Why is the Supporters Trust Silent?

[ex_user1234]

Which they are perfectly entitled to do, to coin a phrase, and it would seem a good way of engaging with fans / trust members on issues and driving traffic to the Trust site, maybe even for some commercial benefit. I'd be more concerned if they weren't thinking of it.

Think you exaggerate the 'defending at all costs' feeling. I't the insinuation we have all been brainwashed and are incapable of independent thought or opinion that grates.

One final point. Earlier in this thread you said (and I paraphrase) how invisible Nick Hawker was and most fans wouldn't know him from Adam. Last night you were comparing him to President Xi. Which is it?

I didn't compare him to President Xi. I posted a video of the CCP humming along to "Internationale" in response to Reasoncratz's amusing post on the same topic.

 

[geoffwp]

I spent a little time posting on Exeweb a few years ago when it was fairly evident that the club was being run poorly and the Trust was doing very little to improve matters. Dim people were making poor decisions and appointing inadequate senior staff with the inevitable results. Being insolvent can’t have been far away. My view was that much more was possible, on and off the field, if the culture could change and there was a new regime.

Since then, there has been change and I have no idea whether the postings on Exeweb had any influence at all. Often, a crisis will trigger change on its own. Either way, it would appear that things are much better now, in part because some player sales brought in some cash, but also because there is a better set-up involving far more experienced business people (who seemingly adopt a more sophisticated approach than closing their eyes when the financial position gets a bit tricky).

Mind you, there is always room for improvement but the motivation for those improvements must come from the employees who are paid to work each and every week: their skills are far more important that those who volunteer on the Trust Board. Most businesses provide some means to compensate senior staff to deliver better performance and I would have hoped that the club would have made some progress in this area. Paying somebody a lot of money is no bad thing if they generate more.

Of course, there might still be issues so the Trust, as majority shareholder, must have an ability to hold the senior club management to account or, at the very least, represent the possibility that the club executives cannot do whatever they please. The 4/4 board split probably achieves this whilst a shareholder vote provides the ultimate sanction. In my view, berating the Trust board for not being sufficiently commercial is a little harsh and aiming at the wrong target. By all means expect the Trust board to expect more of the club’s management but only if you can identify real issues that are worthy of change. Just saying something isn’t good enough isn’t likely to achieve very much.

The Trust board might be able to do more to raise membership and Trust income - surely their primary task? - but that is quite different from asking them to do more to run the club.

How's the cat?

 

[Edward]

How's the cat?

Dead.

Chester the dog is better.

 

[geoffwp]

Dead.

Chester the dog is better.

Oh, shame about the cat. It's Chesters well the dog is ok then.

 

[iscalad]

It’s only trust members that are important to the club.

Yay...go me....

 

[Matt Phillips]

Pretty much. The legitimacy of the Trust, after all, is based on the number of Trust members. Completely self-serving, but from a realpolitik point of view it makes sense. If you're the Trust.

The legitimacy of the Trust is based on the work done by everyone involved in it, particularly those who were there to save the Club when we were going to fold. The number of members could fall to 500 and it would still be legitimate, there would just be less money flowing through.

What I still struggle to understand though is, when you stood for election, was your aim to bring the Trust down from inside, or did you really think you could reform it? You said you attended enough Trust Board meetings to know it wasn't a good fit, but the meetings you attended were before you stood, so why stand in the first place?

It's perfectly acceptable to criticise the Trust, no-one person or body can be immune from that - and they're will have definitely made mistakes - but all you're doing is trying to undermine it with cheap shots which, as much as you don't want it to come across that way, simply looks bitter.

Come up with a plan for how to do things differently, or how to reform the Trust, and people might start taking your posts more seriously.

 

[Anonymous]

Football clubs are for the community not for profit.

Sure, continuous improvement initiatives and enhanced revenue generation are important but that shouldn't undermine the goal of the club which is to be run as a sustainable community focused organisation.

If you think that makes me a communist then dosvidanya komrade.

 

[lamrobhero]

I assume Ed only wen to the 'open' part of the Trust Board meetings.

 

[DB9]

Football clubs are for the community not for profit.

I'm sure there are at least 20 Chairmen/Owners who'll disagree with that. If it were the case that football clubs are for the community we wouldn't be having this long drawn out plan to try and get football started because of the money involved, If it were for the good of the community then some would say for the good of that community they would stay closed until safe so that all the community can watch and enjoy it live and sod the money.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sure there are at least 20 Chairmen/Owners who'll disagree with that.

And if you asked Russel and Lewis "are you guilty of fraud?" they would have said "No m'lud, innocent as the day we was born."