The future direction of the club is a matter for shareholders: they should not abdicate that responsibility or accept that the future can be determined by any club employee. Right now, there seems to be confusion over whether the priority is developing talent or winning games. Both have merit and both could probably co-exist but there has to be clarity. And that requires a very clear plan to be communicated to the staff, the shareholders and all the other stakeholders. The content of that plan must reflect the preferences of shareholders and that means that each Trust member should contribute; they have paid for that privilege. It would be helpful if the executive were supportive of the plan: if not, it can simply be passed by resolution at an AGM/EGM. The executives would then be entrusted with its delivery and liable to termination if they were unwilling or unable.
Having some money in the bank – and there must be plenty left – is not a reason for continuing to run the business poorly. And trusting the use of that cash to some of the very folk who directed the club to the precipice of insolvency is a brave move. Of course, it is possible that Messrs Mason and Lee have knocked some sense into Tagg but I would suggest the Trust seeks to protect its investment in a more robust manner.
In my view, the Club Board should be no more complicated than a CEO and Finance Director and two non-executives; one should be appointed by the Trust, the other should be independent of the Trust and Club. The first two positions would be salaried club employees whilst the Trust and Club should cover the fees for the two non-execs respectively. The non execs have to be paid: you are never certain to attract the best candidates if you favour volunteer contributions.
The Trust Board shouldn’t be that complicated either. Find a Chairman (pay them) who will act as a figurehead – Ade Edmondson would be a decent choice – in order to sell the ‘we own our club’ concept to the widest possible community. If Edmondson is too busy/not interested, at the very least find somebody who is engaging and doesn’t act like a ***** every time they make a public comment. And create a very real distinction in the minds of the public between the Trust and the Club. It should be a compelling story which is somewhat unique and easily told. The Trust should also appoint somebody (on a part-time salary) who can leverage the goodwill generated by the Chairman to bolster Trust income via increased membership especially amongst local businesses. The right person would pay for themselves several times over: it shouldn’t be too tricky to increase annual Trust revenues to £200k even if the only product on offer is membership.
After that, you can have as many Trust sub-committees as you like because you have a) taken better care of your investment by improving the oversight on the board and b) protected/enhanced your own Trust revenues. These sub-committees can be manned by enthusiastic volunteers who can all focus on their particular area of interest. It would be helpful if they could embrace the talents of the wider membership too so there is a real sense of a communal effort. The regular Trust board meetings can collate the views which need to be communicated to the non-exec representing the Trust. Right now, the effort is so dismal and the interest is so lacking that the Trust either didn’t meet in July (as scheduled) or didn’t think it was necessary to post the minutes.
Oh, and I have no idea whether Tagg is CEO or Chairman nowadays. He is reported in the media as being the Chairman but I suspect he is also the CEO (after the ludicrous decision to mess around with the woefully inadequate GW). That said, I do know that the UK Corporate Governance Code frowns on a) anybody holding the two positions simultaneously or b) a CEO being elevated to Chairman (and thereby potentially impacting the performance of any new CEO). The Trust has failed miserably if they have allowed Tagg to perform both roles: it wouldn’t be a smart idea even if he was outstanding.
Having some money in the bank – and there must be plenty left – is not a reason for continuing to run the business poorly. And trusting the use of that cash to some of the very folk who directed the club to the precipice of insolvency is a brave move. Of course, it is possible that Messrs Mason and Lee have knocked some sense into Tagg but I would suggest the Trust seeks to protect its investment in a more robust manner.
In my view, the Club Board should be no more complicated than a CEO and Finance Director and two non-executives; one should be appointed by the Trust, the other should be independent of the Trust and Club. The first two positions would be salaried club employees whilst the Trust and Club should cover the fees for the two non-execs respectively. The non execs have to be paid: you are never certain to attract the best candidates if you favour volunteer contributions.
The Trust Board shouldn’t be that complicated either. Find a Chairman (pay them) who will act as a figurehead – Ade Edmondson would be a decent choice – in order to sell the ‘we own our club’ concept to the widest possible community. If Edmondson is too busy/not interested, at the very least find somebody who is engaging and doesn’t act like a ***** every time they make a public comment. And create a very real distinction in the minds of the public between the Trust and the Club. It should be a compelling story which is somewhat unique and easily told. The Trust should also appoint somebody (on a part-time salary) who can leverage the goodwill generated by the Chairman to bolster Trust income via increased membership especially amongst local businesses. The right person would pay for themselves several times over: it shouldn’t be too tricky to increase annual Trust revenues to £200k even if the only product on offer is membership.
After that, you can have as many Trust sub-committees as you like because you have a) taken better care of your investment by improving the oversight on the board and b) protected/enhanced your own Trust revenues. These sub-committees can be manned by enthusiastic volunteers who can all focus on their particular area of interest. It would be helpful if they could embrace the talents of the wider membership too so there is a real sense of a communal effort. The regular Trust board meetings can collate the views which need to be communicated to the non-exec representing the Trust. Right now, the effort is so dismal and the interest is so lacking that the Trust either didn’t meet in July (as scheduled) or didn’t think it was necessary to post the minutes.
Oh, and I have no idea whether Tagg is CEO or Chairman nowadays. He is reported in the media as being the Chairman but I suspect he is also the CEO (after the ludicrous decision to mess around with the woefully inadequate GW). That said, I do know that the UK Corporate Governance Code frowns on a) anybody holding the two positions simultaneously or b) a CEO being elevated to Chairman (and thereby potentially impacting the performance of any new CEO). The Trust has failed miserably if they have allowed Tagg to perform both roles: it wouldn’t be a smart idea even if he was outstanding.
