contrabombarde
Active member
Doh! Thanks. Always struggled with acronyms.
-
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here
Trust AGM 2013
- Thread starter Alistair20000
- Start date
David Treharne
Active member
It's not exactly the most user friendly report and summary ever written is it? However it emphasises some pretty vital areas that the Trust has yet to grapple with - and it's to be hoped that whoever is elected (see also thread on speculative outcomes) that they will engage with the membership to take some of these issues forward. However another of the things that causes me some consternation is that the various sub-groups that are operating seem to have little opportunity to discuss areas of common interest, and there's a danger of some areas being worked on by two or more groups autonomously without any signs of joined up thinking between them at the irregular BOS meetings.When the audit report was linked here on WoWs it generated absolutely no debate or discussion.
www.exeweb.com/forums/showthread.php?51923-Supporters-Direct-Audit-Report-on-the-Trust
PeteUSA
Very well known Exeweb poster
Steve Morris insisted that crap forum name be used, about 7 years ago. Many of us thought it was lousy at the time but Steve remained adamant. I'm sure the new commitee wouldnt mind considering a new name; perhaps we'd be allowed to put forward suggestions? I'll go first: City - Latest News!
Last edited:
iscalad
Very well known Exeweb poster
May be you should have started a new thread on this. Anyways..how about. Stuff I just made up about City? Or is that not zingy enough?
I see this as a pathetic document that once again doesn't get to the real issues at the Club. Ground redevelopment is the single biggest entity that will affect (either in a very positive or very negative way) how the Trust and Club will develope. For the author of this report, and the Trust itself to ignore the implications is not only nonsensical , but, certainly as far far as the Trust is concerned, irresponsible.
The Trust, as the majority shareholder, must get get to grips with the full financial effects of redevelopment. At the moment Trustees do not even have a clue as to what is going on!!!
Alistair20000
Very well known Exeweb poster
I hope you will be attending the AGM to raise these issues Adrian, particularly as you will have a chance to question Mr Chorlton as well as the Trust Board.
Thanks for linking this, John, I'm sorry I missed it first time round.
RW's response seems a bit harsh, to me - the document doesn't set out to be a strategic review and neither should it. It's for the Trust - us - to decide the level of strategic priority attached to the stadium redevelopment, not for an audit of progress against stated strategic aims.
The contents of the report itself read to me as a kind of "C+, could do better". It says to me that the people involved are working hard but haven't really worked out how to be as effective as possible. It's true that progress has been made against the strategic objectives set out, but there are some signals in the report that the writer is not convinced that the strategic objectives are the right ones. The emphasis put on "re-visioning" and revisiting the strategic review is, I think, a signal that things feel a bit directionless.
I suspect ECFCST gets plus points from SD for just being there, for the club being relatively stable and providing an example that fan ownership can be a viable option in the medium term (and they'll surely be hoping that we'll show fan ownership to be a viable option in the long term too). Were that not the case I think the conclusions and recommendations might be less diplomatic.
RW's response seems a bit harsh, to me - the document doesn't set out to be a strategic review and neither should it. It's for the Trust - us - to decide the level of strategic priority attached to the stadium redevelopment, not for an audit of progress against stated strategic aims.
The contents of the report itself read to me as a kind of "C+, could do better". It says to me that the people involved are working hard but haven't really worked out how to be as effective as possible. It's true that progress has been made against the strategic objectives set out, but there are some signals in the report that the writer is not convinced that the strategic objectives are the right ones. The emphasis put on "re-visioning" and revisiting the strategic review is, I think, a signal that things feel a bit directionless.
I suspect ECFCST gets plus points from SD for just being there, for the club being relatively stable and providing an example that fan ownership can be a viable option in the medium term (and they'll surely be hoping that we'll show fan ownership to be a viable option in the long term too). Were that not the case I think the conclusions and recommendations might be less diplomatic.
David Treharne
Active member
Good summary Tim. It would have been interesting to see what might have transpired if one of the other options that put themselves forward had been commissioned to undertake the work (of course that was never going to happen- too many dead hands at the tiller). If the opportunity arises at the AGM there is certainly a lot that ought to be raised as areas of concern - how/whether that is going to be allowed is one of the interesting features of what might happen on Saturday. In any case the BOS will undoubtedly swathed themselves with lots of proxy votes against all eventualities. At the moment although I don't fully share the views of Mr Moxey (elsewhere) I do think that the structure is "creaking".
Last edited:
AlanDevlin
Member
As I read it, the over riding theme of the Supporters Direct document seems to be 'Shame that the Trust have not achieved their initial totally controlling shareholding target.... so you are left with a b*******s muddle to make the best of'
Until The Trust (or another party) address this and achieve a controlling majority, no one is going to be able to firmly make policy and see it through.
Until The Trust (or another party) address this and achieve a controlling majority, no one is going to be able to firmly make policy and see it through.
David Treharne
Active member
Agreed. As I understand it - and it's not as a result to the Trust publicising it, just something I stumbled upon- some Trust representatives are going to meet with someone from Supporters Direct in November to talk (yet again) about a Community Share issue. There are quite solid reasons for some of the incumbents of both Club and Trust Boards not wanting to achieve a majority shareholding, and I think the opportunity to ask existing shareholders for a contribution has been missed, as a lot of them are, to say the least very elderly, or indeed deceased, yet little has been attempted with the suspense account either.
It's unfortunate that the real expert on Community Shares at SD is no longer with the organisation, as he had experience at FC of Manchester raising money through an over-subscribed community share issue, which they are using to build a purpose built stadium. Anyway, I'm not holding my breath about the announcement of an issue here anytime soon, as our Trust doesn't seem to be capable, at the moment, of any decisive planning or action.