|
|
Post by dave on Oct 25, 2008 14:16:39 GMT
In light of my posts in recent days I thought I should take a little time to explain my actions.
I firmly believe that the WCFC Supporters Trust that I have joined should be striving to have representation on the Board of Directors (and hopefully one day have a controlling stake in the football club).
I am concerned that an offer of such representation, was turned down by the elected members of the Trust Board without Trust Members being notified that an offer had even been made. I should say at this point that I am not saying I disagree with their decision necessarily, just the fact that I found out via a terrace rumour and not through the Trust’s website (which presumably is there so that the Trust Board can communicate with the Members). The majority of Trust Members will still not know that an offer of a seat on the Board was made.
I am equally concerned that despite assurances from certain members of the Trust Board that the Trust is not backing either side in the battle for control of the Club, I have been told that a Trust Representative has been proposed as one of the new Directors in the EGM request. ( I have no idea if this is true or not at this stage, but I do not think Rob Crean is a liar and I believe him when he says that the Trust Board have not discussed such an offer from those who have submitted the EGM request). Therefore if a Trust Representative has been named in the EGM request, those drafting the request have been extremely presumptuous at the very least, and you could argue misleading.
The reason I think the Trust should not be backing either side at this time, is that whoever is in control after an AGM/EGM, the Trust should be looking to get a seat in the Boardroom (if that is what the majority of Trust Members vote in favour of). If the Trust aligns itself with those looking to take over, and the existing Board win the vote at an AGM/EGM (stranger things have happened!), then the Trust has damaged its chances of working with the existing Board in the future. It also risks further alienating those City Supporters on a Matchday who already think the Supporters Trust are just a bunch of “troublemakers”.
The Trust should keep out of the Boardroom struggle and look to work with whoever is in control when the dust settles. In the meantime the Trust needs to do more to communicate developments to its members, and I know that the Trust Board will be looking to improve in this area.
My actions may well have damaged the Trust in the short term, and for this I am truly sorry. I am also sorry that my actions may have lost me friends within the WCFC community but I hope however that in the long term the way I have chosen to go about this can avoid similar mistakes being made in the future and can strengthen the position of the Trust as an independent voice for City Supporters.
|
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 25, 2008 15:35:57 GMT
In light of my posts in recent days I thought I should take a little time to explain my actions. I firmly believe that the WCFC Supporters Trust that I have joined should be striving to have representation on the Board of Directors (and hopefully one day have a controlling stake in the football club). I am concerned that an offer of such representation, was turned down by the elected members of the Trust Board without Trust Members being notified that an offer had even been made. I should say at this point that I am not saying I disagree with their decision necessarily, just the fact that I found out via a terrace rumour and not through the Trust’s website (which presumably is there so that the Trust Board can communicate with the Members). The majority of Trust Members will still not know that an offer of a seat on the Board was made. I am equally concerned that despite assurances from certain members of the Trust Board that the Trust is not backing either side in the battle for control of the Club, I have been told that a Trust Representative has been proposed as one of the new Directors in the EGM request. ( I have no idea if this is true or not at this stage, but I do not think Rob Crean is a liar and I believe him when he says that the Trust Board have not discussed such an offer from those who have submitted the EGM request). Therefore if a Trust Representative has been named in the EGM request, those drafting the request have been extremely presumptuous at the very least, and you could argue misleading. The reason I think the Trust should not be backing either side at this time, is that whoever is in control after an AGM/EGM, the Trust should be looking to get a seat in the Boardroom (if that is what the majority of Trust Members vote in favour of). If the Trust aligns itself with those looking to take over, and the existing Board win the vote at an AGM/EGM (stranger things have happened!), then the Trust has damaged its chances of working with the existing Board in the future. It also risks further alienating those City Supporters on a Matchday who already think the Supporters Trust are just a bunch of “troublemakers”. The Trust should keep out of the Boardroom struggle and