Fair comment, Hants. However, it will still take that time if we start on Tuesday, or next week, or whenever. Therefore it makes sense to start now, unless you have ways to apply direct pressure to the club board more immediately? If you do, count me in!
-
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here
Special General Meeting
- Thread starter milts
- Start date
Mid Devon Grecian
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,389
I posted the waffle below re a SGM on the Yanic thread just now. Not sure if it would work? The elephant in the room is that Club Board has Trust Board members on it. We might be snookered?
“Gross incompetence at club board level, demonstrated by not dealing with the obvious underperforming management team, threatens the financial security and excellent progress of the club we collectively own.
There is no evidence that the current run of extremely poor results is about to turn, despite a near fully fit squad.
Responsibility for this dire situation lies with the incumbent management team who recruited and train the squad.
Excuses are the same week in week out, “we must be better”, “we need to work on the training pitch”, “the manager can’t put the ball in the net”.
The Club Board must be held to account and as Trust members and part owners of this football club we call on you to urge the Club Board to terminate the management team’s contracts with immediate effect.”
“Gross incompetence at club board level, demonstrated by not dealing with the obvious underperforming management team, threatens the financial security and excellent progress of the club we collectively own.
There is no evidence that the current run of extremely poor results is about to turn, despite a near fully fit squad.
Responsibility for this dire situation lies with the incumbent management team who recruited and train the squad.
Excuses are the same week in week out, “we must be better”, “we need to work on the training pitch”, “the manager can’t put the ball in the net”.
The Club Board must be held to account and as Trust members and part owners of this football club we call on you to urge the Club Board to terminate the management team’s contracts with immediate effect.”
Is there anyone that’s willing to take a lead on this? I don’t feel I have the expertise to lead but happy to help in anyway I can.
I think this is an excellent idea and a clear-out would be welcome. As mentioned below I am not sure the Trust Board could be trusted to find the right replacement directors but we have to start somewhere
The folks who got the vote through to end Tisdale's rolling contract maybe?
Grecian in Guzz
Well-known Exeweb poster
I think Gary Edward Nelson came up with the simple but effective suggestion (sorry GEN can't find post) to have a book for all Trust Members supporting a proposal to sign in the FECRACE but, just like the club attempting to stop the peaceful Grecian volunteers holding "GC Out" poster holders at the Shrews game, I wonder if this idea would be banned ?
Up The Democratic City
Gilbert
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2020
- Messages
- 99
O for goodness sake... surely a Trust resolution is NOT required. Open communication with supporters in a fan owned club must be one of the least of the benefits of ownership. The current situation therefore goes beyond whether Mr. Caldwell should be sacked or not and to the heart of whether those who run the club answer to those who own it or not.
For the avoidance of doubt although I have my own thoughts and feelings, I am not 100% certain where I yet stand on the matter - largely because I have only heard and noted the thoughts and feelings of the Caldwell dissenters (which to be honest, are not at all difficult to understand, and I am certain that every true supporter from the terraces to the boardroom can appreciate the strength of thought and feeling pervading through the many posts on several of the threads on this website). However, as a stakeholder in this fan owned club I would like, no, would almost dare to say demand, an explanation from those WE have appointed to run OUR club on OUR behalf in regard to why they remain sufficiently confident in the manager and his process not to take any action as yet. Perhaps they think they have good reason for doings so. Then, when I have heard what they have to say, I will decide whether I agree with their judgement or not.
HOWEVER, should those who run the club refuse to do those who own it the common courtesy of answering the genuine concerns of true and loyal supporters, many of whom gave selflessly, who fought and worked so very hard to save the club we all proport to love, then I will hold the Trust Board fully to account and insist upon knowing why it is not demanding answers to difficult questions from the Club board. Should the Trust Board, understanding the strength of feeling of Trust membership, fail to gain satisfactory answers from the Club Board and communicate them to the concerned membership, then they have to go. As I wrote toward the beginning of this post, open communication with supporters in a fan owned club must be one of the least of the benefits of ownership.
In some respects this rather large bump in the road, painful as it is, is an excellent learning opportunity for the refining of the Trust ownership model and for ensuring the future, better running of the club. I sincerely hope so, because I have been banging this drum since the earliest days of Trust ownership (which I am and have always been fully in favour of), even when things were seemingly going well and it appeared both an unnecessary and unpopular view but the tail must not be allowed to wag the dog, something Mr. Tagg, with the blessing of successive Trust boards, has been allowed to do for the longest time.
