Was Norrie Stewart

[David Treharne]

I frequently get the feeling that "the club" don't tell the BoS everything they should be. Then the BoS get the flack because it's their job to tell us. It all seems a touch animal farm to me.

I suppose it would be interesting to ask "How often?" As for this 'telling', since the BOS have mandated the Directors to run the Club, there is a two way process taking place. In any case it is possible for the BOS to 'remove' Directors that it feels may have spread mis or dis information. Otherwise they are re-elected every three years, and indeed two of them are up for re-election at the Club AGM which is taking place this morning at 10:00. In addition to that the BOS will be putting forward, at that meeting two resolutions which have been raised as a direct result of interaction with fans, both at a personal level, and through the medium of online forums.
I'll post later about the outcome of the resolutions, and also any other interesting information that may emerge. This is unlikely to be until Sunday, however, as I'm off to Tranmere tomorrow, and expect it (one way or another) to be a long day!

 

[Strongbow]

The Trust through the BoS is the major shareholder in the Club and the main Board Directors are responsible to the main shareholder, if the BoS wants answers then it can get answers. However, as answers are not being passed onto the membership of the Trust one can only assume there is some conspiracy of silence between the BoS and the main Board over matters of fundamental interest to the membership.

I fail to see that the transparency widely trumpeted by the Trust is any more evident today than it was under private ownership. In the past a few directors knew the truth and kept it to themselves and today a few directors know the truth and keep it to themselves.

I agree with that 100%. To be honest if it wasn't for the prospect of Argyle tickets next season, I would probably have given up my membership by now. The information that gets back to members is non-existent, and it seems we currently have no idea how the club is being run. At least under R&L we knew for certain it was being run badly!!!

 

[Cravat]

What about the fact that we are in League One and looking good to survive and hopefulyl push on? Is that not reason enough to stay a member?

 

[Poultice]

What about the fact that we are in League One and looking good to survive and hopefulyl push on? Is that not reason enough to stay a member?

What you think it is more important to be straight with the membership when the team is performing badly, sort of, if we can get away it because the saps are happy with a 1 all draw away to Swindon, then that is fine, thing ?

We will only be able to afford to push on if the money being generated by good performances is not being wasted on the Suitfest.

Are you absolutely certain it isn't ?

If your answer to this question was yes go look up what certain means, or send me the full version of the accounts which you obviously have access to.

The perfomances of the team and the financial position of the club are two entirely seperate yet inextricably linked issues.

 

[rightwing]

An interesting exchange of views, and from my perspective, these have given me an insight into who my friends really are; not that I'm seeking to win any popularity contest. As ******** has said "I used to ask all the right questions." Nothing much has changed in that respect except that I now ask these (sometimes very blunt) questions within the closed confines of the BOS and Club. Most of the questions I ask are on the Part 2 agenda, and, much as I'd like to, I'm prevented from publishing answers.

Being a BOS member is a very fine balancing act between between giving out too much information (and then being castigated for it - as I have been on numerous occasions) and deciding that it is in the best interests of the Club in not giving certain answers. It's one that is very difficult to resolve, and, as Egg says, has been discussed at length at BOS level. Only this last week the BOS had an additional one item agenda meeting with Ed Chorlton and Norrie Stewart aimed at reviewing how the BOS has operated to date, how it needs to evolve, what targets it needs to set etc. Certainly communication to Trust members was one of the many aspects discussed, and there is currently a working party of three Trustees preparing a document reviewing what our primary objectives ought to be for the next few years, and how these objectives will be achieved. I'm sure that this will be published in the not too distant future.

******** has to realise that he sometimes goes too far with his invective. Singlehandedly he has driven away from these boards such influential people as Tony Badcock, Roger Conway and Martin Lawrence. These are all good people who put an extraordinary amount of time into the Club, and undoubtedly have the Club's best interests at heart. Collectively we have always tried to give as much information as we can.

To answer a specific question....why does a little club need a forensic accountant? We had a chance to secure the services, free of charge, of a former Director of Finance of one of the biggest Clubs in the Country. As an ambitious Club we want to establish the very best practice. Consequently he has set up an excellent system of management accounting, with up to date monthly reports being made available to both Club and BOS. For the first time we know exactly what our financial position is at any one time and can react accordingly (eg if we want to sign an additional player etc).