look to work with whoever is in control when the dust settles. In the meantime the Trust needs to do more to communicate developments to its members, and I know that the Trust Board will be looking to improve in this area. My actions may well have damaged the Trust in the short term, and for this I am truly sorry. I am also sorry that my actions may have lost me friends within the WCFC community but I hope however that in the long term the way I have chosen to go about this can avoid similar mistakes being made in the future and can strengthen the position of the Trust as an independent voice for City Supporters. Dave, you say that you don't believe I'm a liar but your repeated posts making the same allegations, which I have already replied to, do appear to accuse me of not telling the truth. I'm not sure where your facts are coming from but the inference clearly is that they are true and I am misleading the Trust membership. We have never taken sides and have asked all along for a dialogue with both sides. Up till now only one side wanted to which led to guilt by association. I don't take offence easily but on this occasion I have. To say I am angry on this slight against my good character would be an understatement. The Trust will continue to seek the views on ALL sides to do what's best for the supporters and the long term future of the club. If you don't think we're doing a good job that is your perogative. If you wish to continue implying that I am not telling the truth then please say it to my face, not via a message board. Unfortuanetly s**t sticks and I don't want it sticking to me thank you very much. Rob Crean (creaner) |
|
BDS
Squad Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by BDS on Oct 25, 2008 18:11:50 GMT
If the Trust sits on the fence then it will face the consequences.
The future of the CLub as we know it is at stake and, unless the Trust constitution forbids it, then the Trust should declare itself for or against change or live with the possibility that the existing regime continues.
I understand that the Trust has already stated that it does not support the existing Board. I think there was a statement to that effect in the WN some time ago?
What is the Trust policy? Work with a discredited regime it has already rejected if that is the situation post General Meeting? Wait and see if the Club goes under and be ready to launch AFC Worcester when it does?
I think we should know.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 26, 2008 18:36:52 GMT
Rob,
Please read my post again, because I am not in any way suggesting that your character is in question. I very much believe you when you say that the Trust Board have not discussed this (the SHAG EGM) or taken a decision to put Colin forward as a proposed Director as part of the EGM resolution.
What I believe it that the SHAG have nominated Colin (and inferred that it was as Trust representative) as a proposed director and this seemed to fly in the face of the "independant" Trust I know that you are passionate about ensuring.
I think the Trust Board members are not at fault, but are being used by SHAG, which could be to the Trust's detriment if the existing Board win the vote at an AGM/EGM.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 19:27:30 GMT
I really don't want to fuel this debate because I believe we have bigger problems looming, however, surely the fact that there's a takeover group who are promising, if elected, to have a ST member on the board is a good thing? I certainly do. Would you be happier if they said they wouldn't want a representative on the board? Isn't this a step into the light? Creaner and the ST exec (including Colin) are not the sort to ultimately act without membership support. Colin has spent his whole life working for such aims. I elected Colin, Creaner etc to make some decisions for me - however if they make a few bad ones I'll help vote them off.
It's called democracy - something we've not had at the Lane before.
|
|
camper
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 87
|
Post by camper on Oct 26, 2008 19:45:56 GMT
I would like to add Ealing that they may be PROMISING IF they are elected, we as a Board have offered a seat to the trust but for whatever reason it was turned down, I can say now that the offer is still there whenever the trust chooses to take it up, it is not a promise and not if it is a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by tim on Oct 26, 2008 20:01:16 GMT
It could just be that the seat on the board was turned down when it was because there is no confidence in the current board, and that nobody with any sense at all would want to work with the current regime......I am sure that when they are gone (hopefully soon), there will then be Trust representation on the new board. Who in their right mind would want to take on the liability of the imminent demise of the club?
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Oct 26, 2008 20:14:06 GMT
Maybe TJ, but the Trust Board were split 3-3 on the offer and Trust Members have not been notified that it was made so we will never know whether the Trust would have voted to accept such a seat.
