WHICH WAY DO I VOTE

[jimbo]

With the AGM / EGM happening at last, we obviously have a very important decision to make.
This is not a post to “knock” present or future Directors, just a couple of straight forward questions which do not seem to have been answered on this message board.
So rather than the normal "get them out cries", can anyone tell me:
Why the proposed new candidates will be any better ?
What their policies are ?
Where the money is coming from to stabilize the club ?

[Tony is not to despondent now.]

At the meeting at the Cricket Club the SAG members outlined their plans for the future. One of the things that they would stop was the outflow of money at the Legends Bar. Which is currently losing approximately £20,000 pounds a year and they would also look at other ways of raising funds.

The present Board do not seem to wish to correct the steady loss of money from Legends Bar and repeatedly have stated that all will be well when the new ground is built, and the club would be debt free. Also they have not presented a plan to raise funds from other sources. Despite offers by supporters to help. All offers of help have been turned down.

Unfortunately the truth is now leaking out and if the new ground is ever built the Club will not be able to complete it because of the debt that is still left.

Hope this helps!!

[almasno9]

Nov 3, 2008 8:37:35 GMT jimbo said:

So rather than the normal "get them out cries", can anyone tell me:
Why the proposed new candidates will be any better ?
What their policies are ?
Where the money is coming from to stabilize the club ?

very valid questions that SHAG will need to make shareholders aware of.
I also hope that the potential sponsors who are rumoured to want to invest in the club but not if the current board remain, reveal themselves and make it public. By doing so it would be a trump card in my opinion.
There is a great need for total transparency from both sides if shareholders are to be able to make an honest judgement.

[Deleted]

Nov 3, 2008 8:37:35 GMT jimbo said:

With the AGM / EGM happening at last, we obviously have a very important decision to make.
This is not a post to “knock” present or future Directors, just a couple of straight forward questions which do not seem to have been answered on this message board.
So rather than the normal "get them out cries", can anyone tell me:
Why the proposed new candidates will be any better ?
What their policies are ?
Where the money is coming from to stabilize the club ?

Good questions
And questions which the present Board have failed to answer, certainly during the last five years, probably longer.
Firstly, SAG have already said that as part of their strategy, they wish to engage with the community of city supporters and further, to that end, they not only offer a place on the boaqrd to the Supporters Trust, but also a place on each of the sub-commitees within the club, not a token gesture, but a real opportunity for non-directors to help shape the future of the club. This is a strategy worthy of pursuing, and is in direct contrast to the closed shop approach of the present board.
At the end of the day its not about the candidates, its about the culture change and engagement policy. The candidates don't haqve the answers, the supporters do, so lets embrace them. As Mr Camper put it, on Saturday there was a feeling of community involvement in the atmosphere at the Lane for the first time in a long time, which proves two things, firstly, there are people who are prepared to work for the benefit of the club outside of the Board, and secondly, the present Board have single-handedly failed to make any effort to work with those people for the last X number of years.
Part of the strategy for SAG is "How do we continue as a club if Nunnery Way can't happen?" If the planners say no, the present Board have no other plans, they have stated publicly "If Nunnery Way doesn't happen, there will be no club!" Unlike the present Board, SAG have not given up on the club, and there is a belief that, with hard work, and community involvement, there is a "Plan B" At the very least there has to be a strategy to fund the business during the years from 2009 to 2012 without continual borrowing.
Part of those plans involve generation of revenue from SGL. Another area where the present Board have failed, and worse still, admitted they have failed, and then doubled that error by failing to do anything about thjeir failure!!!
AFC Wimbledon can generate £300,000 towards the football club through their Social Club, WCFC generate £0!!!!! This situation is accepted and endorsed by the present Board, SAG and the present supporters of WCFC think differently.
There's clear blue water between the "strategy" of the present Board, which is a closed shop, with a one trick pony of a groiund move piggy back with St. Modwen, with no Plan B!! and that of the SAG, with a strategy of openness, supporter involvement, business involvement, revenue generation through existing channels incliuding the Social Club, a plan B, a plan C, and possibly a plan D!!
More to follow once the documents have been recieved.

