|
Post by dave on Oct 6, 2008 19:26:44 GMT
I stopped posting on this forum a few weeks back, and taking a step back has allowed me to look at the bigger picture and reflect on all that has gone on and what the future holds for Worcester City Football Club.
I am no longer calling on Dave Boddy (or any other member of the Board of Directors for that matter) to resign at this time. The reason for this is that I do not think there is a credible alternative to the current Directors in existence at this time. A group who are willing to sit back and watch the Club enter administration and perhaps disappear forever are not, in my view acting in the Club’s best interests.
Undoubtedly the current Board and all the others who have served on the Board in the last 5-10 years have made some mistakes, and in some cases big ones, but what is done is done and we must all look to the future and pull together if the Club is going to survive. Petty arguments and throwing around insults is not achieving anything, but is hastening the Club’s decline as people get sick of the situation and start to stay away altogether.
So there is not as much as any of us would like in the kitty to build at Nunnery Way, and all the eggs have foolishly been placed in one basket, but there is not much any of us can do about that now, so we should try and make the best of what we have. Planning applications are due in the very near future for housing on the St Georges Lane site and the Nunnery Way development and this could be a real turning point for the Club.
The stadium development now has to be phased, disappointing but in the circumstances understandable (lets not forget that Liverpool FC have had to put their stadium plans on hold altogether because of the credit crunch). What is far more important to me is that a business plan is in place to finish the project and to make the Club sustainable at Nunnery Way. I know that some people have little faith in Dave Boddy and the other Directors to come up with this business plan, but I believe that is why they have engaged experts to produce it, and I hope it will become apparent when the stadium plans are revealed this month.
I have been as critical as anyone of Dave Boddy and the other remaining Directors, but having reflected, I do not believe that their perceived incompetence is entirely their own fault. These four gentleman are running the football club in their spare time, they all have jobs and families and are not going to be experienced in dealing with such a major project. This has meant that throughout the last 18 months or so, much of the Stadium projects progress has been at the mercy of the huge St Modwen machine, for whom this project must be minor compared to other irons they have in the fire at the moment.
St Modwen will be setting the timescales for everything and this must leave the Board of Directors in a difficult position as rightly or wrongly, they are playing to St Modwen’s tune and are not in a position to call the shots and hurry things along. Therefore when criticised by supporters (myself included) for not delivering news, they are stuck between a desire to make a statement, and knowing that they cannot give definite dates unless St Modwen are ready to move forward. They are if you like “damned if they do and damned if they don’t” as far as making statements on the progress of the project goes. Say nothing and people think nothing is happening, or say some news is coming soon and risk looking foolish if St Modwen change the timescales on you again.
I am not trying to say that the Board of Directors have done a good job so far, far from it, they have some big failings that I think they themselves would recognise. The Club’s PR is an embarrassment and they have not helped themselves by making promises that they are not in a position to be able to make sure they keep.
However I have come to realise that there is no point criticising them and ridiculing them on message boards, as it will not change anything other than drive people away from the Club and bring about its demise. Challenge them and ask questions by all means, but do it with direct communication to them through the right channels, keep it civil and sensible and they will respond to you.
For all I have said about Dave Boddy in the past, I am grateful to him for e-mailing and calling me and having a conversation in which he listened to my concerns and provided as many answers to the questions I asked, as he was able to. Did he give me all the answers to allay my fears about the viability of the ground move and the sustainability of the Club at Nunnery Way? No, but I will continue to ask questions and make suggestions to him and he has indicated he is willing to listen and provide answers whenever he can. This I feel is more constructive that calling him an incompetent megalomaniac and seeking his resignation, which was my previous approach.
To summarise (if anyone is still reading!) I have realised over the last few weeks that there is nothing to be gained from slagging the Directors off and calling for resignations. It achieves nothing and is not in any way constructive.
