In Praise Of The Club`s Owners.

[Terryhall]

I hope those who were voted onto the Trust board on an Anti-Tisdale ticket have their plans ready for him leaving. I look forward to hearing from them as soon as Tisdale leaving is announced.

I seem to recall there being 4 candidates who stood for election 2 years ago with a manifesto that included pressing for increased oversight of the club board by the trust board, and improving the corporate governance and accountability at the club.

I don't remember anyone having anything to say that was "Anti-Tisdale".

Equally only 2 of those candidates got elected which (being one of the ones not elected) I took as being a sign that the wider Trust membership in any case didn't agree with the manifesto that I (and others) put forward in that campaign.

 

[LDNGrecian]

I don't remember anyone having anything to say that was "Anti-Tisdale".

Equally only 2 of those candidates got elected which (being one of the ones not elected) I took as being a sign that the wider Trust membership in any case didn't agree with the manifesto that I (and others) put forward in that campaign.

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.

 

[Antony Moxey]

Personally I feel totally the opposite. When are The Trust going to wake up and realise they are running a business that needs investment if it is to make the next step? When are they going to realise that they are not running a village fete and produce the sort of funds that are going to need to invest properly in this business? What are they going to do now they haven't got three men bank rolling the running costs by doing a very good job in setting up, running and raising the crops that come from the academy? How do they plan to backfill that gap if the next manager doesn't turn out to be as good as the current manager? If you're going to run a business it's going to need investment, especially one in a sporting arena. You, The Trust, are the majority owners. That investment is on you. When are you going to step and take responsibility for getting that investment in properly? You did a good job when the original crisis was on after Russell and Lewis but after the first couple of years you have slowly stagnated and have become reliant on the successes of selling players for money that most of us would never have dreamt of not very long. Wake yourselves up because if you get the next appointment wrong and he can't match the current management teams success in the transfer market, we could see our club disappearing into a financial oblivion.

The Trust aren’t running a business, the club are. If the club wants further investment it needs to raise it through improved sponsorship and commercial deals, not running to daddy every five minutes complaining its pocket money has run out. Nowhere else on the planet is a business owner continually expected to prop up its business because it can’t generate enough profits or raise capital itself. I’m sure Julian Tagg isn’t continually putting cash into his existing ventures, I wonder why it’s expected that the Trust should for ECFC.

 

[Antony Moxey]

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.

That doesn’t make them anti-Tisdale. Aside from sticking his foot in it every time he opens his gob these days I’d prefer him to stay, but on a contract that’s beneficial to both parties. I believe that to be fixed term with defined goals and targets and rewards commensurate with achieving those goals and targets.

Since apparently thinking it was now all of a sudden about results, rather than that being a mere aside to be a football manager, on being served notice things have improved dramatically on the pitch. For that I believe he should be rewarded with a contract appropriate for those achievements rather than just plod along with 40+ home defeats in five years that don’t matter because I’ve got the tea lady’s contract to sort out.

That’s not being anti Tisdale.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

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.

I am pleased that you are a Trust Member, I cannot fathom why anyone who considers themselves a die hard City fan wouldn't want to be. However as such you will have received copies of every candidates manifesto, to aid your choice when voting.

There were several candidates who stood openly under a reform ticket. This was an entirely separate issue to the motion with regard to Tisdale's contract. Whoever was elected to and serving on the Trust Board at the time were bound by the AGM mandate to follow it through, there was simply no other option.

 

[squiz]

The trust are the owners of the football club & therefore bear the full responsibility for running it through an appointed board. This is the issue with our current situation the trust needs to take on the role of owner.the owner is ultimately responsible for the running of the club lock.stock & barrel. You can’t separate the trust from the football club. The reason I pay into the trust is to give it the independent finances to run the club, to be able to have full oversight of everything. If needs be it should appoint an independent chairman to run the club that reports back to the trust on the targets they have been set. We need to get over this amateur trust idea & progress the club into a modern football club.

 

[John William]

The trust are the owners of the football club & therefore bear the full responsibility for running it through an appointed board. This is the issue with our current situation the trust needs to take on the role of owner.the owner is ultimately responsible for the running of the club lock.stock & barrel. You can’t separate the trust from the football club. The reason I pay into the trust is to give it the independent finances to run the club, to be able to have full oversight of everything. If needs be it should appoint an independent chairman to run the club that reports back to the trust on the targets they have been set. We need to get over this amateur trust idea & progress the club into a modern football club.

That's not correct. Exeter City AFC are a limited company and the Board of Directors, not the Trust, are responsible in company law for running the company. The Trust is the majority but not the only shareholder.

Like any other majority owner, the Trust's only backstop power as a body if they are unhappy is to call an EGM of the Company, vote its shareholding against the Directors and replace them with others.

However, in practice the Trust Board appoints four of its number to the Company Board (=Club Board) so does have strong input. It could if it felt strongly enough about this, or the membership voted for it at an AGM, insist that the Trust appoint the Chair of the Club.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

The trust are the owners of the football club & therefore bear the full responsibility for running it through an appointed board. This is the issue with our current situation the trust needs to take on the role of owner.the owner is ultimately responsible for the running of the club lock.stock & barrel. You can’t separate the trust from the football club. The reason I pay into the trust is to give it the independent finances to run the club, to be able to have full oversight of everything. If needs be it should appoint an independent chairman to run the club that reports back to the trust on the targets they have been set. We need to get over this amateur trust idea & progress the club into a modern football club.

Curious that you should say that. AFC Wimbledon's (club) board of directors is entirely different and separate to the board of the Don's Trust which owns 90% of the club's shares. How do you square that?

 

[PeteUSA]

That's not correct. Exeter City AFC are a limited company and the Board of Directors, not the Trust, are responsible in company law for running the company. The Trust is the majority but not the only shareholder.

Like any other majority owner, the Trust's only backstop power as a body if they are unhappy is to call an EGM of the Company, vote its shareholding against the Directors and replace them with others.

However, in practice the Trust Board appoints four of its number to the Company Board (=Club Board) so does have strong input. It could if it felt strongly enough about this, or the membership voted for it at an AGM, insist that the Trust appoint the Chair of the Club.

John, off the back of that explanation, what would be the sequence of events required to serve Tagg his walking papers; Just out of interest.

 

[grecIAN Harris]

The Trust aren’t running a business, the club are. If the club wants further investment it needs to raise it through improved sponsorship and commercial deals, not running to daddy every five minutes complaining its pocket money has run out. Nowhere else on the planet is a business owner continually expected to prop up its business because it can’t generate enough profits or raise capital itself. I’m sure Julian Tagg isn’t continually putting cash into his existing ventures, I wonder why it’s expected that the Trust should for ECFC.

There's a difference between propping it up and investing in it for a improved product. If you want an improved product it's going to cost money. Much as it might seem like it at the moment, Ethan Ampadus and Ollie Watkins don't grow on trees.
Also, if The Trust have nothing to do with running the club then why was it The Trust who forced through the termination of Tis's contract. Surely that should have been left to the club board to decide under your guide. There should have been no need for any vote from The Trust membership. The Trust cannot have their cake and eat it.