[Deleted]

There are only a handful of people left who believe the Nunnery Way move will happen. It's just a desperate dream held on to by a board who have put all their eggs in one basket. Actually they have no eggs and no basket. They've borrowed continually until they've jeopardised the very existence of the club. I'd vote them out on that basis alone. However, some statements of intent from those standing against them would drive the point home.

[gobby cow]

There cannot be a vote without meaningful debate and full information from both sides.

We all know the present board do not favour the above but hopefully this will be their undoing and the club can finally move forward with some directors that truely care for the club rather than their own egos and bank balance!

Without change the club will die and it will be sooner rather than later.

[cogg]

I am still confused as to just what is PLAN B for the SHAG group

It appears that SGL has been sold. We all know Nunnery Way is never going to be feasable.

I hear you Jem when you say we can involve people in the community, and I fully agree that fund raising could not be worse than it currently is, but what happens when the club have no ground ?

What IS plan B ? Play on Pitchcroft ? Buy back SGL ? Offer Cecil some money ?

I would be far happier in trusting and supporting the 'potential' new Board if I knew what their plans were other than some vague 'mission' statements...

[camper]

I would suggest to you all that by the time you are asked to vote you will have been made aware of all the facts from both sides then and only then would it be prudent to make any decision. Hopefully this would ensure that your decision is based on the facts rather than some of the assumptions that appear to being made by posters to this MB. That of course includes me.

[Deleted]

Maybe if the board had any communications skills at all they could have refuted some of the criticism they get. They don't though. Instead, it seems that every dire prediction that circulates as a rumour turns out to be true - or even conservative. You, the board, have created this vacuum of information through either ineptness or subterfuge. Possibly both. No wonder we want you out.

[Tim Munslow]

Surely we must make this, probably the most important decision in the club's history, on the basis of having listened carefully to both sides?

I note that, already, three of the putative directors put forward by the SAG at the meeting at the cricket club, are missing from the proposals listed for the EGM. That doesn't suggest much forward thinking or commitment.

I shall listen to both sides before voting; making your mind up on the basis of some of the puerile and ill-informed postings on here would be foolish.

[jimbo]

It would be good to say thankyou for your help, but it would appear that there have been 2 kinds of responses so far:
1) PREDICTABLE: Lets knock the board.
2) SURPRISINGLY: Asking similar to me.
If anyone can answer in a more objective manner, I'd be grateful to hear their comments !

[si1268]

Nov 3, 2008 19:57:46 GMT jimbo said:

It would be good to say thankyou for your help, but it would appear that there have been 2 kinds of responses so far:
1) PREDICTABLE: Lets knock the board.
2) SURPRISINGLY: Asking similar to me.
If anyone can answer in a more objective manner, I'd be grateful to hear their comments !

Look...you're not listening, so vote for the board. You know you want to.

[Deleted]

Nov 3, 2008 13:07:36 GMT cogg said:

I am still confused as to just what is PLAN B for the SHAG group

It appears that SGL has been sold. We all know Nunnery Way is never going to be feasable.

I hear you Jem when you say we can involve people in the community, and I fully agree that fund raising could not be worse than it currently is, but what happens when the club have no ground ?

What IS plan B ? Play on Pitchcroft ? Buy back SGL ? Offer Cecil some money ?

I would be far happier in trusting and supporting the 'potential' new Board if I knew what their plans were other than some vague 'mission' statements...

What would you prefer? A group of people who at least address the question of "what do we do if Nunnery Way goes pear-shaped?" or a group who say "without Nunnery Way there will be NO football club!"

How clear are you about the present boards Plan B?

[Deleted]

Nov 3, 2008 19:57:46 GMT jimbo said:

It would be good to say thankyou for your help, but it would appear that there have been 2 kinds of responses so far:
1) PREDICTABLE: Lets knock the board.
2) SURPRISINGLY: Asking similar to me.
If anyone can answer in a more objective manner, I'd be grateful to hear their comments !

Why?

[BDS]

Jimbo - it is almost impossible for any new Directors to put together a complete plan for the future when the current state of the club is shrouded in mystery.

For example

* Various figures for the level of debt have been enunciated by the Board. At the recent meeting at the Whitehouse hotel a figure of £2Million was given. In a recent interview Mr Boddy said it was considerably less. So who is correct? The Board don't even seem to know how much the liabilities of the business are. If they have been reduced then where did the new money come from?