Yes all the Directors have made big mistakes in the last 10 years, all the eggs were put in one basket and not enough time was spent trying to control the spiralling debt, but I do not believe there is a credible alternative to the current Board of Directors in existence at this time, and I believe that a stadium will ultimately be delivered at Nunnery Way, albeit later than hoped and in phases.
We are where we are, what is done is done, and I for one think that at this time we should be pulling together and making the best of what he have rather than engaging in bitter and pointless attacks that will not reduce the debt, will not speed up the process of building a stadium at Nunnery Way and will not increase the sale price of St Georges Lane.
I know that this will put me at odds with many other posters on this message board, but having taken a step back and looked at the bigger picture, this is how I feel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2008 20:00:06 GMT
I am more inclined to take the view of Dr Mike Sorensen and other former Directors (I am not talking of the SHAG group) who believe that there is a credible alternative, its called the Worcester City Football Club Supporters Trust. I have listened to Mr Boddy, raised questions and listened to the answers, via direct communication. After a period of time you realise the answers are plain bunkum. You then realise that Mr Boddy is as ineffective in his role as the other three Directors, and that none of them really have a clue whats going on around them. Take this as an example, Mr Boddy says he will stand down for the right man, constitutionally it doesn't work like that, he just doesn't understand that an outgoing Chairman can't appoint his own successor! Mr Boddy may be Chairman, but he is not even close to being at the helm. Whats worse, they DO know their failings but are incapable of doing anything about it, and why? Because I have it on good authority, from someone who has tried very hard to broker a number of commercial arrangements for the club, that business people just don't want to be involved with the club whilst the present Board are in place. Its a catch 22, which can only be resolved via a complete overhaul of the Boardroom. Dave you talk of the Business Plan, is this the same business plan which was promised to be delivered to shareholders in July? We are now supposedly going to planning stage, with no business plan presented? Do you believe there is one? If there is one, then is it still based upon what Alan Williams told shareholders quite clearly with no ambiguity - £3.5 million nett. No money in the bank, no debt, no overage for further development. Thats the reality from the project manager! It sounds like you've been suckered in by the charm offensive Dave - I've been there, back in 2004. You live and learn. Maybe you'd like to tell us what the explanation was for the lack of any development or investment in terms of time or money in the social club? and why the club has steadfastly refused to take any offers of help to generate a minimum of £20k per annum for the last 5 years? We never seem to get answers to those questions!
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 6, 2008 20:09:53 GMT
You're not wrong, on many fronts. I've been asking myself lately what the big prize is at the end of the day. I had hoped it was to be a WCFC for the future, I'm starting very much to believe that it is more about people than it is about the club. Neither faction, if we can call them that, has a visible business plan in place. I've been unable to establish for my own peace of mind whether the Trust is for the good of WCFC or is merely a vehicle to oust the board as part of the SHAG group's manifesto, no communication with Trust officials has gone anywhere near satisying that requirement. I shan't be looking to get involved while the Trust goals are identical to that of SHAG.
Change is undoubtedly required, structural change, personnel change, vision and ambition change. The club needs desperately to be dragged into the 20th century and then eventually the 21st, it needs to start being run as a business and not as a private drinking club for one person and his cronies. I cannot support the current board of directors any longer, but remain far from convinced that the alternatives proposed to date have any greater grasp of what is required to turn the club around.
|
|
|
Post by almasno9 on Oct 6, 2008 20:37:40 GMT
Dave - can you honestly, hand on heart, be totally convinced that whatever Dave Boddy told you in your recent conversations that you genuinely believe him? The man has consistently patronised supporters as though they are all complete idiots with empty promises regarding AGM's, EGM's, ground move information, websites etc. Irrespective of whether he may or may not be a nice bloke away from the club, supporters and shareholders will judge him on what he has brought to Worcester City FC. In my opinion his reign as chairman has brought increased debt, a potentially catastrophic ground move which will finish the club off (IF WE SURVIVE THAT LONG), a climate where investors will have nothing to do wih the club despite the obvious potential of the football manager and the team itself and a social club that is an embarrassment to the history of the club. He has alienated life long supporters to the extent they are either boycotting matches or refusing to help the club free of charge (or both). It's hardly a track record to be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 6, 2008 20:52:09 GMT
As someone involved with the Supporters Trust, I am sorry to say that the Trust is in no position to run the football club at the moment. The Trust is just getting started and has some enthusiastic people invoved, but as yet is not even sure itself what it is trying to achieve. You have deliberately kept out of the Trust Jem for reasons I respect, but if you think the Trust could take on the running of the Club tomorrow, you are way off the mark.
