Why is the Supporters Trust Silent?

[budegrecian]

It's a fair point. The problem with giving lots of specific examples is we are on a public forum and I don't want to betray confidences or humiliate people. You must understand that. I will give you one specific example where I felt the Trust put their own personal, philosophical views ahead of what was best for the Club. It was a sponsorship deal that the Club's commercial team had put together for a betting company to sponsor a relatively minor part of the Exeter City kit. The commercial team were super chuffed with the deal as it brought in a decent amount of revenue for the Club, and the branding wasn't in-your-face as it was down the side of the shorts if I remember correctly. Hardly noticeable in fact. Anyway, I was at the Trust meeting where the deal was discussed and subsequently shot down. I was the only person who publicly objected to the decision to scrap the deal and got a lot of dirty looks for doing so. What it came down to was the Trust's personal belief system that betting is evil. Even though betting is legal. Even though half of City fans probably bet on football. Even though every other football club in the land works with betting companies in some capacity. Even though we have Skybet plastered all over the ground and website already. I also pointed out in the meeting that there are far more deaths from alcoholism than problem gambling in this country, so why do we allow sponsorship from Thatchers? No answer. I asked why the Trust were imposing their own personal, philosophical beliefs onto the Club and therefore the fans of Exeter. No answer. At one point the Head of Commercial at the Club was mentioned by an influential Trustee. What happened next staggered me. He was referred to as "just a salesman", with the implication being that he couldn't be trusted. This is a guy who works his ass off for the Club, who is in a senior position bringing in much-needed revenue for the Club, and yet he's viewed almost with contempt by some at the Trust. It was at that point I knew something was badly wrong and I decided to run for election to try and reform the Trust.

Ed, Thank you for giving a specific example. It's an interesting one; personally, the gambling issue, & the problems many people get themselves into, concerns me, but as you quite rightly state it is legal & at least worthy of debate. Whilst I wouldn't want a gambling Co. as our main shirt sponsor, if it benefited the club to have a small bit of branding on the shorts I could be persuaded. (Hypocritical tho' that might be). There is no right or wrong answer to this, but, as a principle, it should at least be fully debated by the Trust Board & even put out to the wider Trust membership to gain an understanding of what the membership thinks is acceptable & create some general guidelines.
I understand your desire not to break confidences & humiliate people & would support this. However, if I understand you correctly, you attended the open part of Trust meetings, (Part A) which any Trust members can attend, so I would not see disclosing details as breaking any confidences. Likewise, anyone who stands & is ultimately elected to the Trust Board must surely expect the the challenging of ideas & proposals; (we should all take the 'critical friend' role) it goes with the territory & is absolutely necessary in a democratic organisation, so I don't think you disagreeing with a Trust Board members' view or decisions made is humiliating them.
Personally, I'd welcome more examples of where you believe the Trust or Club Board got it wrong. I'm sure I'd agree with you on some but agree with the Trust/Club Board on others, but it would engender proper debate about the direction the Trust could take & allow ordinary members, like myself, to have a better view of what potential candidates wanted to achieve & is far more constructive than voicing very generalised concerns & innuendos.

 

[DB9]

Ed, Thank you for giving a specific example. It's an interesting one; personally, the gambling issue, & the problems many people get themselves into, concerns me, but as you quite rightly state it is legal & at least worthy of debate. Whilst I wouldn't want a gambling Co. as our main shirt sponsor, if it benefited the club to have a small bit of branding on the shorts I could be persuaded. (Hypocritical tho' that might be). There is no right or wrong answer to this, but, as a principle, it should at least be fully debated by the Trust Board & even put out to the wider Trust membership to gain an understanding of what the membership thinks is acceptable & create some general guidelines.
I understand your desire not to break confidences & humiliate people & would support this. However, if I understand you correctly, you attended the open part of Trust meetings, (Part A) which any Trust members can attend, so I would not see disclosing details as breaking any confidences. Likewise, anyone who stands & is ultimately elected to the Trust Board must surely expect the the challenging of ideas & proposals; (we should all take the 'critical friend' role) it goes with the territory & is absolutely necessary in a democratic organisation, so I don't think you disagreeing with a Trust Board members' view or decisions made is humiliating them.
Personally, I'd welcome more examples of where you believe the Trust or Club Board got it wrong. I'm sure I'd agree with you on some but agree with the Trust/Club Board on others, but it would engender proper debate about the direction the Trust could take & allow ordinary members, like myself, to have a better view of what potential candidates wanted to achieve & is far more constructive than voicing very generalised concerns & innuendos.