* There is no clarity on what has been agreed on the sale of the ground. The Board have said that the details cannot be disclosed to the shareholders on the grounds of "commercial confidentiality". A figure of £7 Million pounds is widely quoted but where is the evidence? What we are told is that this amount will vary dependent on the density of housing permitted on St George's Lane. So how much will that be? The current estimate is around 100 homes which makes the cost of each plot £70,000. At the peak of the housing boom this figure might have been achievable but given the state of the market one has to wonder why any residential property developer would pay (or need to pay) anything like that amount for land?

* There is no confirmation that the contract for sale of St George's Lane is exchanged and binding. What we have been told is that as part of the "deal" (whatever that means) Carey's supplied "sponsorship" of just over £60,000 per annum for five years to the Club. We have not been told if a deposit has been paid by Carey's to protect the clubs interests. Despite earlier promises that any sale of the ground would be approved by the shareholders no such opportunity has been afforded to the shareholders by the current Directors of the Club


* No details have been given about the financial arrangements in respect of land at Nunnery Way acquired by St Modwen Developments Limited. The only thing we know about this arrangement is that St Modwen have taken provided up to £50,000 to the Club secured by way of legal charge over the assets to this sum plus interest and costs - in short further debt the reason for which we do not know. This charge is a further charge on top of that granted in favour of St Modwen in 2007 in connection with a "Stadium agreement" and a "Sale Agreement" both dated 27 September 2007. It is over 13 months since these agreements were entered into and the shareholders have neither been consulted or briefed on these secret agreements

* We have been promised a new ground with a 6,000 capacity. A "Burton Albion" style ground. We now learn that, despite beautiful computer generated imagery of a fully completed stadium, that only two sides can be built for the money available. It has been suggested that the available monies will not allow the full fit-out of even that which is built. The original land that the Club would won on Nunnery way was 7 acres. This has also been scaled back to 5.5 acres. In short the plans for the new ground have been considerably scaled back and no explanation has been given

* There are no recent accounts available for shareholders. The latest audited accounts (to 31 May 2007) cover a period before all these transactions in connection with the ground were entered into. They are so far out of date as to be almost useless in assisting shareholders to determine the current state of play.

* An army of supporters, sponsors and volunteers (including the web master Mr Henley) have been alienated in recent months. Numerous supporters are boycotting the Club in protest at the lack of transparency and accountability that the current Board have displayed

The long standing sponsor of the Club , Mr Pinches, is standing against the Board.

Player sponsorship for the current season is almost non-existent.

* A number of new Directors have been invited to join the Board in the past 6 months. After being involved with the current Board none of them have accepted the position and confirmed their appointment with Companies House. These "new" directors include highly respected local chartered accountant Celia Adams among others.

* the President of the Club resigned. Dr Michael Sorensen was a Director for nearly two decades and, lest we forget, was the individual who rallied support to save the Club from folding in the early 1990's. He resigned as he felt unable to sit around the same board room table as the four current directors, the company secretary and the Club's legal adviser.

* the Clubs auditors have been changed

These are a few of the reasons why any new Directors face a difficult time in coming up with a valid business plan for the Club.

The best they (or anyone) can do is to promise that they will, if elected, carryout a thorough and immediate investigation into the Clubs financial and business position ad report back in a very short time to shareholders on the true state of affairs of the club and at that time present a realistic way forward together with alternatives for shareholders to consider.

If there is a financially viable future for the club in its current form then the rest of the vision
can be delivered as fast as circumstances and finances permit.

The choice here, if a free vote is to be made, is between the incumbents (who have presided over the massive growth of the Club's indebtedness, have sold the Club's only asset on secret terms, have demonstrated no credible business plan to ensure a debt-free sustainable future for the Club, have alienate supporters, sponsors and volunteers and who, in varying degrees. derive part or all of their livelihoods from their position as Directors) and a new regime of people of proven business acumen who will take nothing personally out of the Club and who will run the affairs in a transparent and open manner.

Elsewhere I have posted a list of information to which the shareholders are entitled. It is no longer enough to be "told" how things are by Directors. Their pronouncements lack any credibility given their track record. Virtually everything we have been told on the public record has subsequently been amended and deflated.