I am nobody's sucker Jem but I do not see what the alternatives are right now and cannot see what you or anyone else (myself included) has achieved by slagging off the Board constantly for the last few months.
For the record I do believe a business plan has been developed (by Delloite and not the Board) and I think it is a crying shame that they have not put this into the public domain yet, as I think it would help allay many peoples fears, mine included.
Like the planning application, the delay in getting these things into the public domain is hugely frustrating and leaves the Board wide open to criticism. As I have said though, they are not in control of this project, St Modwen would appear to call the shots and decide when things move forwards.
I am far from happy with where the Club finds itself, but if the Directors all resigned tomorrow, I do not believe the Club would be in a better position.
|
|
|
Post by prestonwcfc on Oct 6, 2008 21:15:17 GMT
I can only back the continued growth of the Trust.
No they are not ready to run the club at present but give it time.
And I'm sure we will see a distancing of the Trust from SHAG over the coming months as they seek to get more involved with the community at large starting with the Antu Racism event on the 1st Nov.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 6, 2008 21:22:22 GMT
Spot on prestonwcfc, the Trust will have a very important role to play in the future, but right now it is not ready to run the Club, and is building and learning. Running a hastily arranged raffle is one thing, running a football club is another entirely.
I think every Worcester City Supporter should join the Trust and in the long term I would love to see us be a Trust run club, but right now we are not ready in my view.
|
|
BDS
Squad Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by BDS on Oct 6, 2008 22:46:30 GMT
All we need is democracy and we need it NOW.
How can any potential set of Directors make any sort of plans when the fundamental details of the Club's business, proposals and funding are kept secret even from Board members let alone us poor disenfranchised shareholders?
I have sent a list of detailed questions to the Press (not the ones listed below I may add) which have yet to be answered by the "Directors" as I believe they have not responded yet to a request for an interview. When these questions are answered - and they never will be by the way - then we will start to get to the truth of what has been going on at the Club inthe last few years.
When people of integrity have to leave the Board because of what they see (or don't come to that) then we have to sit up and take notice don't we and NOT give in or give up?
Dave I know you are a 100% true blue like the rest of us but you are being conned. Simple as that.
If there is no challenge it is because there is no point. There will be no AGM. All legitimate requests for an EGM will be refused. The only option available to force the Club to be run legitimately and transparently is to go to Court and seek the directions of a judge who would order an AGM and we could be assured that the process would be carried out properly. What is the point of that? a) it would cost money to whoever took the action (WCFCST?) and b) the Board would use yet more "Club" money to fight the action to try to preserve their positions.
Dave you say these guys are amateurs? Can you tell me what Mr Prescotts other job is? Or Mr Brown? or Mr Boddy? I exempt Mr Partridge from this.
Which of the first three has not derived income from the Club either directly or indirectly by virtue of their positions as Director? Do they run other businesses from the Club premises? Do they pay the Club rent for this? etc etc
Why do we not have detailed accounts detailing any transactions that have occurred between the Club and Directors since 31 May 2006 (over 2 years and 4 months since the money has been publicly accounted for)?
