A little more unbiased ?

[jimbo]

Over the last month or so here has been some interesting comments regarding the conduct of present & past Directors on this board. I would like to make a couple of observations:
1): B L is & has been no more than one of the team, who has & had no more power than one vote on The Board: so how can he be the sole reason that The Club's finances are in such a bad state ?
2): Much as I may or may not agree with the values of an EGM & the possibility of a new regime: Why did those involved not stay on board & fight their case from what was obviously a stronger position.
3): How much damage is this "take-over" bid causing the club at a time when we need to recruit new playing staff & new sponsorship.
4): Why have none of you with a little more knowledge than most put the likes of Alison straight regarding all the free drinks the Directors enjoy..... All board members pay for their drinks & refreshments by way of a monthly subscription & I can assure you that despite this, one director buys his own drink from the bar because he prefers "a pint of mild"........... & hey Alison I hope he doesn't mind me saying. But it is your beloved B L.
On saying all this, my shares are available if needed to secure the EGM.

[gobby cow]

I know the directors pay £45 a month, that covers their drinks and post match meal (home and away) and their transport, entrance fees etc.

That does by no means cover it!

You are entitled to your opinion and so am I. The present directors have run the club into the ground.

The group that have called for the egm only want a vote, if they lose they lose. The present board can carry on as usual.

If nothing is done we will not have a club in 2009, Celia is only there to protect the bank's money, they dont give a s*** if the club folds, they just want their 10% of the ground sale. No doubt the other new directors have been bank appointed too. I am pleased to see the new initiatives by the new commercial chap, but I am afraid it is a little too late as too many supporters are fed up.

I will not be buying any refreshments at the ground any more, I thought they were provided by volunteers as they were very amateurish. Now I know all the money goes into someone elses pocket I will bring my own!

As for Brian Lancaster I have never mentioned him personally as I have no idea who he is. My disregard for the board has been for them as a whole.

I am just fed up of being fed bullshit and my view and that of the other shareholders and fans being ignored.

[gobby cow]

Oh yes, I keep harping on about it being a drinking club because it winds them up! It must be as annoying for them as it is for me to see them mismanage the club finances!

[ctod1959]

You express your opinions with conviction, GC, and I admire your passion. A lot of what you say has merit, but my experience tells me that, in reality, things are never as black and white as they can sometimes appear. I certainly don't think it's true that the 'present directors have run the club into the ground'. That process started way back in the Nobby Clark era, perhaps even earlier.

[gobby cow]

Laurie said it was a mess after Connolly left, but these things can be turned around with the right attitude and conviction

[Deleted]

It was undoubtedly a mess after Connally left, and every credit has to go to Mike Sorenson for putting the club back onto an even keel.
However, times move on, the non-league environment has moved on, and the financial situation of the club has changed due to this. The main issue appears to be the that the present Board haven't adapted accordingly. The stark reality is that budgeting for average gates of 1,000 per home game is just not feasible. Increasing the wagebill is no longer feasible with lower gates and no other revenue generation.
Personally I don't think that playing the waiting game for the new ground to rescue the club is a feasible option either any more, particularly after hearing at the Shareholders Meeting from the Project Manager that after the move, even though we'll be debt free, there will bo NO money in the bank!!
It is fair to say that each Board member has only one vote in the Boardroom, but not all votes are equal, there has been talk of "Inner Circles" where a bloc of 5 votes have been used against 4, and also various activities where one Director has taken decisions without the knowledge of the Board.
Why did the Directors not stay on board to fight their case? Well my understanding is that having hit a brickwall over and over again, their position was stronger via this other route. And considering the strength of support from shareholders (including major sponsors and also indivdual shareholders unaware of some of the internal issues) then maybe they're right to do things this way.
If it leads to a more open dialogue between supporters, shareholders and stakeholders in the club, then can it be a bad thing? Forget the idea of the Board running the club into the ground, my biggest concern is the lack of any kind of dialogue between the Board and the supporters, many of whom have a lot to offer, for free, to benefit the club. Too often supporters end up saying "what's the point in telling them, they never listen!"
How many supporters have had letters, emails etc go unanswered? I can think of a number of suggestions made in the past that have recieved no consideration. Simple things like, naming the Main Stand (after Nobby Clark, or Roy Paul, or Kev Tudor!), filling the D Stand every week with kids from local schools / football clubs, selling chocolate bars at the refreshment kiosks, hardly the kind of decisions that need huge levels of discussion debate and mass approval, but still things that just have never been considered any further than a bit of lip-service.
Paul Curtis hosted the Supporters Forum some time ago, I'd be interested to know what impact that had on the club, and what changes have been made, has there been any outcome?? Board members have admitted to me that the Social Club has been a disaster, but admitting its a disaster and doing something to rectify the situation are two different things altogether. And when offered an option on revenue generation via the Social Club, they again declined - I'd prefer the maxim of "We failed but at least we tried" from the Board.
Of course it would be totally wrong to say that the Board have done nothing but run the club into the ground, but they havent gone out of their way to engage with people enough to either a) do the things they havent got the bandwidth to do or b) find out how they could improve on the present situation and trust in volunteers to help them make things happen.
At least the EGM will give shareholders a chance to give them an official poke with a stick!!!