I think it is time to draw a line under the arguments, they are not getting the Trust anywhere and the event on Saturday should be the focus from here on. I will not say any more about it as I have the answers I wanted now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2008 20:17:57 GMT
What exactly does a "seat on the board" mean? I hope the present board understand that when offering a seat on the board to a representative of the supporters trust, it doesn't mean an individual takes the role, it means the Supporters Trust are represented in full. That means all board meeting minutes will be distributed to the Supporters Trust, and via the Supporters Trust representative, the Board can be asked questions relating to the operation of the business.
I hope they fully understand exactly how transparent they will need to be.
The proposal by the SAG goes a little further than a "seat on the board" As was reported many months back, the plan is to have ST representation at Board level, PLUS Supporter representation via the ST and/or the SC on all the sub-committees within the club. A bit more than token.
Just to put dave straight, the SAG are not now, and have never used the Supporters Trust to forward their ambitions, to think that is to seriously undermine the integrity of the likes of Rob Crean, Colin Leyland et al
I think dave really has no idea what SAG is actually doing, which is good news, as at least it won't go back to his string puller. It also confirms that his "source" also has no links with SAG, which leaves only 4 people who know the contents of the EGM request. Rumbled, you have been!!
|
|
|
|
Post by suv on Oct 26, 2008 20:43:00 GMT
It could just be that the seat on the board was turned down when it was because there is no confidence in the current board, and that nobody with any sense at all would want to work with the current regime......I am sure that when they are gone (hopefully soon), there will then be Trust representation on the new board. Who in their right mind would want to take on the liability of the imminent demise of the club? My concern remains, If (and it's a big if) the current board maintain their hold on WCFC AFTER any AGM/EGM there is a possibility that one of the Trusts main aims "supporter representation at board level" may have been lost. Declining of the recent offer to attend the October board meeting (Rightly or Wrongly) plus one or two people on the Supporters Trust committee who have stood against the current board may go against any future offer of supporter representation at board level and leave supporters possibly even further from finding the "truth" within WCFC than we are now. If the current board keep control we could quite easily be in the same position as we are now, no supporter representation at board meetings. |
|
|
|
Post by creaner on Oct 26, 2008 20:54:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by almasno9 on Oct 26, 2008 22:04:30 GMT
The Board are only showing interest in the Supporters Trust because they can no longer weedle their way out of an AGM/EGM and want to to give a false image to lesser informed shareholders that their voice will be heard. To me it's blatantly obvious that if they are re-elected then they will then do all they can to ignore and reject any Supporters Trust input and we will be back to square one, only with the board in an even stronger position to continue decimating the club.
As a Trust member I fully support any decision not to rush head long into accepting a place on the board as Boddy et al will do anything to save their own skins. Anything coming from them verbally needs to be assessed as to what they themselves are going to gain from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 27, 2008 8:06:40 GMT
The Board have still not, as I understand it, made a formal offer to the Trust. Just an informal approach by a director. So no record of it happening only word of mouth. And with what has been issued by this Board of directors through the Chairman. Well! Can anything be believed.
But again no formal offer in writing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 8:30:20 GMT
"I would like to add Ealing that they may be PROMISING IF they are elected, we as a Board have offered a seat to the trust but for whatever reason it was turned down...."
Well it's good to hear, camper, that the board have finally stepped into the 21st century. Although after all the broken promises and mis-leading information we've heard in the past I agree with Messrs, alma and webb above. Is there much incentive to join this board anyway? You have had half your "colleagues" walk out, followed by the President and then lost the two new replacements before they'd even signed the papers. Why have they all left by the coach load? Not so much a string of resignations - more of an exodus. To lose one director is careless - but to lose six is a sign that something's rotten.
You miss the point that we want a representative on a board we can trust and believe in - i.e. not your's.
|
|
wh
Youth Teamer
Posts: 44
|
Post by wh on Oct 27, 2008 8:33:02 GMT
The trust should not take up the offer of a seat on the board at this point as it is clear as almasno9 says the real motive behind the offer. Their money has dried up, the good people have left the board and they have a vote of no confidence on the horizon which is making them wet their pants!