Why were the Auditors changed recently? Perhaps there was a disagreement about the disclosure necessary? Could that have damaged the reputation of the Board further? We dont know but there is a sure way to quell the rumour mill. Account properly for the Club's money and hold an AGM on a Saturday after a home match (good attendance guaranteed), accept any nominations for the Board and put yourself up for re-election. Provide full details of the ground "sale". Tell us how much deposit has been paid? What is the conditionality? Is it a put and call option? What is the formula that determines the final price of the Club's ONLY asset? In short act in the best interest of the Club and what is more be seen to do so. After all what is there to hide?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2008 7:50:35 GMT
Spot on bds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2008 8:17:14 GMT
As someone involved with the Supporters Trust, I am sorry to say that the Trust is in no position to run the football club at the moment. The Trust is just getting started and has some enthusiastic people invoved, but as yet is not even sure itself what it is trying to achieve. You have deliberately kept out of the Trust Jem for reasons I respect, but if you think the Trust could take on the running of the Club tomorrow, you are way off the mark. I am nobody's sucker Jem but I do not see what the alternatives are right now and cannot see what you or anyone else (myself included) has achieved by slagging off the Board constantly for the last few months. For the record I do believe a business plan has been developed (by Delloite and not the Board) and I think it is a crying shame that they have not put this into the public domain yet, as I think it would help allay many peoples fears, mine included. Like the planning application, the delay in getting these things into the public domain is hugely frustrating and leaves the Board wide open to criticism. As I have said though, they are not in control of this project, St Modwen would appear to call the shots and decide when things move forwards. I am far from happy with where the Club finds itself, but if the Directors all resigned tomorrow, I do not believe the Club would be in a better position. If St. Modwen are in control of the project, and I am sure that they are, then why not come out and say it? Its a perfect foil against criticism, and a PR master stroke!. Instead, Mr Boddy has taken the line that this is a joint venture, and that WCFC are in fact directing affairs with St. Modwen. Lets think for a second what a public consultation really means - this is when its starts to get dirty, this is when you will start to realise that Mr Andrew Guy and the Spetchley Residents Group, and Spetchley Estates actually have a very powerful argument, complete with precedence, against the St. Modwen developments. Do we really believe Mr Boddy's timescales? Again it suits St. Modwen to have Mr Boddy as the mouthpiece, no criticism of their actions, no spotlight on what they are doing, they just give him enough rope and he can hang himself for all they care, and they just keep working at their pace. I don't think the Supporters Trust could take over the running of the club Dave, I know it! I have been told as much by a number of influential business people in and around Worcester, they could only be involved with WCFC if it was run as a community based club. I also know that Supporters Direct are the only organisation capable of managing the transformation from one club to another without such stiff penalties from the League or from the FA. There is massive precendence for community ran clubs, none of them ever having experience of running a football club before, who have been thrown in at the deep end, and with the support of the Supporters Direct organisation, have made a damn good fist of things. If I read your post correctly, what you are saying is that, in your view, within the local area, there is no-one better qualified to run Worcester City Football Club than Mr Brown, Mr Prescott, Mr Partridge, and Mr Boddy? If that is seriously the case, then we are truly doomed - they cannot even attract anyone to join the Board, and they cannot keep good people like Dr Sorensen on board. I tend to share the view of the Doc, the answer isn't SHAG, although it was never going to be - SHAG wasn't a takeover bid, it was the only constitutional way to effect boardroom change, the former directors didn't want to takeover the Boardroom, they simply wanted to open up the Boardroom for new, and probably unknown, people to get involved. The Doc recognised this, hence the compromise arrangement. I don't know what Mr Boddy has told you directly about the compromise and why it was refused, but I would guess that it does not reflect the content of emails that I have. If you belive what Mr Boddy tells you directly, then why did he blatantly lie about what happened with the compromise, to the point that his version of events did not even tie in with the timing of the statement posted on the official website by a third party? Or, why did he lie about the reasons for Wayne departure from the website? Why did he change the statement he had agreed with Wayne to a point that it was unrecognisable and caused Wayne some embarrassment? This is the bottom line. With no SHAG, there is no constitutional way to remove the present board, they are there in perpetuity, whether we