Chairman's report on Club AGM

[PeteUSA]

Of course, that would mean that it remains a paid role. In defence of Taggy, I think he has worked very hard for the club and has been instrumental in keeping the academy running. However, I don't believe he is a natural chairman, and has previously admitted that himself, or words to that effect, I understand.

I would agree, on the face of it Tagg has worked hard, but I'm getting a bit fed up with him being credited as "instrumental in keeping the academy running". Many people seem to point to that particular highpoint in his time, but what did he do exactly to receive that ongoing accolade? Who was it that he single handedly stood in the face of over the matter? Russell & Lewis perhaps? or some other bygone regime from yesteryear? I honestly dont know. In any event, whatever the reason, is that enough to employ and pay a man (through his company) perpetually?

 

[Nidds]

While this is the report from the chairman of the club/business, I think it gives the trust some ideas for the future. The trust should be the owner. It appears that some of the people with the most interest in preventing the trust holding all the shares and modernising the company structure are now leaving. The club has the money to run as it is for the next few seasons. The trust money should be held back to deal with the cost of re structuring the company. Any spare money can then go into the club once this is achieved and the trust is owning and running the club.

The next chairman and football manager should be chosen to be the best to develop the academy and the youth to first team pathway. "Do nothing, accept where that takes us" I would change to, "develop the academy and see where the city youth takes us".

 

[David Treharne]

I would agree, on the face of it Tagg has worked hard, but I'm getting a bit fed up with him being credited as "instrumental in keeping the academy running". Many people seem to point to that particular highpoint in his time, but what did he do exactly to receive that ongoing accolade? Who was it that he single handedly stood in the face of over the matter? Russell & Lewis perhaps?

I don't in any way seek to be an apologist for some of the more recent actions undertaken by the (acting?) Chair, but I would support the assertion that he was largely instrumental in seeking to maintain the status and future of the Academy which was very much under threat as a result of the proposals put forward by Russell & Lewis (and presumably supported by at least one part of the ancien regime). Be in no doubt that its continuation was very much down to the work that Julian put in to secure its future.