The remaining directors would just use the trust as a cash cow and would expect the members to do all the many jobs they are too bone idle to do. Talk is cheap actions are not!
What we need now is a real alternative to the current direction the board are taking the club, then people will take notice and act accordingly.
Lets start talking of the alternative, what do we want?
|
|
|
|
Post by suv on Oct 27, 2008 9:25:42 GMT
The Board have still not, as I understand it, made a formal offer to the Trust. Just an informal approach by a director. So no record of it happening only word of mouth. And with what has been issued by this Board of directors through the Chairman. Well! Can anything be believed. But again no formal offer in writing.An informal offer was even better in my opinion. The Trust representive could have gone along to "case the joint" before deciding to accept or refuse the "formal" offer, Similar to Celia Adams or Simon Williams who it appears did just that (without liability). I believe this was a "missed oppourtunity" to go and get a closer look at the current regime in action (or not as the case may be !!!!) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 9:34:14 GMT
A Trust Representative, together with other members of the Supporters Trust would have the opportunity to "case the joint" without any liabilities if a formal offer was proposed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 9:58:46 GMT
"I believe this was a "missed oppourtunity" to go and get a closer look at the current regime in action (or not as the case may be !!!!)"
We could get a closer look right now if the board were to be open and tell us what is going on; what the debt really is; why the accounts were late etc etc. We supporters and shareholders shouldn't need to have to "infiltrate".
|
|
camper
Reserve Teamer
Posts: 87
|
Post by camper on Oct 27, 2008 15:31:36 GMT
Ealing, should we win the day are you speaking on behalf of the Trust when you say 'WE want a representative on the board WE can trust i.e not yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 27, 2008 15:44:59 GMT
I would like to add Ealing that they may be PROMISING IF they are elected, we as a Board have offered a seat to the trust but for whatever reason it was turned down, I can say now that the offer is still there whenever the trust chooses to take it up, it is not a promise and not if it is a fact. Once again Camper, if the board were were serious in their offer, then they should have made it in writing to the Trust, not one of the Board making an off the cuff offer to one of its members. No criticism of the member for not accepting. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony is not to despondent now. on Oct 27, 2008 15:45:34 GMT
Dave, I think you have got it wrong about the SAG agreeing to have a named Trust member on the board if they win the day. They have stated openly that they would be willing to have a Trust representative on the board if they win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 16:02:03 GMT
"Ealing, should we win the day are you speaking on behalf of the Trust when you say 'WE want a representative on the board WE can trust i.e not yours?"
Of course I'm not speaking on behalf of the Trust! How could I? But I am speaking on behalf of the bulk of supporters I've talked to who wouldn't trust your board no matter what you promised anymore. So don't try your divisive tactics with me. Remember you're talking to supporters who used to willingly volunteer to help the club - no longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by almasno9 on Oct 27, 2008 16:15:46 GMT
I don't know why anybody even acknowleges Campers posts. The contempt with which he treats lifelong supporters of the club is being carried over on to these boards now.
Only someone with a twisted mind could have interpreted Ealing's statement in the way in which he did.
And the selective nature of the issues with which he responds to indicates either a man with plenty to hide or someone that the rest of the board deliberately keep in the dark about everyday club issues. Perhaps they see him as a weak link?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2008 16:22:28 GMT
You have to remember that the Directors have absolutely no clue what the Supporters Trust is all about, I well remember the glazed looks around the table when we presented the concept to them. Of the present inquorate lot, only Mr Boddy had any idea, and his idea was totally wrong.
Blimey, is there a weakest links of weak links? Choose from one of four surely, one who appears so far out of touch that he probably has never met the people who are making all the decisions on behalf of the club, one who seems to get his sums wrong every time he makes a statement, one who has managed to mismanage the only non-football revenue stream successfully for the last decade, and another who doesn't say anything.
And these four people are considered the best qualified and most competent people to control the business??
|
|