like it or not. No-one will work with the present board, businesses will not get involved, external financing has dried up, volunteers are dropping like flies, the bank will not increase the overdraft limit, the loan arrangements on £800,000 are unclear after December 2009. Anyone with a spreadsheet and copies of two years accounts can put together basic cashflow forecasts and see what the position of the club is. The only way out is the ground move, however, with the ground move, the funds don't add up, and the project is being controlled by St. Modwen to St. Modwen timescales. Do St. Modwen really care if it takes 6 years to get the planning permission that they need? After all they have an arrangement in place which gives them 10 years!! There is no business plan, apart from the business plans of Carey New Homes and St. Modwen. The new ground - facts (as provided by Alan Williams on more than one occasion) £3.5 million nett - no overage - no money in the bank - no debt. Do you really believe the "jam tomorrow" story of phasing that Mr Boddy is talking about? There is no money for phasing, and no plans for revenue raising in place as yet - again, I know this as fact and will share this with you confidentially if possible. Also remember, once phase one is built, St. Modwen are out of there, WCFC Ltd. is on its own, in which case the WCFC machine should already be cranked up for revenue raising today! That has to be part of the business plan, if there is a business plan in place, it should already be in action, we don't start when we move into a new ground, we should have started 2 years ago! No accountability No Business engagement No community engagement No planning I doubt that St. Modwen could have wished for a more suitably qualified stooge than WCFC Ltd.!!!
|
|
|
Post by StopfordianWCFC on Oct 7, 2008 8:42:09 GMT
I think BDS is right on this in terms of the need for accountability and information. The amount of vitriol spouted on this forum in recent weeks has resulted from pretty much one reason - a complete lack of information and engagement and the seemingly suspicious desire to avoid an AGM. Within this vacuum rumours and anger fester. I am personally still extremely disappointed in the way in which the ground was sold out from under the noses of the shareholders - without their promised input or consultation. For this reason alone the board should consider their positions, as whilst they may have acted in the club's interest, we have absolutely no way of validating this or (without discussions at an AGM or similar meeting) calling them to account. It is the continued silence on the serious questions that builds resentment - the PR has been non-existant or in many respects counter productive. I'm in the mood for change as its clear that the club has turned in on itself at the moment and no good can come of it. I don't think DB is stupid and can see that for himself. So what are the alternatives? The trust must distance itself from SHAG - it needs to be independent. Whether the main individuals at the trust are ready to take over the club or not is irrelevant - i doubt any trust was prior to the relevant disaster happening - I suspect its the ultimate 'on the job training'. The trust must be the club's 'safety net' and act as a fans voice in assessing the options. SHAG must reveal its hand in terms of its aims and objectives for the club, their 'business plan' and the length of time they see themselves in place (are they to be caretakers or long term rulers). A manifesto of 'sack the board' is simply not enough. If they can't or won't do this, I think their time has passed. Is there a realistic 'third way' - is the board really 'open for offers' from persons outside the surrent set up to come in and, for want of a better phrase, take over? They suggest that they are, but in practice it would seem otherwise. The current board must recognise that they are now a spent force and must seriously look for new faces - lock, stock and barrel. Whilst I understand that they see this as a risk to the club, the future currently looks bleak under their current tactic of mothballing all initiatives until the ground move is sorted. It is this jam tomorrow school of thinking that has lead to the masive debts, no income sources and more recently the haemorraging of support as the fans finally begin to see the light. Its a horrible position and really I do hope that the board have the strength of character now to admit their mistakes, seek out a new regime and look to move on. In the short term at least I ask them to emerge from their bolt holes and at least attempt to engage the fanbase sincerely and unambiguously (a la DB with Dave / Sheddy). It is the only way that the club can seek to move forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2008 8:48:09 GMT
Hear, hear Mancunian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2008 9:15:25 GMT
The third way was tabled by Dr Sorensen. It was an ideal compromise - it involved every party getting round the table with representation from the existing Board, from the SHAG, from Supporters Trust, from Supporters club (if they so wished). Whatever stories eminate regarding the compromise, the fact is, it was refused by the existing Board, because, regardless of what they may say to your face, none of them, not Mr Boddy, not Mr Partridge, not Mr Prescott and not Mr Brown actually want to step down from being a director.