[gobby cow]

Laurie Brown told Kevin and I in the carpark after the meeting that Rich never offered any money and if he did where would he find it!! Someone is living a fantasy and I know who I believe!

Plus plenty of other choice titbits!

[Mr T]

Following the reactions of directors and ex-directors after the meeting had been convened, it certainly appears that a raw nerve has been hit.

But why, if the current Board are so desparate to get out, do they not hold the EGM.

If they covnened one and lost the vote, they could have claimed it void because the correct procedures had not been followed - are there alternative motives - are they currently canvassing the shareholders, before the opposition, to ensure that they get the majority - or
am I being paranoid?

What is worse, to me, is that we have a manager who could actually achive something on the pitch and the club just seems to be imploding.

[ctod1959]

I don't think the club is imploding; rather a group of disgruntled ex-directors and supporters have taken it upon themselves, for I'm sure the best of intentions, to challenge what the current board is doing. This has led to a lot of interesting and necessary debate, but also a fair degree of scaremongering and chinese whispers. If you're old enough to remember the song 'Eee, you do look bad' then I think that sums up the current situation to a certain extent.

[Deleted]

The reason the Board don't hold an EGM is because they don't have to, doing nothing is a "winning" option for them, they can't be removed if they do nothing. If I was a Board member at the moment, I certainly wouldn't want the egm to be called.
My understanding is that "middle ground" options were proposed, which would have offered a viable solution for an exit strategy, this was rejected.
Its always been stated, and I've been told this first hand by Directors, that they would gladly resign as Directors if there were people capable of taking their place. Well are the 7 people proposing the egm not capable? 4 of them are former Directors and were co-opted to the Board (so they must have been considered capable then) 1 is a major sponsor and owner of a successful local business who proudly displays the clubs name on his trucks, 1 is a local businessman with links in the community and a long term supporter of the club, the final 1 is also a local businessman who has volunteered his services and generated revenues for the club via the HKL, the Big Matches and other non-football related activities. If these people don't represent capability then fair enough, but there are probably a further 20 or more supporters who could provide that capability via the Supporters Trust.
On a positive note, hows the ground move coming along? Planning applications in?

[gobby cow]

According to Laurie the planning permission is a done deal. so he told us on friday. The council and the planning dept are all for it.

St Modwens have had loads of interest in the site, apparently

[Deleted]

My boss thought his planning permission was a done deal, and now he's been told he's got to pay a further £1500 for a bat survey!!!!!

[Deleted]

"£1500 for a bat survey" That would only apply to a cricket ground, surely?

[niels]

or Nosferatu's summer house.

[Deleted]

Well my boss Mr Nosferatu is seething, he hasn't got bats, but because he lives in the country, the planners say he MIGHT have bats, and if he has then he's got to provide provisions, but before that, he has to have a survey, and thats £1500!!! I mean, its Warwickshire not Transylvania!!!!!

[B*ue dragonstander]

and then there are newts..

[Deleted]

nah.....the bats ate the newts!!!

[prestonwcfc]

and if he has then he's got to provide provisions, quote]


And we all know the rising cost of food these days

[Deleted]

Eat the bats.

[DrAgony]

They'll be very newtritional!

[Deleted]

[Tim Munslow]

With all this ecological stuff flying around bats could actually be a money-making proposition if you could collect the guano; but you need a large cave for that - oh and David Attenborough!

[Tony is not to despondent now.]

There seems to be a big hole in the accounts at the Lane.