you know, unless you really are a spaced out rabbit, he doesn't exist.

Ever thought of engaging in an intelligent discourse on here?. Or are you really as shallow as you portray?.

I think not, on both counts.

Ray Kelvin Anyone ?

 

[RaeUK]

I don't think I'd necessarily object, HH.

 

[HH12]

Me neither RAE but cant see it happening

 

[MJP_Exeter]

http://www.ecfcst.org.uk/uploads/Documents/Exeter City ST Audit final version.pdf

A supporters direct audit on the supporters trust. Says that the trust have proposals to seek Lottery funding for a specific project. Wonder what the specific project is.

 

[David Treharne]

http://www.ecfcst.org.uk/uploads/Documents/Exeter City ST Audit final version.pdf

A supporters direct audit on the supporters trust. Says that the trust have proposals to seek Lottery funding for a specific project. Wonder what the specific project is.

The audit was part of the range of motions put forward at last years AGM. Speaking to Tom Hall from SD he said that the intention was to present it at this years AGM.He also intimated that the audit had posed as many questions as it had found answers to. He also suggested that a better way forward would have been to have a whole club audit -however I doubt that that will happen given the way in which the club and trust are currently organised. SD do, of course have some sort on interest in not being too critical of the status quo.

 

[malcolms]

The audit was part of the range of motions put forward at last years AGM. Speaking to Tom Hall from SD he said that the intention was to present it at this years AGM.He also intimated that the audit had posed as many questions as it had found answers to. He also suggested that a better way forward would have been to have a whole club audit -however I doubt that that will happen given the way in which the club and trust are currently organised. SD do, of course have some sort on interest in not being too critical of the status quo.

"Some sort of interest in not being too critical of the status quo"? Surely not David

With respect, if this is not being "too critical", WTF would they have had to say if they were being honest?

 

[John William]

He also suggested that a better way forward would have been to have a whole club audit -

Is that a polite way of saying the Club management need more shareholder control?

 

[rightwing]

http://www.ecfcst.org.uk/uploads/Documents/Exeter City ST Audit final version.pdf

A supporters direct audit on the supporters trust. Says that the trust have proposals to seek Lottery funding for a specific project. Wonder what the specific project is.

Having just read this report, and as an ex chief auditor myself, I just hope that the Trust didn’t actually pay good money it. In my opinion it is as effective (although obviously produced on a lesser scale) as the Drivers Jonas Report, i.e. totally ineffective!!

Whilst versed in ‘corporate management speak,’ and which might find approval with, and impress some, the content and the recommendations are very sadly lacking.

Part of the interview process was with the Club Chairman. Now I could understand that if the Club Chairman was also the Trust Chairman, as was the system until the current ‘Independent Chairman’ was appointed. I could also understand it if the current Chairman actually fulfilled that ‘independent’ role. However, as far as I can see, the Club Chairman has a far different agenda to that that the Trust has, or should have.

The whole premise on which the report is based, is wrong. The report centres on the performance of the Trust Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan itself is very severely deficient!!!!!

The Strategic Plan doesn’t even mention ground redevelopment, and this report doesn’t even comment on that fact. Ground redevelopment, or more particularly the way that that the redevelopment is carried out, will determine whether this Club has a future. It has to be carried out in such a way that will lead to the Club standing on its own financial feet, incorporating the necessary off field income generating factors that will allow it to compete with clubs currently at our level or indeed at a higher level. Without the Trust addressing these facts the Club will not be able to survive, certainly not under Trust ownership. Ground Redevelopment is the single biggest thing to affect the Club in its entire history, and the majority shareholder doesn’t even consider giving it a single line in its ‘Strategic’ Plan? Come on?!!

The Strategic Plan actually proposes giving more to the Club. Yes, that’s right – it proposes to pore more into the fabled ‘black hole.’ What it should be addressing is finding a way for the Club to stand on its own feet, and should be reducing the annual amount paid to the ‘black hole’ and instead using members’ subs to build adequate reserves or for capital projects.

The Strategic Plan should have included specifics such as buying back the freehold of St. James’ Park. The Trust is more favourably looked upon by the City Council than the Club. The City Council values St. James’ Park as a community asset, so consequently would not therefore want it possibly falling into the hands of another R and L setup. It would however be amenable to dealing with the Trust.

As I sad before, a VFM audit on Club off field costs would have been far more effective

I am trying to address many (indeed many more) of the factors discussed above in my current redevelopment proposals. Have faith – some of us get it right!