A message from the trust and supporter's club

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Al, whilst in theory that sounds like a fully plausible idea in practice it's the worst possible thing you could do. Any move toward a private investment model should be from negotiating from a strong position. If Trust members decide they want to jack it in the negotation becomes redundant and the deal secured becomes worthless when the investor knows the Trust want to sell at any cost. Negotiation should take place when either option (yes or no) is possible. I have long held the view that the Trust should open the door to an offer and if that offer is acceptable it can then be put to members to decide yes or no.

Tony

The reality is though Tony that, to do that, it would need a decision from the Trust Board to seek such an offer and there is no momentum to do that. I can guarantee that the current Trust Board would not vote for that as we all believe in the Trust model and, despite all the trials, tribulations and problems, we want to continue to try and make it work. We did it the other way for over 100 years and that wasn't particularly successful either. The Trust has been major shareholder for just over 10 years - a relatively short time.

If there are people who want to change the ownership model, then the only way I can see it happening is for them to stand for election to the Trust Board and put their case. Having just seen the recent non-election take place for the Trust Board, I am not hopeful that there is enough interest from the Trust membership at large to do that.

 

[Avening Posse]

This thread reminds me why i have avoided exe web for so long. There are some really good points made but these are in the minority - the vast majority is illogical noise IMHO.

1. Please can some one put up an example of a professional football club which doesn't run on a deficit. The entire football club model is a busted flush. ECFC does remarkably well to function as it does. It does mean that there will never be much money to buy players unless there is a radical shift in the way things are operated.

2. If the Directors have been taking large sums out of the money then they are all culpable and its a nonsense to point fingers at easy targets like Tagg when actually it makes more sense to point them at Trust board members on the club board. THEY are Trustees and as such have a legal duty to hold the club officials and the way they run the club to account. If they attend board meetings then they must see the P&L and the operating status of the club on at least a monthly basis - over the last ten years. They must also know the salaries of Tis and Perryman and played a part in setting them.

3. Logically it should make no difference whatsoever if there are equal numbers of Trust members on the Board. The Trust has ALWAYS been the majority shareholder in the club and therefore , in reality, holds the balance of power. If they have failed to exercise this this says more about them and their capabilities than the form and function of the Trust or the make up of the board.

4. I guess the rumours that abound Tis's salary are probably about right - he's probably being paid a Championship managers salary and on a long contract. It hardly takes Einstein to work out why this is - when the team were flying in Div 1 if he had been allowed to leave without an attempt be made to secure his services for the long term there would have been an outcry . So , difficult as it is to swallow now,it was probably the right decision at the time. As an honourable man he might think it appropriate to sacrifice some of that salary given the current position.

5. Can the Trust model work ? Probably but the Trust needs to build its capital base and behave like the "owner" - i.e digging deeper into its pockets to invest in the Club. What they do is good, the volunteering is fantastic - but to dig deeper into its pockets it needs deeper pockets. Its membership has declined, the cost of joining is so small to be meaningless ( £24 a year??). As I pointed out in another thread I guess that the much PR'd Trust investment in our Club ( in CASH terms) is as little as 3% of the total running costs of the club. I am all for controlling costs I have to do it in my work everyday but there is always a finite level to which costs can be cut whilst the ability to increase revenue , whilst not infinite, is far more flexible and sustainable. The fact that the Trust, our owner , and majority shareholder has a decreased membership paying a pittance from a potential universe of half a million, in some of the most affluent parts of the South West is a really poor show. If the Trust had doubled its membership or put up its prices and actually marketed itself properly then there would be no cash crisis and we would be able to afford players.

6. Where has the money gone? Personally I don't know but my recollection is that many of the players who left we didn't get paid for. Of the money we did get in I think its split three ways , club, training facility and academy. So arguably the youngsters we are seeing now are a result of that. Yes I am sure some of it will have been "wasted" - that happens in every business ( especially as hindsight miraculously gives everyone 20/20 vision!) - but in the scheme of a £35 million going through the club in the last 10 years I suspect this is really quite small in % term - significantly less than the Trusts investment of only 3% I might guess.

7. Having said all that, on the plus side , there have always been a huge number of people around the Club at all levels with a huge amount of will who put in a lot of time with little return in an attempt to make the club function on the pitch and in the community - some of these are in the Trust , some are on the board and management team , and some in the operational teams - if there was less of this counter productive bitching and blaming we might get further, quicker.

