|
Post by richwidd on Jul 2, 2016 11:33:07 GMT
Apparently the Board do have an alternative plan as just been announced on the club website. The Big IdeaThey aren't going to tell you what it is though, it's a secret. "The Board is consistently being accused of not having a plan. This is factually incorrect. It is continuing to evaluate all possible options to bring the Club back to the City as quickly as possible. It wishes to continue to build a Club that is vibrant and viable in the future and is at the heart of the community of the City which is its rightful home. Shareholders must understand that unlike the Trust, the majority of directors refuse to conduct the club’s business in public and via the media" All possible options? What are they then? A vibrant Club - they haven't had anyone getting in sponsorship for over TWO YEARS - That's why we hardly have any. So they want a Club at the heart of the Community, yet they announced on Thursday that unless The Heart of Worcestershire College give them £10,000 they are going to cut off ties and go elsewhere. You couldn't make it up! They won't even speak to the media, when was the last time you heard Hampo bigging up the Club? I am yet to see anyone support these clowns, so come on, where are you? And this statement is made without the knowledge of at least three of the WCFC Board. I wonder how many of them actually do know about it!
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 2, 2016 11:44:25 GMT
The first I heard of this was via an official statement on the club website. I can only assume this is an administrative error as I am currently a director of the football club and would naturally be made aware of any statements bring made on behalf of the club board
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 2, 2016 11:50:35 GMT
The first I heard of this was via an official statement on the club website. I can only assume this is an administrative error as I am currently a director of the football club and would naturally be made aware of any statements bring made on behalf of the club board I almost wonder what the point is in yourself, Mike and Jem being on the board of directors - the ''majority of the Board'' seem to keep you in the dark about most issues.
|
|
dcx
Squad Member
Posts: 289
|
Post by dcx on Jul 2, 2016 12:56:44 GMT
Wouldn't surprise me if Heeley and Pinches didn't know either to be honest. We know who's behind this, and it's not 'the Board'.
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 2, 2016 13:11:29 GMT
I wonder if the big plan is to build duck houses for their ponds and claim it as company expenses after all if it was good enough for an MP why not something equally ridiculous for this 'Inner Board' before all the money runs out and there is nothing less for shareholders. Maybe open a bar keep it open for one 'Board' customer and run it at a loss for the Club like before after all it's a tried and tested model at WCFC.
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 2, 2016 13:37:40 GMT
The first I heard of this was via an official statement on the club website. I can only assume this is an administrative error as I am currently a director of the football club and would naturally be made aware of any statements bring made on behalf of the club board I almost wonder what the point is in yourself, Mike and Jem being on the board of directors - the ''majority of the Board'' seem to keep you in the dark about most issues. I don't know whether I am included in the "majority of the board" or not, I had no knowledge whatsoever of this statement before it was issued, and would have made comment prior to it being released so that the "majority of the board" aren't embarrassed by it, or seen to be misleading shareholders. As an example, the Board state that they have a plan, and then go on to say that they will continue to evaluate all options, which means that they don't have a plan! They've either evaluated and created a plan, or they are in the process, its either one or the other!! If there is a plan, I can categorically state that, as a member of the Board of Directors, I am unaware of any plans that have been created regarding the mid to long term future of Worcester City FC. This means that either I have been excluded deliberately from any discussions regarding future planning in the six months I've sat on the Board, or that there is no plan in place. This statement in itself totally contradicts statements made to shareholders on Thursday. Anthony Hampson told shareholders that the only plan was the short term survival plan, presented by Carl Heeley. He went on to state that the club had 2/3 years left before the money runs out. Carl also stated to shareholders that the board did not believe that there was any need to change the constitution, and that the club could prosper in its present formation. If this is the view of the board, why would there be any need for any other plan? So the plan presented to shareholders on Thursday night was quite simple, we will carry on as we are with a survival plan in the short term, until the money runs out! Shareholders, please think about this, if there was a better plan in place, would you not want to be told about it? Would you not expect a responsible board to protect your interests by presenting a plan for the future other than just stay as we are but try and save a bit of money? So wither there is a plan (which only the majority of the board are aware of) or there isn't, which was the statement made by the board to shareholders on Thursday, one way or another, shareholders appear to be being misled here. I believe that this statement released by the board, which I am distancing myself from, and have had no input or association with, shows the difference in operating style between the present board and the Supporters Trust. The Supporters Trust recognise that this football club should be as all inclusive as possible, involving shareholders, supporters and the community of Worcester in a manner of openness , honesty and transparency. The Supporters Trust believe that there is a huge amount of goodwill and skills and knowledge within the support base who are willing and able to help the club move forward, the Supporters Trust respect the views of shareholders and supporters. It appears that the majority of the board of the football club have a different viewpoint. They have confirmed in this statement that they will do their business in private, behind closed doors, without engagement with either shareholders or supporters. sorry folks, but it appears that the majority of the board do not think that your view, your opinion, your input is required. I wonder how many shareholders left the meeting on Thursday (concluded hurriedly by Anthony Hampson before all questions were answered, the Supporters Trust and shareholders meeting the week before would have gone on till midnight if needed, in order to answer all questions raised!) feeling that they had been given any answers, or any assurances regarding the future of the club? It is certainly not the view of the Supporters Trust that, when told that you lack enthusiasm and leadership, that you close the meeting! It is really up to shareholders though, whether you favour the behind closed doors approach of the majority of the board, or the open, honest and transparent approach of the minority of the board, the Supporters Trust, and a number of concerned shareholders!
|
|
|
Post by kentenigmawcfc on Jul 2, 2016 14:33:30 GMT
Well put Jem, After Thursday night I am firmly of the opinion that ex Board members who went along with the 'Nunnery Way' fiasco and persuaded shareholders and I admit it, including myself, it was a viable plan, (After all why would I have thought a member of the legal profession who served on the Board would not have the clubs interests at heart!) are actually pulling a lot of strings behind the scenes now, primarily trying to discredit the Trust plans and those trust members such as yourself who were right in your assumptions and appraisals about the 'Nunnery Way Plan' then as I think you are with your plans now. They didn't get away with their plans and they are grimly determined to stop yours rather than face reality, so they are acting out of a vindictive hatred rather than putting the Club and it's future first. Anthony and they current 'Inner Board' and I am exempting Carl and Martin, as my gut instinct says they are broadly neutral and are doing as is asked of them, but the rest are now tainted and can no longer be trusted by the Trust, shareholders, fans and supporters alike.
