Trust Board Election. Questions for Pete Martin

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Please comment on posts 24/25 on the Doug Gillard thread

Hi Matt!

Unconsciously and before I read your post, I gave an answer to another question (see post #16 on here) which (kind of) answers your question. If you need any more, please feel free to come back to me. For ease of reference, my comment was;

I have long thought that we do not make as good use as we could do of potential volunteering help. Those that do volunteer (and bless 'em for doing so) tend to be the same people, over and over. A campaign to attract volunteers is needed and someone to take control of it and create a skills and availability database so that people can be called on at short notice to assist in whatever their area of competence might be needed.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

I think you are confusing the 'Living Wage' with the 'National Living Wage' (easily done!) . The 'National Living Wage' was launched by George Osborne in 2015, it represents the government’s aim of raising the wages of those aged 25 and older to £9 an hour by 2020. The decreed hourly rate will change each year in April until it reaches the £9 target.

The 'Living Wage' is a voluntary code (not a statutory one) where companies can pay above the minimum wage if they choose to. The current adult rate is, iirc, £8.45 per hour. Personally, I do not think that is an excessive adult rate and would continue to support its introduction. Is it wrong to want people to earn a wage they can actually exist on? Ultimately, of course, it is a decision for the club and not the Trust and it is likely that other TB members would not support its introduction in any event, especially those who are closer to the finances and sit on the Trust's Finance and Governance Group (which I don't) and I would trust in their judgement on such matters, aside from my own stance on it.

I'm not confusing anything, Pete. There are numerous different 'not so independent' orgs which claim different living wages. The national one is already in place and perfectly comfortable to live off (I am!) To suggest you should pay people over what their role / skill / job is worth shows a considerable lack of business like mindset and I'm afraid you won't be getting my backing.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

I'm not confusing anything, Pete. There are numerous different 'not so independent' orgs which claim different living wages. The national one is already in place and perfectly comfortable to live off (I am!) To suggest you should pay people over what their role / skill / job is worth shows a considerable lack of business like mindset and I'm afraid you won't be getting my backing.

Fair enough!

 

[Matt Russell]

Hi Matt!

Unconsciously and before I read your post, I gave an answer to another question (see post #16 on here) which (kind of) answers your question. If you need any more, please feel free to come back to me. For ease of reference, my comment was;

I have long thought that we do not make as good use as we could do of potential volunteering help. Those that do volunteer (and bless 'em for doing so) tend to be the same people, over and over. A campaign to attract volunteers is needed and someone to take control of it and create a skills and availability database so that people can be called on at short notice to assist in whatever their area of competence might be needed.

I'm not sure that it does Pete.
Doug's post which I quoted mentioned two issues, neither of which your other answer touched on.
In relation to confidentiality and staying power (if I can summarise his comments so) do you share his concerns and if so how would you try to change anything? The other phrase that concerned me was level of expertise How does that sit with you?

 

[IndoMike]

I hadn't missed it Mike, but only just caught up with it. It's been night time here mate!

Whether these ideas are innovative, you will have to decide, but in terms of the non-playing side of the business, here are a few views of mine. It is not a finite list but simply some of the things that have immediately come into my head.....

• Maybe not a popular view, and I know we don't have a good track record in this area, but I would restore the post of CEO but be very diligent about who is appointed to the role. At the moment there is nobody taking an overview within the club structure, taking stock or giving best practice advice to the club board. I know the last CEO appointment was something of a failure, but that does not mean the concept is wrong. There are staff within the club working very hard and doing their best to improve things but, in many cases, it is being done in semi-isolation.

• Another controversial view of mine is that the move to parity on the club board has not, overall, had positive results. Superficially, having greater Trust representation on the board seems attractive and gives the impression that the Trust is better off as a result. It also means that Supporters Direct can hold ECFC up as a model to the rest of the supporters' trust movement as a major success. What you have though (and I mean no disrespect to any of our current Trust Board members who sit on the Club Board and work very hard with the very best of intentions) is a situation where, sometimes, well meaning people are pulled in two directions, mainly as a result of their legal and formal responsibilities as club directors. Their role is significantly more onerous than that of TB members. Additionally, they have their duties and responsibilities as trustees and the weight of their roles as club directors weighing down on them. It is incredibly time consuming and carries a hell of a lot of responsibility and stress. I have to ask, is that really a good place to be? I would personally advocate returning to what we had previously, in the days of Denise Watts and Rob Doidge, et. al. which was a club board of eight, with just two made up of Trust Board members (Trustees) as supporter representatives. If you have a competent club board made up of 6 people with particular skill sets, working within their own areas of competency reporting to the club board (and CEO - see above) and 2 people to represent the supporters' interests, my own view is that would work better and more efficiently. It would also make it easier, imo, for the TB to hold the CB to account. There is also a case for the Club Chairman to be a Trust Board member and that was actually a decision of the TB made and minuted some time ago, but not yet implemented.