In the period leading up to the General Meetings on 28th November The Board have the chance to demonstrate that what they have done and what they are doing is in the best interests of the Club , its shareholders and supporters and will produce a viable secure future for our football team. If they do that then they deserve your vote. If they fail to fully justify their actions and plans then they deserve to be kicked out and a new regime installed.

[adycrean]

I have some sympathy with jimbo's sentiments on this thread. I hear:

- a comprehensive disaffection with the current board
- ...albeit a board which has articulated a plan for moving forward (the likelihood of success of which is dubious)
- the existence of some seemingly competent individuals who might do a better job

So there is without doubt a need for change (and Sorenson's resignation was the defining moment for me). And in my gut, I beleive there is a better way here. But I am not faniliar with the reputation & business acumen of the proposed board members.

So I for one would not endorse them without sight of a clear, viable pan from them which is grounded in reality and achieveable. I think it's a leap of faith to accept that new folks will simply look into things and come back with a plan. I would want a far more robust view up front of what the plans are (or might be, depending on what is uncovered)

It's very easy to knock the incumbent....

[Deleted]

Because of the secrecy, and lack of openness, and also a numbner of damnright untruths being put forward by the existing Board, it is nigh on impossible to commit to any promises of how any group would move forward. As an real life example, take Nuneaton Borough. One could say that Ian Neale is the bad guy because he took them into administration, when in honesty he had no choice, because of what was uncovered after his take over, it was the former owners secrecy and lies which led to administration.
Its hard to oppose a Board of Directors without "knocking" them as you put it, after all, if they were doing things even in just a satisfactory manner, there would be no need for any kind of challenge, so by default, it is their actions which lead to this action.
However, without knocking anyone, how about the following possibilities moving forward.

1. A defined business plan for survival at SGL, both short-term, based on a future ground move, and long term, based on no ground move. Business plan to be fully costed out on release of up to date management accounts and cash forecasts from the company.

2. A fully transparent review of the financial implications of a move to Nunnery Way, and a decision made regarding its true viability. This will be reliant on the release of the present contractual details with St. Modwen

3. A consideration of alternative sites for a new ground in line with Council and Planning directives (could Nunnery Way still be viable as a standalone?) A new ground should include real community facilities, including other sports facilities. This will be reliant on the release of the present contractual details with St. Modwen.

4. SAG have stated quite clearly that they see Supporters Trust involvement as far more than token. SAG would want Supporters Trust members to be involved on every sub-committee within the structure of the club, including at Board level, this could mean maybe 10 Supporters Trust members in positions of management within the club.

5. A non-football revenue generating plan including revenue targets for the Social Club, to be run on a profit based plan. This would require a full audit of all existing revenue generating schemes including the Supergold, which I am led to believe pays a proportion of its profits to charity, and has before now included deceased winners! An audit of the sponsorship revenues, including how many advertising boards around the ground are actually paid for, and a revenue generating plan to encourage new sponsors.

6 I personally believe that a review of the club constitution needs to take place, in order to both safeguard the club from the present situation whereby it is nigh on impossible to remove poor performing club officials, yet still safeguarding the club from uncaring investors - but also encouraging outside investment in a community club.

All of the above however relies on a drains up style audit of the business, and some of it may just not be viable.

I believe however that SAG are the only group prepared to at least peek under the covers to see the real plight of the club, and when you consider that the SAG group contains some people who may be held liable for some of the issues within the club, its a brave move.

It really would be easier and cheaper to sit back and let the club fade away, that option is still open.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 8:56:18 GMT adycrean said:

I have some sympathy with jimbo's sentiments on this thread. I hear:

- a comprehensive disaffection with the current board
- ...albeit a board which has articulated a plan for moving forward (the likelihood of success of which is dubious)
- the existence of some seemingly competent individuals who might do a better job

So there is without doubt a need for change (and Sorenson's resignation was the defining moment for me). And in my gut, I beleive there is a better way here. But I am not faniliar with the reputation & business acumen of the proposed board members.

So I for one would not endorse them without sight of a clear, viable pan from them which is grounded in reality and achieveable. I think it's a leap of faith to accept that new folks will simply look into things and come back with a plan. I would want a far more robust view up front of what the plans are (or might be, depending on what is uncovered)

It's very easy to knock the incumbent....