With no constitutional way of executing a change, we just have to face it I guess, we've got what we've got, and they're staying put regardless of the cost.
so is that it?
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 7, 2008 10:12:19 GMT
With no constitutional way of executing a change, we just have to face it I guess, we've got what we've got, and they're staying put regardless of the cost. so is that it? And there’s the problem – no compromise! I think this thread is getting to the real nitty gritty of things that matter rather than some of the needless name calling of recent weeks. Dave – I understand where you are coming from – but I think enough other people: BDS, Jem, TJ etc have explained why that view may not hold water. But in essence you are right. This is all hot air unless an alternative to the current dwindling un-business-like regime can be found. If not, the moaners (me included) should put up and shut up. I have it on good authority that there are serious business players in the area willing to invest in a more community-led, imaginatively-run WCFC – a local football club that truly connects with local community in a myriad of ways – but they have looked at the track record of the current board and simply will not do biz with them. This is totally understandable – they want something more for their money and involvement than merely tipping cash into a black hole. A thoroughly reputable businesswomen like Celia Adams has tried to breathe some life into the club but found it just wasn’t possible. It has been indicated that the Supporters Trust is the best vehicle to make this happen. As Jem has said, this is very possible – so many other clubs have done it – and, in my view, it could and should happen at WCFC. A trust can build trust and act as a mediator to bring people together and help engage the whole of the local community..and that includes business people who might be able to bring sense and stability to WCFC. But is this likely? The current answer would appear to be ‘no’. I made my position totally and completely clear when I got involved in helping re-boot the Supporters Trust back in March: I want Worcester City Football Club to be run by the local community in the best interests of the local community – and the best vehicle for that is via a Supporters Trust. That is still my position. But the common perception is that WCFCST Trust isn’t an independent group at all – rather that it exists merely as a battering ram for a faction, the Shareholders Action Group, which has used the Supporters Trust to do its dirty work. The sad reality is this group claims to represent shareholders but has repeatedly failed to gain sufficient shareholder support to force an EGM. I don’t doubt their good intentions for the club and I have no personal animosity against any of the prime movers involved, but if they cannot to successfully organise a lobby of shareholders how can they expect to fully reach out the local community to build the club we all want Worcester City to be? Sadly people like myself were shouted down and marginalized back in April for wanting to maintain the Trust’s independence – in particular I was against one person taking it upon himself, supposedly on behalf of the Trust, to order Dave Boddy to resign as chairman. It has hardly worked! So I am no longer involved - but what has happened since the realtive high water of the Trust relaunch meeting at WCCC on 4 April? The SHAG/current board compromise has come and gone – would-be directors like Celia Adams and Simon Williams have come and gone…but the debts have mounted and speculation has remained. The Supporters Trust has been constituted – but is it in a position to go forward from here? Can it fulfil a more significant role as outlined above…or is it just going to exist without exerting any influence...or it is there to help the SHAG gain control? I would like to think it is the first of these options - but I am not sure how is that going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 7, 2008 10:32:41 GMT
You been cribbing my unsent items Chris? That is so close in sentiment to what I have spent the last few minutes typing up ready to copy and paste onto the message board! Needless to say... I agree
|
|
cg
Squad Member
Posts: 279
|
Post by cg on Oct 7, 2008 11:01:19 GMT
You been cribbing my unsent items Chris? That is so close in sentiment to what I have spent the last few minutes typing up ready to copy and paste onto the message board! Needless to say... I agree telepathy !!
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 7, 2008 11:55:50 GMT
What I am asking for is a more constructive way forward to be pursued, because all of the back biting and name calling is not going to change a damn thing.