I know I'm going into specifics here but the idea of that Sponorship with the betting club on the kit, Were we in the "Skybet" era where Skybet is plastered everywhere from the ground to the matchday programme or was it beforehand? There's very little point in trying to take the moral high ground when a lot of our income comes from a betting company (Via the EFL).

 

[ex_user1234]

I know I'm going into specifics here but the idea of that Sponorship with the betting club on the kit, Were we in the "Skybet" era where Skybet is plastered everywhere from the ground to the matchday programme or was it beforehand? There's very little point in trying to take the moral high ground when a lot of our income comes from a betting company (Via the EFL).

It was last year.

 

[DB9]

It was last year.

So it was a pointless thing to do to complain about that potential income and it was lost? When all around has Skybet plastered on it

 

[i8cornwall]

It was last year.

The club And Thatchers was also looking into increasing There advertising on the big bank around this time as well, I only bring this up as Ed used thatchers as an example in his earlier post.

ive no idea why this didn’t or hasn’t happened though so not suggesting it was anything in the same context as the betting company example nor imagine it would be.

 

[Alistair20000]

Furloughing of the players. That's where we spend most of our money as a Club, which is why it was important to get on top of the situation as soon as possible. I got the distinct impression that the Club were just following whatever the EFL were doing (which was effectively nothing) and the Trust were borderline clueless about the whole thing.

Ed

Thank you.

Did you read this ?

It suggests the players were furloughed with effect from 14 March. That is a bit odd as I did not think you could back date a furlough date as it happens when it is done. You can back date a claim if the employee had already been furloughed. Not that I am an expert in the furlough scheme mind.

What info do you have on this please ? I appreciate it may be lazy or sloppy reporting in the article. If it was from 14 March the Club seems to have acted with all due speed and criticism would be inappropriate.

Exeter City furlough players as a result of coronavirus crisis

The majority of the senior management and senior players have in addition volunteered to defer a proportion of their wages for the remainder of the current season.

www.devonlive.com

 

[Boyo]

Ed - with regards the the betting company's sponsorship, the context is still important. If the value of the deal was small and there was another company willing to pay similar amount (albeit slightly less) then I'd back the decision. If the amount was significant and there was no alternatives waiting in the wings, then it was wrong (IMO).

 

[Rosencrantz]

So it was a pointless thing to do to complain about that potential income and it was lost? When all around has Skybet plastered on it

The main difference is that City as a club do not have the final say on Skybet sponsoring the EFL which was agreed in 2017 and runs until the 2023/24 season. The issues around accepting sponsorship from betting companies is an ongoing discussion around government, football supporters and football clubs. Everton have ended their sponsorship with SportsPesa early after the CEO admitted that ideally they would not have a betting company as sponsors https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/10/everton-community-gambling-sponsorship-premier-league.

That aside I guess the part of kit being discussed is the shorts (I personally do not see the argument about as long as it is not the shirt sponsor it's OK). We did have Interbet as a shorts sponsor in 2018 so this is obviously a change in outlook and policy. What I would question is the apparent failure to communicate this change in policy to the Commercial Department. Whilst valuing money over morality is a personal view, I think that using the excuse that it is currently legal to do so and everyone else does it is quite weak, especially if there are other options including I guess the sponsorship we got for the shorts https://www.exetercityfc.co.uk/news/2019/september/imperialcars/. Obviously I do not know the difference in payments between the two and what (if any) income was possibly lost.

Although sponsorship and advertising for betting companies is legal at the moment, you can see a change coming with the ban on advertising during live games on TV. It is no bad thing to be ahead of the curve in this. But I understand that other views will be to milk it before any change comes in.

 

[DB9]

I'm in the camp that Skybet sponsor the EFL, Betting companies sponsor so many clubs, Especially in the top two tiers then us taking sponsorship for a minor part of the kit is to me fair enough, If some company wants to part with their money then why not? While Betting sponsorship in football is legal I'm happy with it, I never bet myself and it does bring a lot of misery but its up to the EFL/FA/Government to decide whether they want it advertised and you're probably right Rosey in the future it will be banned just like smoking ads were banned. I just don't think if the deal was agreed then because at the Trust meeting and (According to Ed) "What it came down to was the Trust's personal belief system that betting is evil. Even though betting is legal" (His words not mine) then if they really think that they shouldn't be taking a penny from Skybet via the EFL. You can't be a hypocrite saying betting is evil and say no to this sponsorship on one hand then take the money from Skybet.

 

[ramone]

Smoking isn't illegal yet is it ?