Message to Both Boards.......

[Egg]

This is not true and it is unfortunate that it is being presented as fact. I have taken a look through the Articles, and the Governance Manual and Club/Trust Agreement which are annexed into the Articles.

A worrying picture emerges.

It is hard to believe but the President of the Club (Taggy) does not have a vote as his presence on the board is as an Executive Director of the club and they are not entitled to a vote (per the definition of Executive Director in the Governance Manual).

Hawker doesn't have a vote either as he is the Chair of the Board and Article 12.5 states he is non-voting unless 75% of the remaining voting directors permit him to vote.

Tipper, the CEO, was removed from the Board in September but wouldn't have had a vote anyway as he would have been classified as an Executive Director.

There are seven voting members of the Board if they are following the Articiles. The three Trust-appointed directors - Beer, Chudley and Harrison - and the three Independent directors - Hart, Bawden and Rothwell - who are presumably serving as the three directors who can be appointed per 2.5.1 of the Governance Manual. Tagg and McQueenie must be the two Associate Directors permitted to be appointed by the club per the CTA.

I have no idea how you can run a club where the three key people - the President, the Chairman and the CEO - have no legal entitlement to vote on anything with only Hawker having the possibility but only if the rest of the board agree.

Thanks for the clarification Edward. But FBH and I were correct in thinking that non-executive directors are normally entitled to vote and that the set-up of the club board is a little unusual, yeah?!

 

[fred binneys head]

I was speaking generally, not the unusual set up at ECFC. Seems bizarre.

 

[Egg]

This is not true and it is unfortunate that it is being presented as fact. I have taken a look through the Articles, and the Governance Manual and Club/Trust Agreement which are annexed into the Articles.

A worrying picture emerges.

It is hard to believe but the President of the Club (Taggy) does not have a vote as his presence on the board is as an Executive Director of the club and they are not entitled to a vote (per the definition of Executive Director in the Governance Manual).

Hawker doesn't have a vote either as he is the Chair of the Board and Article 12.5 states he is non-voting unless 75% of the remaining voting directors permit him to vote.

Tipper, the CEO, was removed from the Board in September but wouldn't have had a vote anyway as he would have been classified as an Executive Director.

There are seven voting members of the Board if they are following the Articiles. The three Trust-appointed directors - Beer, Chudley and Harrison - and the three Independent directors - Hart, Bawden and Rothwell - who are presumably serving as the three directors who can be appointed per 2.5.1 of the Governance Manual. Tagg and McQueenie must be the two Associate Directors permitted to be appointed by the club per the CTA.

I have no idea how you can run a club where the three key people - the President, the Chairman and the CEO - have no legal entitlement to vote on anything with only Hawker having the possibility but only if the rest of the board agree.

You‘ve referred to Taggy as an executive director, but I think you mean non-exec.

 

[Bat Fastard]

Quite. Unless the Companies House website is incorrect [which is unlikely], Taggy remains a director, and will, therefore, get a vote.

And Al wonders why I asked him to elaborate on his suggestion the players might want GC gone!

And he did so, no need to come across so smug chap

 

[ExmouthMart]

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.

So who in your opinion has the necessary skill set on the present club board to be able to run a League One Football Club?! I see financial advisors, marketing and recruitment people and someone who has run several online businesses. That sounds like someone who sells stuff on eBay! Theres also the dreaded property developers…… Doesn’t really strike you as outstanding candidates for running a football club does it. Looks good on LinkedIn and networking for the next step up in your career.
As an aside I wonder how many of them in different circumstances would be prepared to put their own money into the club?! As far as I know only one of the current board of various directors has ever put any money in to the club and that was an associated company and has since had that money repaid, although he remains a director of this company. That’s what I find so disrespectful of the late Ivor Doble and the way he’s being quietly forgotten about. He actually was a local businessman who put his own money into the club and it seems just too easy to blame him for the past. At the end of the day he was like most of us a City fan till the end and that’s what I don’t like about the present set up. You only need some vague connection to the club and your on the board and then helping out as the CEO. I’m sorry but the trust always comes across as well meaning laymen who leave the serious business to the experts and then assume everything is fine because they know what they are doing. If you don’t challenge the leaders regularly they assume you agree with everything and make decisions that might in the long term backfire spectacularly, like for example giving a manager a long term contract and giving the impression that it’s a free hand to swim against the tide of popular opinion when you keep on losing but the cavalry will be arriving in January so bear with it…… also worth remembering that a previous manager said January is a notorious time to sign players because other clubs know you are desperate so you will pay accordingly and you end up wondering why you didn’t sign anyone preseason after selling your main striker for a hefty profit. Remember we employ someone to identify potential signings and who I now believe is rather grandly the director of football. Another internal appointment and rightly or wrongly it appears jobs for the boys……

