Is Tagg actually the problem at ECFC?

[Terryhall]

Yeah, I am going into this eyes wide open that I may just be ****ing into the wind. It may also turn out that for all the posts of encouragement, when it actually comes to names on paper to confirm support for the proposal, it's a different question altogether.

Plus as I posted I have been fully intending to do this since January and now here we are in September and I've still not had time to really it give it proper attention...

 

[David Treharne]

The current Club Board arrangements do, of course, have an inbuilt structural defect, which is an historic anomaly, namely that none of the Trust representatives get paid, whereas Julian Tagg does. The Trust Chair is trying to make a work/life/football club balance whilst striving to earn a living, and several of the others make an enormous time commitment to the Club without any real financial support. It is almost certainly time that the Trust Board did something to implement the embryonic job evaluations that were designed but never implemented. However, job evaluations and target setting require even more time commitment, and those who would be best able to implement such a scheme would need to be remunerated, as well as having the skills to undertake such work. Perhaps the time has come for the Trust Board to look at its expenditure on the Club as opposed to its expenditure on a more secure form of rigorous scrutiny of the Club hierarchy?

 

[IndoMike]

Yeah, I am going into this eyes wide open that I may just be ****ing into the wind. It may also turn out that for all the posts of encouragement, when it actually comes to names on paper to confirm support for the proposal, it's a different question altogether.

Plus as I posted I have been fully intending to do this since January and now here we are in September and I've still not had time to really it give it proper attention...

On the other hand, don't let a cynic like me put you off

 

[Terryhall]

(I did mean to put "almost September"...)

 

[Red Bill]

All noted Mike, particularly the fact that this really ought to be the basics and the fact we don't aleady do it tells its own story. But that said I don't feel comfortable to simply sit by and watch and let your last sentence come to pass without having done anything at all to stop it.

I cannot stand for election to the TB as I am outside the UK and realistically would not be able to attend any TB meetings - I can only make the AGM one year in 3 based on recent years. But what I can do is make use of my Trust Membership to do what I can to try to effect the change that I see as being very clearly needed.

Even if I spend ages developing and canvassing support for the proposal and it dies in a chain of neverending meetings, or the club board simply shoot it down in flames - then I'd prefer that to not doing it and then saying afterwards "Oh if only someone had done something...."

Well said Terry. We have to resist the 'its all pointless there's nothing we can do brigade". As I've said before, you have my full support with this.

 

[Person_From_Exeter]

There is something seriously wrong with the football club at the moment. We have had so much money come into the club with :

Grimes 1.7 Million
Fa Cup run last year with TV , prize money and attendances (circa 700k)
Tom Nichols 250k

So nearly 3 million pounds of additional income over the past few years. We also have some money from smaller fan initiatives and other unexpected income i.e. 1931 fund, money coming from trust subs, some league cup gate money. A lot of our current squad are also youth players so I cant imagine they will be a massive expenditure either. Yet we cant even afford to pay the wages of a 34 year old , injury prone David Noble. Instead we are financing an artificial pitch.

 

[malcolms]

The current Club Board arrangements do, of course, have an inbuilt structural defect, which is an historic anomaly, namely that none of the Trust representatives get paid, whereas Julian Tagg does. The Trust Chair is trying to make a work/life/football club balance whilst striving to earn a living, and several of the others make an enormous time commitment to the Club without any real financial support. It is almost certainly time that the Trust Board did something to implement the embryonic job evaluations that were designed but never implemented. However, job evaluations and target setting require even more time commitment, and those who would be best able to implement such a scheme would need to be remunerated, as well as having the skills to undertake such work. Perhaps the time has come for the Trust Board to look at its expenditure on the Club as opposed to its expenditure on a more secure form of rigorous scrutiny of the Club hierarchy?

So the "gravy train" gets another carriage.... Club Directors should not be paid and neither should Trust board members, the concept is ridiculous and it's this lack of commitment without monetary reward that pervades the structure of the club.

 

[David Treharne]

So the "gravy train" gets another carriage.... Club Directors should not be paid and neither should Trust board members, the concept is ridiculous and it's this lack of commitment without monetary reward that pervades the structure of the club.

I did suggest that it was an historic anomaly. When we entered the C.V.A the Supervisor insisted that the Club needed to have a figurehead, and that that figurehead needed to be properly remunerated. This is the role that Julian Tagg inherited (admittedly after having tried several other permutations of job descriptions/role/functions with several others no longer at the Club). I'm not wedded to the idea of needing to remunerate Board members, but over the course of over a decade, and quite possibly by default, one or two people within the Board have assumed responsibilities for areas of Club management which they were never intended to occupy. They also appear to have resisted attempts to harness them within the confines of job descriptions and evaluation that were devised to ensure that they adhered to specific roles. In order to correct what I see as an imbalance I think it would be useful to have some persons who would put those structures and checks in place. Then of course if you look at the Board Minutes from the 1980's remuneration was not an issue, it was a question of how much certain individuals were prepared to put into the Club to secure the prestige of being a Director....

 

[shoot on sight]

Yeah, I am going into this eyes wide open that I may just be ****ing into the wind. It may also turn out that for all the posts of encouragement, when it actually comes to names on paper to confirm support for the proposal, it's a different question altogether.

Plus as I posted I have been fully intending to do this since January and now here we are in September and I've still not had time to really it give it proper attention...

Firstly-apologies-I am not a Trust member although I have been to the vast majority of home games over the past 7 years since relocating to the area-hence I'm pretty brassed off.
Have also been on away trips when possible.
I'm probably also speaking from part of my anatomy not connected to my mouth -but here goes:

1.The Corporate Governance thingy will take time and may not lead anywhere.
2.The triad power base won't do anything.
3.Fan protests-unless massively supported- won't achieve anything.
4.The TB needs to show its "teeth".
5.Not sure of the process but surely a proposal can be put to the TB to vary the manager's contract giving him 2 year's notice of the variation. It could read something like "We -the Trust Board having debated the proposal hereby give notice that as from (date) the current two year rolling contract awarded to the manager on (date) be hereby changed to a fixed 12 month contract as from (date).
This new contract will be renewable at or near the end of the 12 month period subject to on-field performance indicators (which will be specified)"
6.This might cause a power struggle with the hierarchy of course as it gets passed upwards but it will bring things out into the open. The TB can also threaten to withhold funds from the club if the proposal gets defeated higher up.
7. Unfortunately nothing can happen straight away (unless he is just plain sacked and then he gets a fat pay-off) as the two year roller appears to be set in stone.
Apologies in advance if this is total b--ocks. But this thread has been going for years and shows every possibility of outliving most of us!

 

[malcolms]

I did suggest that it was an historic anomaly. When we entered the C.V.A the Supervisor insisted that the Club needed to have a figurehead, and that that figurehead needed to be properly remunerated. This is the role that Julian Tagg inherited (admittedly after having tried several other permutations of job descriptions/role/functions with several others no longer at the Club). I'm not wedded to the idea of needing to remunerate Board members, but over the course of over a decade, and quite possibly by default, one or two people within the Board have assumed responsibilities for areas of Club management which they were never intended to occupy. They also appear to have resisted attempts to harness them within the confines of job descriptions and evaluation that were devised to ensure that they adhered to specific roles. In order to correct what I see as an imbalance I think it would be useful to have some persons who would put those structures and checks in place. Then of course if you look at the Board Minutes from the 1980's remuneration was not an issue, it was a question of how much certain individuals were prepared to put into the Club to secure the prestige of being a Director....

"The prestige of being a Director of ECFC" You are joking aren't you David?....please say you're joking.....