It is, but aren't we all getting too concerned about the abilities of the board members only? If SAG win the EGM, then it will not be 6,7, or even 11 people running the club. what will be even more important is the reputation and business acumen AND willingness and drive of the supporters, predominantly through the Supporters Trust. 10 possibly more Supporters Trust members will be directly involved in the running of the business, from a footballing revenue perspective and a non-footballing revenue perspective.

I personally want a robust view upfront of what the plans are from both groups, unfortunately, as the present group hold all the aces (the management accounts, the cash flow forecasts, the contracts with third parties, the true state of sponsorship revenues etc.) it is very difficult for any other party to propose costed solutions. They would at best be guestimates. However, with regards to business acumen, consider this, one side is planning a full financial audit, a set of options for short-term and long-term survival, a review of existing third party contracts, and a supporter engagement strategy, whilst the other side are planning a high risk joint venture strategy to a new ground, which if it doesn't work out means the club will no longer exist - I know which strategy is the most business like!

[jimbo]

The whole point of this thread was to start a debate because I do not think that everyone is fully aware of what the outcome of a wholesale boardroom change might bring.
There is absolutely no doubt that massive changes are needed but it has not been made clear what changes the new board will make.
It was a shame that the offer of cooperation between the two factions was aborted, & by the way do we really know who caused that ?I cannot fault the credentials of any of the proposed new people, on the other hand I would not "sack" everyone there at the moment.
I am also interested as to why there are several names of whom we would all have expected missing from the list on the EGM notice, does this mean that the new board will co-opt other directors virtually immediately or run the company with less than half the directors it is entitled to ?
Jem, you have responded to this thread in a far more objective manner than normal, but again the point I am making is that these are your opinions of what should happen.
They are not a mission statement of policies from either the present or possible future board. Those policies are what we should all be clearly aware of before making the decision of who to remove & add.

[gobby cow]

I received my notice yesterday, post marked 1st November. I was pleased to see that noone saw fit to cross out the website address before the letter was photocopied and I particularly liked the christmas stamp which looked like a pantomime villain. Very apt I thought.

From the list of those wishing to stand I have no objection to any of them, they have my support, though I was a little disappointed my Henry's name was not on the list as he was really hoping he would be the first Cairn Terrier to be chairman of a football club.

Which names where you expecting Jimbo??? I agree that both sides should be able to put their point but it has to be truthful, honest and not misleading.

We now know why Colin turned down the seat on the board as a trust member, that rumour was no doubt started by the board to discredit the trust. I dont trust one word the present board say, they have deceived and mislead too many times before.

[cogg]

Jem, you get so defensive so easily. Of course I would prefer a new start.

I know little about the current Board and will not get involved in slagging them off. The facts are that City are not doing well financially, appear to have no realistic plans for the future and this is down to the incumbents, so yes, in principle I would welcome a change

All I was asking was what is the vision of the new team ? You say they can't have a vision until the true facts are known, and that is fair enough, and that you have a clear plan of obtaining that info and letting us all know the options. I also welcome that idea.

Just count to ten for once before replying ;-)

[cogg]

Oh, and of course I know that the current board do not have a plan B. I wasn't asking that....

[Deleted]

I don't think Jem was being defensive Cogg.

"What would you prefer? A group of people who at least address the question of "what do we do if Nunnery Way goes pear-shaped?" or a group who say "without Nunnery Way there will be NO football club!"

How clear are you about the present boards Plan B?"

These sound reasonable questions to me.

Those standing to replace the present board are hardly without their track records. Barry Ward, Derek and Mr Pinches have shown they know how to turn over a few bob (I don't know enough about Mr Bentley to comment). How many successful businesses have Mr Boddy and co. run? Between them?

The new group have good contacts within the business sector - do the present board? If they do then no one is prepared to back them.

Mr Pinches has worked with this board as a sponsor - and as a result is trying to get rid of them! That's what he thinks about them.

I don't know if Colin Layland is a secret millionaire, but he has been fighting causes to benefit the community all his life, and he's 100% WCFC. Can you imagine him presiding over some of the recent shenanigans we've witnessed at SGL? No way.

They look a strong team to me.

[richwidd]

Nov 3, 2008 19:32:31 GMT Tim Munslow said:

Surely we must make this, probably the most important decision in the club's history, on the basis of having listened carefully to both sides?

