Trust AGM 2013

[rightwing]

I hope you will be attending the AGM to raise these issues Adrian, particularly as you will have a chance to question Mr Chorlton as well as the Trust Board.

Very unlikely Alistair. I have just sold our house and we are earnestly searching for a replacement in Plymouth at the moment.

 

[Alistair20000]

Very unlikely Alistair. I have just sold our house and we are earnestly searching for a replacement in Plymouth at the moment.

< Recoils in horror >

Shame you are not making the scene Adrian.

 

[rightwing]

RW's response seems a bit harsh, to me - the document doesn't set out to be a strategic review and neither should it. It's for the Trust - us - to decide the level of strategic priority attached to the stadium redevelopment, not for an audit of progress against stated strategic aims.

Tim, in my opinion the development of the stadium should have been the principal aim of the strategic plan rather than being ignored completely. As a former auditor myself, and one who always looked outside the box, I would certainly have pointed out its omission had I been conducting the review.

 

[Tim_H]

I understand what you mean, and a mention of that omission would probably have improved the report, but as I understand it the point of the report was to assess the Trust's progress against its stated strategic aims, not a review of those objectives.

As such, yes the stadium could have merited a line in the recommendations, but I can't see that its absence makes the document "pathetic", particularly when everyone who reads the report is aware of the importance of the issue.

I don't speak from a postition of ignorance regarding audits either, for what it's worth.

 

[Alistair20000]

Also a pity that the link to the Trust Chairman's report appears to be broken and no other papers available yet. IIRC they were all posted as a package 10 days before last year's meeting.

Laurence's report is now up on the Trust website. Club Chairman's report not yet up.

 

[Alistair20000]

2 motions to be discussed that appear to be worthy of support


and

I have huge sympathy with the second motion as I have been pressing for more financial disclosure for some time now. However, I am not sure I can support it as it is framed. It is unfortunately IMHO flawed:

Firstly, there is no need to compel the Club Board to publish the "unabridged accounts" which I assume means the full accounts from which the abbreviated set is extracted. As the Trust is a shareholder it should receive a copy of the full accounts and is therefore in a position to put them up on the Trust website. Wrong target; no need to fire bullets at the Club on this one.

Secondly, we should not offer to pay the Club for providing financial information. We are entitled to it as controlling shareholder as part of the job of scrutinising the Club, holding the Directors to account and protecting our investment.

It would indeed be useful to have a synopsis of the main turnover and cost figures as the full accounts will not tell the reader a great deal about how the different business sectors of the Club are performing. This information can be extracted simply and at negligible time cost if the Club keeps reasonable management accounts; which we are assured is the case.

 

[rightwing]

I understand what you mean, and a mention of that omission would probably have improved the report, but as I understand it the point of the report was to assess the Trust's progress against its stated strategic aims, not a review of those objectives.

As such, yes the stadium could have merited a line in the recommendations, but I can't see that its absence makes the document "pathetic", particularly when everyone who reads the report is aware of the importance of the issue.

I don't speak from a postition of ignorance regarding audits either, for what it's worth.

I'm saying it's pathetic because the guy had nothing substantive to audit. Supporters Direct are well aware of our situation with regard to our possible redevelopment of the ground and how that should have been a major strategic aim. If you're not auditing the meat in the sandwich, why audit the bread?

 

[Alistair20000]

Adrian: any particular questions (short bullet points) you think we should ask of

(a) Ed Chorlton

(b) The Trust Board

on the redevelopment front ?

Happy to raise them on your behalf on Saturday.

 

[PeteUSA]

Adrian: any particular questions (short bullet points) you think we should ask of

(a) Ed Chorlton

(b) The Trust Board

on the redevelopment front ?

Happy to raise them on your behalf on Saturday.

You think Ed Chorlton will show up?

 

[Alistair20000]

You think Ed Chorlton will show up?

We are advised he is making the scene Pete.