 

[Edward]

This is not true and it is unfortunate that it is being presented as fact. I have taken a look through the Articles, and the Governance Manual and Club/Trust Agreement which are annexed into the Articles.

A worrying picture emerges.

It is hard to believe but the President of the Club (Taggy) does not have a vote as his presence on the board is as an Executive Director of the club and they are not entitled to a vote (per the definition of Executive Director in the Governance Manual).

Hawker doesn't have a vote either as he is the Chair of the Board and Article 12.5 states he is non-voting unless 75% of the remaining voting directors permit him to vote.

Tipper, the CEO, was removed from the Board in September but wouldn't have had a vote anyway as he would have been classified as an Executive Director.

There are seven voting members of the Board if they are following the Articiles. The three Trust-appointed directors - Beer, Chudley and Harrison - and the three Independent directors - Hart, Bawden and Rothwell - who are presumably serving as the three directors who can be appointed per 2.5.1 of the Governance Manual. Tagg and McQueenie must be the two Associate Directors permitted to be appointed by the club per the CTA.

I have no idea how you can run a club where the three key people - the President, the Chairman and the CEO - have no legal entitlement to vote on anything with only Hawker having the possibility but only if the rest of the board agree.

You‘ve referred to Taggy as an executive director, but I think you mean non-exec.

I agree it is bizarre. It is also staggeringly stupid and unworkable. The role of Club President is specifically mentioned in the Governance Manual and is regarded as an Executive Director which makes sense given he is full-time. It is made clear that no executive director on the board has a vote. I am not sure why you think he would be a non-exec given the amount of time he spends at the club.

 

[Egg]

A

You‘ve referred to Taggy as an executive director, but I think you mean non-exec.

Also, the programme lists Stephen Chudley as an associate director, so if the other associate director, Sue McQueenie, isn’t entitled to vote then wouldn’t It be the same for him?!

 

[Egg]

I agree it is bizarre. It is also staggeringly stupid and unworkable. The role of Club President is specifically mentioned in the Governance Manual and is regarded as an Executive Director which makes sense given he is full-time. It is made clear that no executive director on the board has a vote. I am not sure why you think he would be a non-exec given the amount of time he spends at the club.

My bad. It was suggested on this thread that Taggy was a non-executive director, hence why he was unable to vote.

Confused of Countess Wear

 

[Edward]

Thanks for the clarification Edward. But FBH and I were correct in thinking that non-executive directors are normally entitled to vote and that the set-up of the club board is a little unusual, yeah?!

The over-arching role of a non-exec director is to challenge the executive. This is a little tricky in ECFC's case because the only executive who actually sits on the board is Tagg (as non-voting President) although I am sure the CEO and some of the senior managers attend from time-to-time. Frankly, it is absurd (in my view) that a) the CEO and Finance Director are not on the board and b) any executive director is denied a vote.

 

[Edward]

A

Also, the programme lists Stephen Chudley as an associate director, so if the other associate director, Sue McQueenie, isn’t entitled to vote then wouldn’t It be the same for him?!

Chudley is there as a Trust-appointed Director and has a vote along with Harrison and Beer. Hart, Bawden and Rothwell are the other directors who have a vote.