• I think there ought to be a review (possibly by an outside agency) of the earning potential of the club facilities outside of matchdays. I am very much of the view that we do not use the facilities to their maximum potential, particularly in the evenings. A major review of the downstairs bar in the SJC is needed and it needs improvement in the same way that the upstairs areas have been improved. The bar is frequently like a morgue on weekday evenings and it is a big waste of a potential earner.

• I have long thought that we do not make as good use as we could do of potential volunteering help. Those that do volunteer (and bless 'em for doing so) tend to be the same people, over and over. A campaign to attract volunteers is needed and someone to take control of it and create a skills and availability database so that people can be called on at short notice to assist in whatever their area of competence might be needed.

As regards the playing (football) side, there has long been the position that the Football Manager is given an annual budget and he uses it however he sees fit. That is a long standing agreement and I think that autonomy is right. PT reports to the club board at regular intervals and, by and large, the system works (Especially this season! ) Consequently, there is very little innovative thinking that could be brought to the table because I do support that policy. I do believe it is the role of the club and Trust boards to consider specific one-off requests from the Football Manager for improvements in facilities, equipment or additional funding for players, that impinge on the ability of the team to do well. Both boards must then do a cost-benefit analysis and make a decision whether a request is met or not, depending on the need and availability of financing at that time.

Hope the above helps!

Thanks for your pretty comprehensive response to my request for any innovative ideas the candidates might have to improve the Trust, the club et al. I need some free time to digest your ideas and will reply in turn when ready. My first conclusion is that you do have ideas and that you have a serious intent to continue to improve the club and to communicate with the supporters. So keep up the good work.

 

[edindevon]

I'm not confusing anything, Pete. There are numerous different 'not so independent' orgs which claim different living wages. The national one is already in place and perfectly comfortable to live off (I am!) To suggest you should pay people over what their role / skill / job is worth shows a considerable lack of business like mindset and I'm afraid you won't be getting my backing.

Well, he'll be getting mine. It would apparently cost the club an extra £15k a year to meet the commitment to the Living Wage, which is pretty small beer in contrast to the millions we will have received from recent transfers.

 

[IndoMike]

I'm not confusing anything, Pete. There are numerous different 'not so independent' orgs which claim different living wages. The national one is already in place and perfectly comfortable to live off (I am!) To suggest you should pay people over what their role / skill / job is worth shows a considerable lack of business like mindset and I'm afraid you won't be getting my backing.

What would the difference be between the living wage and the statutory for (say) a 30- hour week? Living abroad I genuinely don't know

 

[IndoMike]

What would the difference be between the living wage and the statutory for (say) a 30- hour week? Living abroad I genuinely don't know

Oh. More or less Edin has answered my question in the meantime. I think to pay an extra 15k per annum (if correct) is not excessive or detrimental to the club and will allow the club to expect good performances from the relevant employees. Nothing worse than having disgruntled employees p*ssed off about their terms and conditions.

 

[ExeterCityLad]

What would the difference be between the living wage and the statutory for (say) a 30- hour week? Living abroad I genuinely don't know

As Edin said, 15k. Talking about it like it's pocket change

 

[ExeterCityLad]

Oh. More or less Edin has answered my question in the meantime. I think to pay an extra 15k per annum (if correct) is not excessive or detrimental to the club and will allow the club to expect good performances from the relevant employees. Nothing worse than having disgruntled employees p*ssed off about their terms and conditions.

Why would someone be p*seed off about earning the national living wage? I'm on it and my employer expects me to give good performances because I signed the contract and agreed to that wage. If someone isn't going to give a good performance then sack them and find someone who will.

I'd much rather spending 15k on a youngster per year and watch him go for a record fee a couple years later.