On the question of turnover, the Club will always set a neutral budget (or even one showing a slight surplus). Any additional revenue that is therefore generated will invariably be directed towards enhancing the playing budget.

 

[The Stig]

Firstly, the term 'forensic accountant' is in use because Julian Tagg didn't quite know what it meant! Ask Jon Paddison directly, he admits he's nothing like a forensic accountant.

Secondly, the BOS have two representatives on the club board, in Denise Watts and Roger Conway. So if they don't know things, it is far from the clubs fault as everything the club board know, the BOS representatives do too. So, it's one of two things, in my opinion:
1) The BOS genuinely don't know, in which case I recommend they replace their representatives on the club board.
2) The BOS do know, but don't tell their members.

It can't be the clubs fault when the BOS have members on the board, so no one can accuse the club of not telling them things.

I really hope it's the former...

 

[Strongbow]

An interesting exchange of views, and from my perspective, these have given me an insight into who my friends really are; not that I'm seeking to win any popularity contest. As ******** has said "I used to ask all the right questions." Nothing much has changed in that respect except that I now ask these (sometimes very blunt) questions within the closed confines of the BOS and Club. Most of the questions I ask are on the Part 2 agenda, and, much as I'd like to, I'm prevented from publishing answers.

Is part of the problem the fact that there is no differentiation between what is in the public domain, and what is available to trust members? I appreciate that releasing info to trust members and preventing it getting into the public domain would be challenging, but I do think that members getting the answers they want through a secure and recognised channel is vital to the development of the trust.

I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I believe FCUM have some form of "members area" where there is a lot more detailed info available than to that of non-members. This is only what I have been led to believe from a couple of their fans I have spoken to, and I don't know if the same solution would be workable for our trust, but it did provide some food for thought

 

[rightwing]

Is part of the problem the fact that there is no differentiation between what is in the public domain, and what is available to trust members? I appreciate that releasing info to trust members and preventing it getting into the public domain would be challenging, but I do think that members getting the answers they want through a secure and recognised channel is vital to the development of the trust./QUOTE[

The problem is that anyone can join the Trust. They might be journalists or even officials of rival clubs. I honestly don't think that this would be workable.

 

[Red Nose]

RW - some very useful nuggets of information there (cheers). I must confess that the presence of a ‘forensic account’ was worrying for me, primarily due to the fact I have no idea what they are or what they do, but your explanation quells any concerns completely.

I appreciate that the budget is set in order to be neutral, so I guess the yardstick is the amount of money available for ‘footballing matters’?

In terms of transparency does anyone really expect the full details to be made available to all Trust members? Collectively we are the major shareholder but that doesn’t mean we are all entitled to the finer details of everything that occurs in the boardroom. Someone who has shares in Tesco, wouldn’t expect to have access to top level information. As a Trust we have an elected BOS to represent us on the board. These people do have access to the sensitive information and I guess we need to trust them to act in our best interests.

 

[Mackster]

******** has to realise that he sometimes goes too far with his invective. Singlehandedly he has driven away from these boards such influential people as Tony Badcock, Roger Conway and Martin Lawrence. These are all good people who put an extraordinary amount of time into the Club, and undoubtedly have the Club's best interests at heart. Collectively we have always tried to give as much information as we can.

I know that Tony, Roger & Martin give their time freely to the club and maybe don't get the level of appreciation their efforts deserve. However I would have hoped as elected members to the BoS that they would have more cojones than to be put off by some colourful language from the likes of Poutice.

If there is information that cannot be put in the public domain, then tell us. A "I could not possibly comment" tells us many things, whereas it seems to be perceived by many that the BoS are smug & complacent. I don't think is this necessarily the case, but it does come across that way.

It does sound like The Trust is now the club's mouthpiece rather than an independent body. For example, the comments on John Paddison just comes across as club PR spin. He may be giving his time free of charge which is appreciated, but behind the spin is an accusation that the finance department are not doing their job correctly. I mean we are talking about Exeter City here with a £3m turnover and not BP.

Rumour is that Norrie is doing a good job, he's shaking things up a bit and banging a few heads. I hope that before he leaves, he reaches the conclusion that transparency is the best way forward as this encourages us all to be continually involved in the club.