The only way this Club can move forward is by the removal of the obstacle to progress board members who rule the club and I think it is 'Archie' who uses this description as their own private fiefdum. The transparency and inclusiveness of Board, Trust, shareholders and fans just does not exist and I have lost all confidence in this board being able to find a sustainable survival plan, support the tireless efforts of the Trust to find such a plan by crossing each 't' and dotting each 'i' along the way, a plan which was presented back what must be some four years ago now and has continued to be researched and fine tuned ever since to make it as watertight as possible in this uncertain and impossible to guarantee world.
As far as I can see this 'Feifdom inner Board' is largely bankrupt of fresh ideas and incapable of embracing anything the Trust offer, especially when as I think they are under the influence of those old Board members and their vendetta against certain individuals on the Trust Board.
My fellow shareholders please vote as you see fit but make sure you do all your research first, pros and cons with respect to the Trust proposals and then look at what the Board has done since we left SGL, have they actually done anything towards the survival of the Club other than say they are broadly in favour of Trust plans but do little to support them and are now doing as their behind the scenes masters instruct and are backtracking away from them without any rhyme or reason of an explanation as to why to shareholders as should have happened last Thursday? They them tempt you with a morsel in the form of this 'Plan B' but cannot give you one jot of information to cling to claiming confidentiality. Confidentiality or not there was nothing to stop them giving a few details of the type of plan it was, without naming any person, persons or companies by name but we were denied anything at all. This 'Inner Board' is morally bankrupt as far as I am concerned and perhaps we are having the wrong type of 'EGM' on Thursday and perhaps think about another sort of 'EGM' VERY soon!
|
|
|
Post by Brooksiders Return!! on Jul 2, 2016 14:50:42 GMT
The first I heard of this was via an official statement on the club website. I can only assume this is an administrative error as I am currently a director of the football club and would naturally be made aware of any statements bring made on behalf of the club board I almost wonder what the point is in yourself, Mike and Jem being on the board of directors - the ''majority of the Board'' seem to keep you in the dark about most issues. The point is that , we want to continue working alongside the football club, to bring a level of unity and open discussion regarding how the club move forward in very difficult times. It has always been our intention to work alongside all stakeholders in the club, whether we agree or disagree, we work together. I'm of the opinion that "nobody wins, unless everybody wins" and in order for everyone to win, we all need to get involved, we all need to fully understand the situation at the club, and we all need to be able to openly discuss our points of view, and come up with a way forward that provides a future for the club. When me and Rob joined the board, we were of the opinion that the board of directors were of the same opinion. I can however confirm that anyone with suspicions that there was an "Inner Board" was right. I have just had it confirmed in writing by a fellow director that the statement issued by the " majority of the board" was agreed on without any consultation or knowledge of myself, Mike and Rob. The inference is that the whole board were consulted and some of them did not agree, this is not the case, we were never even given the opportunity to review a statement issued on our behalf, let alone agree or disagree with it. Whatsmore, this was done with the approval of Anthony Collins & Co solicitors, although I am not sure whether they were aware that one third of the board of directors were excluded from this statement The board of directors are not even capable of operating in an open, honest and transparent way with its own fellow directors!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 15:11:13 GMT
Perhaps the most disgraceful aspect (and there are numerous examples to pick from) of this whole disgraceful episode is the way they have dragged King Carl - a hero of the club - into this sewage pit. He's got a job to do on the pitch - not behind the scenes supporting these incompetent, and I suspect, corrupt shower.
Which brings me back to trying to analyse what they're really up to. As was said in All the President's Men, when searching for the truth - "Follow the money".
|
|
|
Post by thesecondjack on Jul 2, 2016 16:07:06 GMT
The board of directors are not even capable of operating in an open, honest and transparent way with its own fellow directors! That is why I'm not sure what the point is. Helping move the club forwards, increasing transparency and everything else is all well and good if you're capable of doing so - but because of the non-communication from the long standing members of the board, towards yourselves, I don't think you're able to fulfil your duties as directors to an acceptable level. This is all a complaint towards them not the three of you I should stress!
|
|
|
Post by The Verner on Jul 2, 2016 17:31:47 GMT
Hang onto the monkey bars....let me just digest this paragraph
"The Board is consistently being accused of not having a plan. This is factually incorrect. It is continuing to evaluate all possible options to bring the Club back to the City as quickly as possible."
So there is a plan !......There is a plan to find a plan and are continuing to evaluate all possible plans......so technically there isnt a plan !
Also....
“The problem is there are discussions going on at the moment and we have got confidentiality agreements in place.”
What with St Modwens ? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but thats already bloody sorted !
Everyone should be working together to save the club not f*cking about with its future.
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Jul 2, 2016 18:04:44 GMT
I assume the confidentiality piece refers to the information the majority board have which they choose not to share with me. Shhh.
|
|