IndoMike
Very well known Exeweb poster
Regarding the score board, Tagg'z words are clearNot sure i know where to start with this! As with all limited companies, responsibility for decisions lie with its directors, that's what they're there for. All Boards of Directors are in effect committees, ergo all business decisions are made by committee. Within that committee you will have people with responsibility for specific areas, and its those individuals who will work on those areas and present their recommendations to the board. Presumably you will trust the abilities and judgement of those individuals and the board will most likely act upon their recommendations, but the actual decision whether to will be decided upon via a vote of all directors on the board, usually with the chairman holding a casting vote. This is how companies are run and Exeter City as a limited company are no different regardless of who owns their shares. No company does its business in public, all boardroom decisions are kept private and confidential and normally all shareholders will know is what's written in the company report. Business simply isn't open democracy and expecting ours to be is unrealistic.
As for the scoreboard, its been pointed out on other threads that Tagg's comments about hundreds of thousands almost certainly referred to all the work and pitch improvements, not just the scoreboard. Unless there has been some astronomic inflation, those scoreboard don't cost anywhere near the hundreds of thousands mark. I think when it was being discussed a couple of years ago, a figure in the region of £50k was mentioned and having looked into digital display screens for the charity I used to run a few years ago, that sounds about right. So as I said, paying up a manager's contract would certainly be more than that.
So to sacking the manager. In your posts you have said you thought in a Trust owned club, the directors should act according to the wishes of its shareholders, so the question is, how do you know that's what the shareholders want? You could of course ballot the membership, but as I said before that's fraught with danger, I should know, I tried to get the trust to ballot its members over sacking Tisdale a few years ago, which was when all the potential legal problems were brought to my attention. So who says everyone agrees with you and how would you or anyone else know. So that takes us back to what grounds you are using for dismissal. If MT was dismissed and he took the club to a tribunal for unfair dismissal (which as he has more than 2 years continuous employment he could), the tribunal would unemotionally look at the facts. In this case the slashed budget, Covid, any mention of performance targets and the likelihood of them being achievable and the actual position of the club compared to other clubs and their budgets would be taken into consideration. I don't believe that by any of those measures a tribunal would find in the club's favour. Unfortunately unlike football fans, business and the law has to work in the real world, it doesn't exist in a bubble where all the normal rules don't apply.
The cost of paying up a manager's contract and its likely outcome is a business decision and considerations such as whether the club can sensibly cover that expenditure, the likelihood of a new manager bringing an improvement with the same budgetary constraints have to be taken into account. If you are going to increase the level of budget the manager has available you then have to consider whether you current manager can make performance improvements. Endlessly sacking managers in the search for el dorado doesn't seem to me to be a very successful course of action. That doesn't mean you never should or should carry on flogging an obviously dead horse as we did with the previous manager, but any decision to sack someone must be made with consideration to the constraints placed upon him.
It will be similar but it will be fixed and much bigger than the one we trialled. It will go up somewhere along the away end, but it has been an aspiration for a long time,” he said.
“It will help with advertising and I am sure our sponsors will enjoy it and it is very difficult to make pay, but we will of course try to do that. It’s really about the supporter experience and improving that.
*“It’s a hugely expensive piece of kit running into the hundreds of thousands, but the fans want it and we want to provide it.”*
It will be similar but it will be fixed and much bigger than the one we trialled. It will go up somewhere along the away end, but it has been an aspiration for a long time,” he said.
“It will help with advertising and I am sure our sponsors will enjoy it and it is very difficult to make pay, but we will of course try to do that. It’s really about the supporter experience and improving that.
“It’s a hugely expensive piece of kit running into the hundreds of thousands, but the fans want it and we want to provide it.”
It's getting rather irksome that some folks are putting their own slant on Tagg's words with no justification for that at all when what he said is perfectly clear
Last edited: