• 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 Board vs Club Board power

Bittners a Legend

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
4,749
I appreciate many might be sick of this topic but I was just browsing the (much improved) Trust website and came across a curious answer to a question raised from a member.

The question was regarding the wielding of power between Trust and Club Boards. The answer from the Trust was this:

"With the model at Exeter City there will always be tensions between the two Boards (Club and Trust). I would imagine if a rich owner is paying big time; everyone else has to do as he says if they want to be part of that project? At City we only have 3,000 members currently and can offer the Club less than 4% of the annual turnover. It still means we have the ultimate power described in the first paragraph, but we possibly don’t always have quite the same “Jump! How high?” relationship with the Club as an incredibly wealthy benefactor would."

There is, in my opinion, as astonishing level of confusion and misunderstanding in this answer. The Club Board put 0% into the annual turnover and ARE answerable to the Trust Board. They are no more than employees. They do not, or should not, have the power nor should that be particularly negotiable. I really cannot fathom the logic in this answer at all.

Is the Trust Board trying to cower away from its responsibilities or does it genuinely not understand the power (and responsibility) it has over the Club Board? It strikes me that if they will not face up to their duty to hold the Club Board (and thus manager) to account by taking control of a relationship they should dominate then they are failing utterly the members of the Trust that are left.

Am I wrong?

Link here by the way: With the model at Exeter City there will always be tensions between the two Boards (Club and Trust). I would imagine if a rich owner is paying big time; everyone else has to do as he says if they want to be part of that project? At City we only have 3,000 members currently and can offer the Club less than 4% of the annual turnover. It still means we have the ultimate power described in the first paragraph, but we possibly don’t always have quite the same “Jump! How high?” relationship with the Club as an incredibly wealthy benefactor would.
 

elginCity

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
12,937
Location
Swindon
The Club Board, should be full time exec directors who have the legal responsibility of running the club as a limited company on a day to day basis, in a competent and fit and proper way.

The Trust Board should act in a supervisory, non-exec role concerned with governance, scrutiny and rubber-stamping major decisions. Ideal for part-timers.

There should be clear lines of responsibility and accountability drawn up between the two.

IMO there is a conflict of interest with the two Boards members currently wearing two hats, and who most probably contribute to the 'tensions', directly or indirectly.
 

gbjpc

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
323
Location
Peterborough
"With the model at Exeter City there will always be tensions between the two Boards (Club and Trust). I would imagine if a rich owner is paying big time; everyone else has to do as he says if they want to be part of that project? At City we only have 3,000 members currently and can offer the Club less than 4% of the annual turnover. It still means we have the ultimate power described in the first paragraph, but we possibly don’t always have quite the same “Jump! How high?” relationship with the Club as an incredibly wealthy benefactor would."

There is, in my opinion, as astonishing level of confusion and misunderstanding in this answer. The Club Board put 0% into the annual turnover and ARE answerable to the Trust Board. They are no more than employees. They do not, or should not, have the power nor should that be particularly negotiable. I really cannot fathom the logic in this answer at all.
I thought the same when I read it. It doesn't matter how much The Trust puts in, in fact many have argued it shouldn't actually put any money in. The fact is that they have ultimate control over a board who have no investment and therefore can really call the shots should they choose to. I know there is a balance and The Trust need to be able to work with the board but if they feel it's not working they have the right (and I would argue a duty) to act.

Noticeable that whilst The Trust does at least try and improve communication, the board of the club are very quiet considering our position.
 
Last edited:

David Treharne

Active member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
3,443
Location
Exeter, Devon
Is the Trust Board trying to cower away from its responsibilities or does it genuinely not understand the power (and responsibility) it has over the Club Board? It strikes me that if they will not face up to their duty to hold the Club Board (and thus manager) to account by taking control of a relationship they should dominate then they are failing utterly the members of the Trust that are left.

Am I wrong?
Nope. You're quite right. This whole situation has been worsened by not having the roles of the Trust and Club Board unified - and by allowing Directors to usurp powers to which they have no entitlement. Furthermore as John William has pointed out - there has to be a question over the position of the 2nd Trust "Director" who also fulfils the role of Company Secretary, and where loyalties lie in that instance. You might also ask the question "Who instigated the appointment of the current CEO" and "Who from the Trust Board were party to the decisions over ticket pricing?"
Disappointingly - but partly my own fault - I failed two years ago to call an EGM. If there were now others who would now be prepared to try and call one I would happily assist.
I really don't think it's the model that's at fault, it's also partly to do with being too democratic for it's own long-term survival.
 
Last edited:

globegrecian

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
6,313
Location
Disbelief...
Feels as if there has been a stealthy Coup behind our backs, with the Trust ousted by the Board of Directors
 

PeteUSA

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
18,435
Location
Avondale (Near Phoenix) Arizona, USA.
Its Noticeable that whilst The Trust does at least try and improve communication, the board of the club are very quiet considering our position.
Thats because many of the individuals on the Club Board have become so full of their own importance that they quite like the lifestyle, as well as the sizeable direct deposit of City fans money into their bank account, so they dont want the likes of you or me rocking the boat!

Over 10 years ago, when the original trust concept was implimented, there wasnt any intention that a 'splinter group' bunch of whealthy businessmen would wield so much power, and go ahead and form a Club Board that would take f*** all notice of the trust board! We've arrived at a point now where thats exactly the case!

The club should never have allowed a situaton where the club board couldnt give a rats ass what the trust board have to say, and are now doing whatever they like; Regretfully, to me, thats exactly the way it is.
 

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
9,670
Bitts

I take your point – and others will have a much better handle on this than me – but I don't think it's quite as black and white as your opening post may suggest.

Certainly, the Trust board has it in its power to hold the club board to account and, like you, I think it has failed to do this anywhere near as effectively as it might have done.

At the same time, the directors on the club board have legal obligations bestowed on them which dictate their responsibilities go some way beyond just doing what they're told to by the Trust board.

See for instance: http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/topics/directors_duties.shtml
 
Last edited:

Pete Martin (CTID)

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,385
Location
Here and there
Bitts

I take your point – and others will have a much better handle on this than me – but I don't think it's quite as black and white as your opening post may suggest.

Certainly, the Trust board has it in its power to hold the club board to account and, like you, I think it has failed to do this anywhere near as effectively as it might have done.

At the same time, the directors on the club board have legal obligations bestowed on them which dictate their responsibilities go some way beyond just doing what they're told to by the Trust board.

See for instance: http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/topics/directors_duties.shtml
I don't think anyone is disputing their responsibilities as directors. The issue comes with the Trust Board failing to challenge anything.

I am sure you were on the BoS in the early Conference days, as I was, and probably recall a few attempts to challenge a certain prominent club board member. The proverbial toys then came flying out of the pram, with the BoS rolling over, scared of the potential repercussions to the club at that time.
 

Egg

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
9,670
I don't think anyone is disputing their responsibilities as directors. The issue comes with the Trust Board failing to challenge anything.
Agreed – see my second line.

Moreover, I readily accept some responsibility for this given I was on the BoS for a number of years and that's why, IMO, we desperately need a nucleus of thick-skinned, business-savvy individuals elected ASAP.
 

Pete Martin (CTID)

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,385
Location
Here and there
Agreed – see my second line.

Moreover, I readily accept some responsibility for this given I was on the BoS for a number of years and that's why, IMO, we desperately need a nucleus of thick-skinned, business-savvy individuals elected ASAP.
Yep and I'll agree with that too.
 
Top