I note that, already, three of the putative directors put forward by the SAG at the meeting at the cricket club, are missing from the proposals listed for the EGM. That doesn't suggest much forward thinking or commitment.

I shall listen to both sides before voting; making your mind up on the basis of some of the puerile and ill-informed postings on here would be foolish.

I agree with you Tim and for the first time in about 10 years I agree with Camper. Listen to both sides before making your mind up.

In answer to your question above. There is no one missing from the group at the WCCC meeting. Over the past few months quite a few shareholders have come forward to offer their help and expertise. We all don't need to be on the Board to help run the club and at this stage the 5 represent a good cross section of those looking for change.

[wh]

Yes Ealing they have a strong team with a very real plan B all will be announced prior to the AGM/EGM.

It is not in WCFC's best interests for the SAG to show their hand just yet as it is now quite clear the current board and their legal representative are hell bent on nullifying the EGM and anything the SAG propose, ask yourselves why?

[richwidd]

Nov 3, 2008 13:07:36 GMT cogg said:

I am still confused as to just what is PLAN B for the SHAG group

It appears that SGL has been sold. We all know Nunnery Way is never going to be feasable.

I hear you Jem when you say we can involve people in the community, and I fully agree that fund raising could not be worse than it currently is, but what happens when the club have no ground ?

What IS plan B ? Play on Pitchcroft ? Buy back SGL ? Offer Cecil some money ?

I would be far happier in trusting and supporting the 'potential' new Board if I knew what their plans were other than some vague 'mission' statements...

What is there to be confused about for a plan B? We haven't told you what it is yet!

It has only been a few days since the EGM and AGM was announced so our plans will be put forward to the shareholders in plenty of time for them to vote. It will be a very clear choice of direction and if the majority want things to stay as they are, then as long as the meeting is held fairly, I for one don't have a problem with who you vote for.

The shareholders group will give a very brief outline of our future plans shortly.

[Deleted]

cogg I wasn't being defensive, just getting down to the facts. We have two sides, one side capable of putting together a business plan using the financial information to hand but who fail to do so, or the other side who can only guess on certain pieces of information, but are prepared to use that information to at least come up with a feasible plan of action.
The real disappointment for me in all of this is that at no time in the last X number of years have the present Board addressed supporters or shareholders and said "We're in trouble and we need help!" to this day they won't reveal the extent of the problem to anyone.
Here's a little thought, the various opinions regarding the debt range from £1.5 million to £2 million - thats a variance of £500,000. It is difficult for any rescue package to be put together for a company turning over £350,000 when there is a potential black hole in the finances to the tune of half a million, 1.5 times annual turnover. Trying to recover a business with debt of 4 times annual turnover and 6 times annual turnover would be very different, and the ability to service a debt of £1.5 million might make the business viable, but if that debt of £2 million is unserviceable, then a rescue proposition might not be the right way forward.
Thats what makes it so hard for anyone at the moment (apart from the present Board) to put forward a concrete workable solution.

[wh]

..and the current boards solution is..... Run the antisocial club into the ground, all but close the HK lounge and hold a Womens day!

1 question...if IDIFF has left the scene why then does he still park at the front of the ground on match days and sit in the Directors box?

surely if there is any spare parking spaces on the front then they could be sold on match days instead of giving them to free loaders.

[Deleted]

Nov 4, 2008 15:33:15 GMT wh said:

..and the current boards solution is..... Run the antisocial club into the ground, all but close the HK lounge and hold a Womens day!

1 question...if IDIFF has left the scene why then does he still park at the front of the ground on match days and sit in the Directors box?

surely if there is any spare parking spaces on the front then they could be sold on match days instead of giving them to free loaders.

It must be his reward for all the wonderful things he did for the club, for FREE!! Like his spanking new website (which will be back up in 24 hours!) Maybe he gets in the ground for free too, maybe he should now be called IGIFF. What a disaster he would have been if he'd become a director, although what puzzles me is, obviously he was putting together his plans for business to engage with the club whilst he was hanging on, his passionate speech at the Whitehouse must have had some substance, so why is there no-one within the club carrying on this work? Maybe someone like Prescott? or Brown? or Partridge?

[Deleted]

Williams didn't wreck the website though. That was all Wayne's fault. At least that's what the board think.