8. We are where we are - could we have been somewhere else ? - over a 100 years of history , and different variations of ownership would suggest not; is it worth trying ? Yes it probably is but there needs to be some kind of unified vision and leadership which as a fan I just dont see at the moment.

Your number 5 certainly is a view shared by many I imagine, the potential is limitless if momentum / PR could garner it, I agree £24 a year is just tokenism, makes people feel good about contributing, and to its credit is inclusive to everybody's pocket, but I believe if the wider City supporting public had more belief in the Trust they would contribute a lot more. Having something tangible to invest in, a specific project for example, with a massive PR campaign to accompany it I think could really give the Trust the boost it needs and a new direction ?

 

[Rog H K]

At least we arn't as bad as them down the A38 express thingy!
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Council-loan-Plymouth-Argyle-800-000-pay-debts/story-23005781-detail/story.html

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

At least we arn't as bad as them down the A38 express thingy!
http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Council-loan-Plymouth-Argyle-800-000-pay-debts/story-23005781-detail/story.html

"Plymouth City Council has agreed a 4.8 per cent interest rate on the loan, meaning a £38,000 return over five-years, and has also secured insurance against non-payment."

Quite how you get insurance for non-payment on an £800K loan to a dodgy outfit like Argyle is beyond me!!

 

[PeteUSA]

Well, it looked a pretty good deal to me, until I caught on that the 800,000 is just a loan, which has to be payed back over a five year period' if I'm reading this correctly. Where are they going to find that kind of money!?

 

[The Rapscallion]

"Plymouth City Council has agreed a 4.8 per cent interest rate on the loan, meaning a £38,000 return over five-years, and has also secured insurance against non-payment."

Quite how you get insurance for non-payment on an £800K loan to a dodgy outfit like Argyle is beyond me!!

Insurance for non payment does not exist. PCC are lying. The only type of insurance would only be if director property was being used as security or life or critical illness on those receiving the loan funds. PCC will have security agreed from somewhere

 

[Saint James]

The reality is though Tony that, to do that, it would need a decision from the Trust Board to seek such an offer and there is no momentum to do that. I can guarantee that the current Trust Board would not vote for that as we all believe in the Trust model and, despite all the trials, tribulations and problems, we want to continue to try and make it work. We did it the other way for over 100 years and that wasn't particularly successful either. The Trust has been major shareholder for just over 10 years - a relatively short time.

If there are people who want to change the ownership model, then the only way I can see it happening is for them to stand for election to the Trust Board and put their case. Having just seen the recent non-election take place for the Trust Board, I am not hopeful that there is enough interest from the Trust membership at large to do that.

Pete, the Trust Board has always seen the ownership situation as black or white - Trust or private. There are myriad shared ownership models that are feasible and would attract additional investment without compromising Trust control. I guess it's all about having an open mind and like many previous Trust owned clubs who have run into financial difficulties those discussions only happen at the moment of desperation when the option becomes switch back or die. I believe passionately in community ownership however it doesn't take much thought to conclude that unless we consider options we will lurch from crisis to crisis until our hand is forced.

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

Pete, the Trust Board has always seen the ownership situation as black or white - Trust or private. There are myriad shared ownership models that are feasible and would attract additional investment without compromising Trust control. I guess it's all about having an open mind..........

I don't disagree with your thinking in principle. The thing is where, so far, are these myriad of shared ownership models that you speak of? Swansea, for example, have more than the usual representation of supporters on the board (largely because it's generally zero), but it's hardly shared ownership.

Sorry, but I find it hard to envisage a philanthropic altruist, or a consortium of them, emerging from the shadows. Anyone putting in significant amounts of money would want a significant level of control. Majority control.

 

[CREDYGRECIAN]

It just strikes me as so tinpot - dig deep , we're turning into a charity not a football club

Next we will have an advert on TV with Tisdale stood on the halfway line holding out his flat cap for cash

The simple thing is that the manager , tagg & perryman 2 of who nobody knows hear they actually do earn too much money - until that changes or the home displays improve nothing will change

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

It just strikes me as so tinpot - dig deep , we're turning into a charity not a football club

Next we will have an advert on TV with Tisdale stood on the halfway line holding out his flat cap for cash?........

Err....I seem to remember a certain Steve Flack doing exactly that when we were privately owned. So what's new?