In the early days of the Trust, the Trust certainly controlled the Club. Everyone pitched in together and Directors were either BOS members or at least attended all BOS meetings in a constant firefighting exercise designed to keep the Club in business. Since then there has been a continuous evolutionary process whereby directors have now not only placed themselves in an almost autocratic position but for some time I have almost been expecting them to declare UDI!! We have now reached the point where the Trust must either take instant remedial action or die in that process of evolution of the Club (or should that be non evolution as far as the Trust itself is concerned?)
As the ultimate financial control group of the Club, the BOS has to take responsibility for the current financial plight of the Club. The fact that we are likely to show deficits in the annual accounts for 2009-10 and 2011-12 is partially due to the BOS not setting proper operating parameters for all sections of the Club. I seem to recall the Directors publishing a statement several years ago to the effect that they would be more open with regard to finances, that annual results would be made available at an earlier date, and suggesting how the historic debt, left after the CVA, would be dealt with. The BOS have never really followed up on this and Directors have largely been left to their own devices, without being called to account by the BOS. At a similar time, statements were made saying that after the historic debt was repaid, which I recall was only circa £300k at the time, that the increased performance on a commercial level would allow the Club to become self sufficient, and allow the Trust to build reserves for rainy days (like we’ve got now!) or to be applied to capital projects. This has simply never happened! The financing demands from the Club have increased in that period rather than being reduced. The Trust can only blame itself in not getting the Club to comply with these statements, and consequently might find itself in a very awkward position once the results for 2009-10 and 2011-12 are published.
In a more individual context, imo each Director should be obliged to give quarterly reports to the BOS detailing what he/she has achieved in each quarter. Further, and particularly at re-election or first appointment time, the BOS should be furnished with a detailed plan of targets which each director aims to achieve. If the BOS is not satisfied with those targets then the appointment should not be made.
The BOS should determine the cost of both the total amount of, and the individual level of Directors’ fees. Directors have always been allowed to set the level of their own fees. When individual directors have come up for re- election at the end of their 3 year term, the level of fees to be paid to them has never ever been discussed by the BOS as part of that process, and certainly not relative to their effectiveness. This is clearly wrong as all BOS judgements should be made on a value for money basis. There has been talk of the appointment of a Directors’ Remuneration Panel for some time. The usual BOS ineptitude has not brought this into effect, and must be remedied instantly if the current financial plight of the Club is to be correctly addressed.
As far as the BOS is concerned there have certainly been a number of ‘no go’ areas where all detail has been withheld by directors. The policy of the BOS in allowing directors to get away with this might very well come back to bite them on the backside. For example Paul Tisdale was granted a great level of autonomy over all matters concerning the playing budget. The decision of the Club Board to grant him a 2 year rolling contract effectively means that, in the current financial climate, he is unsackable simply because the Club could not afford to pay up a 2 year contract. The granting of a 2 year contract seemed a reasonable ploy when Tisdale was in demand, but is that currently the case based on results this season? The BOS had no real say in the decision to replace the pitches at both SJP and the Cat and Fiddle. Certainly it had no say at all in the number and pay levels of coaching staff. These factors have had an adverse effect on the current financial standing of the Club.
We are currently a poor standard League 1 Club with commensurately matching gate income and financial resources. Yet there are areas in the club with spending levels more closely aligned with Championship standing. Conversely our income generating capacity is bettered by some conference clubs. Clearly the BOS needs to set immediate appropriate parameters in controlling both expenses and in generating income, and then monitoring progress against those parameters. I believe the financial results for 2009-10 and 2011-12 will define precisely how urgent that need is if the Club is to survive as a Trust controlled Club.
As the ultimate financial control group of the Club, the BOS has to take responsibility for the current financial plight of the Club. The fact that we are likely to show deficits in the annual accounts for 2009-10 and 2011-12 is partially due to the BOS not setting proper operating parameters for all sections of the Club. I seem to recall the Directors publishing a statement several years ago to the effect that they would be more open with regard to finances, that annual results would be made available at an earlier date, and suggesting how the historic debt, left after the CVA, would be dealt with. The BOS have never really followed up on this and Directors have largely been left to their own devices, without being called to account by the BOS. At a similar time, statements were made saying that after the historic debt was repaid, which I recall was only circa £300k at the time, that the increased performance on a commercial level would allow the Club to become self sufficient, and allow the Trust to build reserves for rainy days (like we’ve got now!) or to be applied to capital projects. This has simply never happened! The financing demands from the Club have increased in that period rather than being reduced. The Trust can only blame itself in not getting the Club to comply with these statements, and consequently might find itself in a very awkward position once the results for 2009-10 and 2011-12 are published.
In a more individual context, imo each Director should be obliged to give quarterly reports to the BOS detailing what he/she has achieved in each quarter. Further, and particularly at re-election or first appointment time, the BOS should be furnished with a detailed plan of targets which each director aims to achieve. If the BOS is not satisfied with those targets then the appointment should not be made.
The BOS should determine the cost of both the total amount of, and the individual level of Directors’ fees. Directors have always been allowed to set the level of their own fees. When individual directors have come up for re- election at the end of their 3 year term, the level of fees to be paid to them has never ever been discussed by the BOS as part of that process, and certainly not relative to their effectiveness. This is clearly wrong as all BOS judgements should be made on a value for money basis. There has been talk of the appointment of a Directors’ Remuneration Panel for some time. The usual BOS ineptitude has not brought this into effect, and must be remedied instantly if the current financial plight of the Club is to be correctly addressed.
As far as the BOS is concerned there have certainly been a number of ‘no go’ areas where all detail has been withheld by directors. The policy of the BOS in allowing directors to get away with this might very well come back to bite them on the backside. For example Paul Tisdale was granted a great level of autonomy over all matters concerning the playing budget. The decision of the Club Board to grant him a 2 year rolling contract effectively means that, in the current financial climate, he is unsackable simply because the Club could not afford to pay up a 2 year contract. The granting of a 2 year contract seemed a reasonable ploy when Tisdale was in demand, but is that currently the case based on results this season? The BOS had no real say in the decision to replace the pitches at both SJP and the Cat and Fiddle. Certainly it had no say at all in the number and pay levels of coaching staff. These factors have had an adverse effect on the current financial standing of the Club.
We are currently a poor standard League 1 Club with commensurately matching gate income and financial resources. Yet there are areas in the club with spending levels more closely aligned with Championship standing. Conversely our income generating capacity is bettered by some conference clubs. Clearly the BOS needs to set immediate appropriate parameters in controlling both expenses and in generating income, and then monitoring progress against those parameters. I believe the financial results for 2009-10 and 2011-12 will define precisely how urgent that need is if the Club is to survive as a Trust controlled Club.
