Pete Martin (CTID)
Very well known Exeweb poster
In the spirit of openness (and with the same aims as Doug Gillard) I formally open my own Q & A Thread ....
I agree entirely. I wish I had the answer as to why these decisions have been taken. I am personally aware of two very good people whose services have been lost for exactly that reason. Unfortunately of course, it is not possible to ensure that it doesn't happen unless a majority on the Trust and Club Boards want it, as in all democratic systems and decisions. It even happened to me once (at a time when I was not serving on the Trust Board), although it was some years ago, and, as a result, in my opinion, a major sponsorship opportunity and valuable advertising for the club was lost. All that can be done is that if I personally feel that there is an opportunity to utilise someone's expertise in a particular area (particularly if it is being offered free and gratis) i would promote and support it and hope that a majority feel the same.1. At various times in the past, very articulate & professionally well qualified posters have offered their services to the club, free of charge, at a time when these very services were required, only to be knocked back or ignored by the club board. What are your views on utilising the wide range of abilities available to the club & how would you ensure that these opportunities are maximised & not ignored by the board.
I don't think there should be an automatic pre-set formula for this, nor do I think that the major share of any 'windfall' income should always go into the footballing side of the business. I have always believed that the needs of the club in the round should be considered at any given time and decisions made at that time dependent upon need and availability of funds. I expect that some supporters consider putting the bulk of money towards improving the playing side would be the priority and, certainly, it is pretty darned important but, when all is said and done, we are looking at income generation from 90 minutes of football on the pitch and it is easy to neglect the areas where other income could be generated as I have long felt that we do not use SJP as effectively on non-football days as we could. Improving facilities with creative ideas and making the place more attractive 'out of hours' is a priority consideration for me. People marvel at how clubs like Accrington and Dagenham survive on such low attendances and, sure, owners put money in up to a point, but their ability to generate cash from activities beyond football is superior to ours. Shortly, we are going to have 300+ students living within a couple of minutes walk of SJP. Is anyone thinking about how we can attract them, even as a staging post, as opposed to their wandering on into town the moment they go out and by passing us on their way.2. Over the last few years the sale of players (Ampedu included based on an assumed £2m?) will have generated between £6-7m. To date, windfall income appears to have been wisely spent. But assuming the academy continues to bring through players that have a good saleable valuable, & we continue to find ourselves in this unusual position,what mechanism would you like to see put in place to ensure that future transfer income is well invested in the future of the club.
Thanks in anticipation of your response.
Yes. This had been addressed by the Trust Board once before, in April 2015. A vote was taken but, unfortunately, I was not present at that particular meeting as I was representing the Trust at an event in London. A vote on the question; Proposal that the Trust believe, as a matter of principle, to pay the ‘Living Wage' was taken and the result was 4 in favour and 6 against. It is recorded in the minutes of that meeting. Had I been there I would have voted 'yes', but the vote would still have been lost.Pete, would you support The Trust asking the club to sign up to the Living Wage?
Hi AP. Thanks for your questions. I am personally in favour of doing so. There has been consideration given already about possibly doing so but, as with all these things, it would take time and, obviously, money. The fact that it is currently owned by a consortium (OTR Ltd.) comprising of, iirc, 8 people, doesn't make it any easier.Hi Pete
You have probably put your views on as follows on here somewhere over the years but I am asking everybody:
1) View on whether the Trust should seek to acquire St James
What is 'enough'? £2.00 in the year 2000 is equivalent to £1.26 today but, of course, few people see it that way. Also, is any amount ever enough? This has been debated a few times at Trust Board meetings over the years and it has been agreed not to raise the minimum on each occasion, but to continue to invite prospective members to pay a little more each month/year if they can. There are two issues with raising the minimum; (1) there is the possibility of losing members - particularly those on low incomes and (2) once you get to a certain level of income, VAT becomes an issue and we always need to be mindful of both.2) Is the £2 minimum contribution from members enough ?
Many thanks