WE OWN OUR CLUB - LET'S LEARN TO RUN IT PROPERLY!!!
For the avoidance of doubt although I have my own thoughts and feelings, I am not 100% certain where I yet stand on the matter - largely because I have only heard and noted the thoughts and feelings of the Caldwell dissenters (which to be honest, are not at all difficult to understand, and I am certain that every true supporter from the terraces to the boardroom can appreciate the strength of thought and feeling pervading through the many posts on several of the threads on this website). However, as a stakeholder in this fan owned club I would like, no, would almost dare to say demand, an explanation from those WE have appointed to run OUR club on OUR behalf in regard to why they remain sufficiently confident in the manager and his process not to take any action as yet. Perhaps they think they have good reason for doings so. Then, when I have heard what they have to say, I will decide whether I agree with their judgement or not.
HOWEVER, should those who run the club refuse to do those who own it the common courtesy of answering the genuine concerns of true and loyal supporters, many of whom gave selflessly, who fought and worked so very hard to save the club we all proport to love, then I will hold the Trust Board fully to account and insist upon knowing why it is not demanding answers to difficult questions from the Club board. Should the Trust Board, understanding the strength of feeling of Trust membership, fail to gain satisfactory answers from the Club Board and communicate them to the concerned membership, then they have to go. As I wrote toward the beginning of this post, open communication with supporters in a fan owned club must be one of the least of the benefits of ownership.
In some respects this rather large bump in the road, painful as it is, is an excellent learning opportunity for the refining of the Trust ownership model and for ensuring the future, better running of the club. I sincerely hope so, because I have been banging this drum since the earliest days of Trust ownership (which I am and have always been fully in favour of), even when things were seemingly going well and it appeared both an unnecessary and unpopular view but the tail must not be allowed to wag the dog, something Mr. Tagg, with the blessing of successive Trust boards, has been allowed to do for the longest time.
WE OWN OUR CLUB - LET'S LEARN TO RUN IT PROPERLY!!!
Grecian Max
Very well known Exeweb poster
Gilbert is bang on, the club is a shambles and are proving they can’t make competitive sport decisions
Egg
Well-known Exeweb poster
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 9,708
Fred is right. This would be a nuclear option which would carry a significant risk of leaving us in a much worse position than we are already.
yticretexe
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
- Messages
- 611
The entire club structure is broken for when things aren’t going well.
The trust celebrates having its board members sit on the club board as opportunity for supporters to have a voice but it ultimately leads to a lack of independence when sh1t hits the fan and the TB need to hold the CB to account.
This is then compounded by sharing a chair across both boards in NH (who was reappointed as TB chair without challenge or question).
We’re effectively asking trustees to challenge the performance of their fellow trustees and, probably, friends. Who on our current trust board outside the 4 club board members is going to raise their hand and say this isn’t good enough risking their own position and relationships within the board? Seems no one. And who can blame them?
Too much self interest and far too much familiarity.
This is a separate point to our current managerial issue but it does feel like the CTA should specify separate chairs and the trust chair should not sit on the club board. NH is hugely conflicted currently and it puts the rest of the TB in a difficult and uncomfortable position.
I also think trust appointed directors should mix trust board with non trust board members. For the trust board to effectively represent the members their independence needs to be maintained.
It’s fine in good times and the trust board can pat each other on the back but it puts us at huge risk when strong leadership and challenge is required.
The trust celebrates having its board members sit on the club board as opportunity for supporters to have a voice but it ultimately leads to a lack of independence when sh1t hits the fan and the TB need to hold the CB to account.
This is then compounded by sharing a chair across both boards in NH (who was reappointed as TB chair without challenge or question).
We’re effectively asking trustees to challenge the performance of their fellow trustees and, probably, friends. Who on our current trust board outside the 4 club board members is going to raise their hand and say this isn’t good enough risking their own position and relationships within the board? Seems no one. And who can blame them?
Too much self interest and far too much familiarity.
This is a separate point to our current managerial issue but it does feel like the CTA should specify separate chairs and the trust chair should not sit on the club board. NH is hugely conflicted currently and it puts the rest of the TB in a difficult and uncomfortable position.
I also think trust appointed directors should mix trust board with non trust board members. For the trust board to effectively represent the members their independence needs to be maintained.
It’s fine in good times and the trust board can pat each other on the back but it puts us at huge risk when strong leadership and challenge is required.
Last edited: