Grecian_In_Exile
Very well known Exeweb poster
Geeeze Pete, you'll give the rose tinters a coronary!!
-
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here
A message for the chairman and the directors
- Thread starter athenasbra
- Start date
Don't get me wrong, I know the suggestion falls on the side of laughable and I'm not even sure how serious I am about the idea myself!
However, we all believe (or perhaps used to believe) that this club is special. The Trust, the buckets, the work parties. In the last few years, we've allowed the club to get away from us and 'sink' back into something akin to a private ownership model. This was an unfortunate by-product of our burst of success, which in my opinion lulled us into a feeling of everything's sorted now, lets kick back and enjoy it. We have fallen into the same mindset of all other clubs of "we want something, so lets wait for someone to give it to us". Why should we settle for that?
Fag packet sums.
Lets set the bar at £10m.
If we can get 4,000 interested parties (that could be individual supporters, groups of people, outside groups, whoever can be engaged), that'd be a contribution of £2,500 each.
Set a time frame. Lets call it 5 years.
Thats £500 per year per party.
Half the parties and call it £5,000 if you think the first number is completely in the land of cuckoo. £1,000 per year per party.
Or, double the time frame to 10 years to half the yearly/monthly contribution to the fund.
You could incentivise it by saying that those who contribute (within set minimums) would be eligible for perks, reduced season tickets, bricks in the stand, a lottery for those in the club to have access to a "supporters box" built at the back of it, whatever can be imagined.
As I say, this wouldn't be a "quick fix", it would be a long, slow but steady progress towards achieving a tangible goal. If something external materialised in the intervening time, then those contributing to the fund could be asked what to do with the raised money; contribute it to a combined fund, identify a new capital project, hand it over to the Trust, whatever. The point would be that, worse case scenario, at some point in the future we would have the funds required, and turn the redevelopment from a "might happen" into a "definitely will happen, its just a question of how quick we can get there".
As I said, I know previous things of this ilk have meant with a lukewarm reception (to be kind). RoD was questionable, but was the reaction there down to an uncertain future for a club which was at its lowest ebb with no guarantee of success, people being wary of throwing money into a pit with no guarantee it would achieve its mission in time? Pitch In failed, but that was a strange one to get behind. Pitches get relayed all the time don't they?
This would be something very tangible and recognisable. Something which would stand for generations as a monument to the spirit and will to succeed of the fanbase. Before I get too carried away with hyperbole, what I mean is that for the slog now, there would be something solid which could be looked upon for years. The stand the fans built.
A steep ask? Definitely. An absolute impossibility? Not necessarily. Where there's a will and all that. We like to think we are a bit different as a club, as supporters. We could prove it.
I'll go back to daydreaming.
However, we all believe (or perhaps used to believe) that this club is special. The Trust, the buckets, the work parties. In the last few years, we've allowed the club to get away from us and 'sink' back into something akin to a private ownership model. This was an unfortunate by-product of our burst of success, which in my opinion lulled us into a feeling of everything's sorted now, lets kick back and enjoy it. We have fallen into the same mindset of all other clubs of "we want something, so lets wait for someone to give it to us". Why should we settle for that?
Fag packet sums.
Lets set the bar at £10m.
If we can get 4,000 interested parties (that could be individual supporters, groups of people, outside groups, whoever can be engaged), that'd be a contribution of £2,500 each.
Set a time frame. Lets call it 5 years.
Thats £500 per year per party.
Half the parties and call it £5,000 if you think the first number is completely in the land of cuckoo. £1,000 per year per party.
Or, double the time frame to 10 years to half the yearly/monthly contribution to the fund.
You could incentivise it by saying that those who contribute (within set minimums) would be eligible for perks, reduced season tickets, bricks in the stand, a lottery for those in the club to have access to a "supporters box" built at the back of it, whatever can be imagined.
As I say, this wouldn't be a "quick fix", it would be a long, slow but steady progress towards achieving a tangible goal. If something external materialised in the intervening time, then those contributing to the fund could be asked what to do with the raised money; contribute it to a combined fund, identify a new capital project, hand it over to the Trust, whatever. The point would be that, worse case scenario, at some point in the future we would have the funds required, and turn the redevelopment from a "might happen" into a "definitely will happen, its just a question of how quick we can get there".
As I said, I know previous things of this ilk have meant with a lukewarm reception (to be kind). RoD was questionable, but was the reaction there down to an uncertain future for a club which was at its lowest ebb with no guarantee of success, people being wary of throwing money into a pit with no guarantee it would achieve its mission in time? Pitch In failed, but that was a strange one to get behind. Pitches get relayed all the time don't they?
This would be something very tangible and recognisable. Something which would stand for generations as a monument to the spirit and will to succeed of the fanbase. Before I get too carried away with hyperbole, what I mean is that for the slog now, there would be something solid which could be looked upon for years. The stand the fans built.
A steep ask? Definitely. An absolute impossibility? Not necessarily. Where there's a will and all that. We like to think we are a bit different as a club, as supporters. We could prove it.
I'll go back to daydreaming.
Last edited:
Grecian_In_Exile
Very well known Exeweb poster
The mindset of the majority of supporters is... we're better off than we were 5 years ago, i.e we're back in the league.... The above will only start to happen once (not if) we have again lost our league place, and plying our trade back in the Conference. A couple of seasons of real struggle may wake a few more up before, but it won't be until we're back where we were in 2003, before the masses awake from their comatosed state.
Barum
Active member
A brilliant brief summing-up of the situation the club sadly finds itself stuck in. I was an supporter of the trust model for many years, but now due to lack of transparancy & progress off the pitch am no longer a member.