The Directors are not going to resign, this much is obvious, and despite what you say Jem, I do not see that our Trust (an organisation you for good reasons have not joined) is anywhere near ready to run a football club at this time. Nor do I have much faith in the SHAG any longer following the shambles of the EGM requests and the withdrawal to watch the slow death from the wings.
These many and varied business people in and around Worcester who are keen to get involved with a community run club, keep being spoken about, but who are they? Various predictions about the Club's impending demise have been as imprecise and vague as the Board's statements on the ground move and AGM etc.
The approach that has been adopted has not achieved anything as far as I can tell, other than drive people away from the Club, and I think that people could use their time more constructively to secure the Club's future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2008 12:49:41 GMT
There is no more constructive way forward, other than a change of Board. Remember the compromise (a more constructive way forward, the third way or whatever else it wants to be called) was rejected by the present board simply because none of them were prepared to resign, not one of them!! They all say that given the chance they would resign, well, given the chance they wouldn't even take a soft exit!! I have an email where the SHAG state that they would be prepared to further compromise if this happened, by adding further shareholders to offset those Directors that refused to resign, so if Prescott wanted to stay on, then a SHAG member was proposed. Unfortunately, due to the false statement published by a third party on the official website before the Voard meeting had finished, stating that the SHAG group had rejected the boards revised compromise (which ironically they may well have accepted) it was clear that there was no way forward. Dave, why do you not think our Supporters Trust is in a position to take over the club? Whats this based upon? Do you think Wimbledons was? Most Supporters Trusts are formed AFTER the club has gone into administration, or threatened with liquidation. Are we not more prepared than they are? The Supporters Trust is in the throes of putting together a business plan, which outlines the direction the aims and the challenges, the irony is that in order to put together a full business plan, the ST need assistance from the club in terms of financial position, which, if the club really want to engage with supporters trust, they will provide, if not?? Well!!! WCFC is a tiny football club, its got a wage bill of about £250,000 a year - jeez, my little software company in Walsall had a wage bill higher than that!!! and a bigger turnover, and it made a profit, once!! The only difference was that my asset register constituted one big AS400, thats all, no £7 million ground! You talk of the shambles of the EGM requests, consider this. The first EGM request was thrown out due to legalese - it happens, its almost expected. The second EGM request was drawn up in accordance with constitution, but was withdrawn by SHAG at the request of Dr Sorensen and the board, who believed that they had a workable compromise. So, what you're saying Dave is that it would have been less shambolic, and more effective for SHAG to have REFUSED the compromise and carried on with the EGM request? But now you're asking for a third way? SHAG ACCEPTED the Third Way approach, they compromised!!! The board then u-turned, and that is why there is no chance of any compromise, who in their right mind would compromise with people that you can no longer trust? This action led directly to Dr Sorensens resignation, it is this treatment of Dr Sorensen that really sticks in my craw, remember it isn't SHAG, or the supporters Trust who said "the present board of directors are incapable of taking the club forward" So the approach so far has not achieved anything? I believe it has, for example it has shown that an EGM could now be forced tomorrow, that means 10% of the shareholders are prepared to put their name to an EGM, thats never been axchieved before. It forced a public meeting to be held at the Whitehouse Hotel, and a public discussion on the club financing for the new ground. This shows that the figures are unworkable. It has forced the club to finally issue a set of accounts to Companies House, if you think writing to Companies House didn't work, then read the letter I had in response from CH!! It has brought WCFC to the attention of Supporters Direct who have placed WCFC as one of their priority cases. It has made people see just how much they were being taken for a ride by the present board. I'm not just talking supporters and volunteers here.
The ironic thing is, I went to the game against St Albans in really high spirits, not that a takeover was going to happen, but that a real compromise had been positioned that would get everyone around the table. The Board said NO!!
The easy thing to do now is walk away. Which is basically what everyone is doing. SHAG, Dr Sorensen, Celia Adams, Simon Williams, supporters, volunteers, the only people not walking away are the Supporters Trust!
|
|