Dylan
Member
"can only ever happen with significant private investment." e.g Sugar Daddy.
It ain't going to happen!
I'm quite happy the way it is with Promotion, Play Offs, unfortunate relegations, local derbies galore and the occasional Cup Run - Manure and Liverspuds.
After all, that's what the vast majority of the 72 League Clubs have to put up with - unless you are Rochdale.
It ain't going to happen!
I'm quite happy the way it is with Promotion, Play Offs, unfortunate relegations, local derbies galore and the occasional Cup Run - Manure and Liverspuds.
After all, that's what the vast majority of the 72 League Clubs have to put up with - unless you are Rochdale.
jabba the gut
Active member
I 'm in total agreement about the Sugar Daddy fallacy, but I don't agree that there is no way a fan-owned club can ever attract investment, or that it shouldn't aspire to do so. Comparisons involving examples within dissimilar contexts are aways problematical (witness some of the regular nonsense spouted about certain aspects of the Chief's success) but a mixture of majority fan control and minority owners injecting private investment exists elsewhere. Of the top 20 clubs in Forbes list of the richest clubs in the world, nearly half - Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Hamburg, Schalke 04 and Corinthians of Sao Paolo - are all either majority or fully fan owned.
http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/
For example fans of Bayern own 82% of the club as opposed to our far lower share - however the remaining share is owned between Addidas and Audi who invest in the club. I'm aware of their vastly different size and situation, but I'm still not sure what the non-Trust shareholders invest in the future of ECFC, given that the Trust seem to be taking all the heat on that score.
There are issues concerning the Trust and it doesn't help to pretend that isn't the case - however IMO they are issues with our particular arrangement and not the concept of fan ownership itself, which after all is far more common in world football than the Sugar Daddy model
It seems to me that an important distinction between our model and those of fan-owned clubs in other countries is that there appears to be a greater element of fan control elsewhere. In some of these clubs fans can and do vote out directors/presidents and/or can exercise meaningful sanctions against a board's poor performance. That seems to be the problem with our scenario at the moment - i.e that there are alarming signs of the tail wagging the dog and that the Trust are treated as patsies by certain individuals at the club.
For example, regardless of whether or not they are good or bad blokes, or good or bad at their jobs, I have no idea who the likes of Julian Tagg are answerable to, or who evaluates their performance. To my mind that is the most alarming fact underlying such things as the fiasco of the series of ridiculously ill-judged and unhelpful media statements by JT and Paul Tisdale this summer that began on Kellow's (and to a degree have occured at similar times of the year before). Given that the Trust are nominally their bosses, how can they make such critical and negative public statements without apparently being answerable to their owners for the consequences and/or propriety of what they say? Is it right for them to openly question the ownership model in interviews without at least having spoken to the owners first? It seems no different to me than Paul Cook and whoever the Chief Exec/DOF of Chesterfield happens to be, giving media interviews questioning whether Dave Allen should give up some of his shares or not if Chesterfield want to have any hope of short-term success. Given Dave Allen's history of somewhat apoplectic reactions to public criticism when he was at Sheffield Wednesday and at the beginning of his Chesterfield tenure ("venomous person" were the words I believe he spat at one prominent fan critic) I'd be prepared to bet they would both find themselves flying over the wall of the B2net within minutes of the end of such an interview. I'm not sure he'd be much happier if they gave regular interviews pleading poverty either.
Whether you agree with what they say or not is not the issue. It's no secret that I am a great admirer of what Tisdale has done for us - bar the thorny issue of his loan signings and his cup record. In fact all things being equal I'd be happy for him to manage us for much longer. The one time I briefly met Taggy he seemed like a very nice bloke. However that isn't the point. What I'm concerned about is the insidious formation of unelected power bases that undermine the valuable Trust ethos and in turn undermine its ability to genuinely represent the fans' voice in a menaningful way. That is not to dismiss the need for the Trust and ourselves to fight our own corner rather than being guilty of only venting on here. Nobody should have a free pass from accountability no matter waht they've done in the past. That is the way personality cults form and personality cults are like the bubonic plague for democracy as is clear for all to see if they look at what has happened in era of the Chriss Webb personality cult down the road.
Last edited:
"I can tell you that I have been through every line of the budget and every member of staff to see what they do, how they do it and what they are producing. Are they making a profit and what are they about?"
Chairman, ECFC.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Grecians-chairman-emphasises-importance-value/story-18923846-detail/story.html
John William
Well-known Exeweb poster
But this has nothing to do with performance evaluation, even if it's true which I doubt - it had really been done there would presumably have been major changes!
I can see little evidence of functioning performance management or corporate governance at City at present. If I get elected to the Trust Board I will press hard for this to be addressed.
I also hope the new CEO will sit down with a blank sheet of paper and do a real zero based budgeting exercise of ALL aspects of the club's finances and operations - going through the existing budget and evaluating it for VFM is not going to address the structural issues.
Ah, OK.
Some time ago, sure I read somewhere a quote attributed to Ed Chorlton about the Club introducing Director Appraisals, but can't find the source so may be wrong about that too.
grecIAN Harris
Very well known Exeweb poster
It's amazing how many people are now coming round to the idea that there needs to be at least some sort of outside investment. It's just a shame that it's taken so long for you to cotton on. For those that believe that total Trust ownership is still a viable option, hurry up and stick a rocket up the arse of the BoS to get some ideas of how to get some substancial, long term income streams. The longer it takes for either to come to fruition, the worse it's going to get for the club financially.