FCUM game and the board

[Deleted]

It seems the Trust, as usual, are doing a sterling job publicising and organising activity for the FCUM game. Let's face it without them the club would already be dead. They deserve all the support they can get.

However, have the board done anything? Where's Mr Hampson's voice? Have I got things wrong, or have the board rolled over and fallen asleep on this matter?

[Fred]

Protecting the clubs future by concentrating on youth football ?

Watching the world spin?

Tea with the Queen ?

Or if you believe the papers (which we dont) having chats with Mr Bayliss

[Deleted]

I take Jem's point that the position of chairman is largely titular, however shouldn't Mr Hampson be banging on some tables now to get Perdiswell moving?

[greenman]

According to correspondence I have received from Mr Bayliss he has also met with Lord Faulkner?

[greenman]

And can the Board ensure that meetings with Mr Bayliss and the Chairman are accompanied by another Director and minuted. Just to avoid any misunderstanding.

[thesecondjack]

Feb 26, 2016 18:28:14 GMT greenman said:

And can the Board ensure that meetings with Mr Bayliss and the Chairman are accompanied by another Director and minuted. Just to avoid any misunderstanding.

I'd prefer they're recorded. Minutes can be called up for question, should he want to deny anything said, and a recording have been made, the chaps at WN would love to hear it.

[Brooksiders Return!!]

If this had been an official meeting between the council leader and the Board of WCFC Ltd. then both me and Rob Crean had made ourselves available, there is no way that the Board of WCFC Ltd. would conduct itself in side meetings in that manner, not on my watch! Board members would like to meet with the city council leader at its earliest convenience, and I have emailed Mr Bayliss to that effect. But unless he is prepared to finally tell us where the identified preferred sites are, there is little point in this. No amount of weasel words like "I am really keen to work with you and bring WCFC back to Worcester" are going to wash anymore. And Yes Jack, I will ask for any meetings to be recorded.
And Lord Faulkner is a supporter of the football club, like all of us, but that is all. Why Mr Bayliss thought that meeting with him would make any difference I don't know, you'd have to ask him that. He may as well have met with our other titled supporter Lord Ealing!!

[Deleted]

So why is Hampson meeting with him? Surely that's dangerous? This all has to be out in the open and on record. Is he the right man at the helm? It seems that the drive is coming from you Jem; Rich Widd; and Creaner. Where are directors like Hampson, Mr Layland etc? Why aren't they making more noise?

This row over "suitable sites" is valid, but it shouldn't detract from the main argument - I.e. it's Perdiswell or bust.

[greenman]

Mr Bayliss in one of his replies to me states that he met with Lord Faulkner believing he is a supporter of the Board??? Has Lord Faulkner reported back to the Board the outcome of this meeting?

[jimbo]

There seems to be a lot of "knocking" this RECENTLY elected board of directors.
A couple of interesting points to me are:
The Chairman is basically no more than another director, so surely AH would be reporting the outcome of his meetings with the rest of the board.
There are several Trust officials on the current board, so surely that in effect mean that the board are active in the organisation of the Manchester match.
Also, Lord Faulkener is not on the board so I would imagine his meeting was not one that had to be reported back to the board.

[jimbo]

I am really surprised AND disappointed that no official of Worcester City FC or official of The Trust have responded to my post !

[creaner]

Feb 29, 2016 0:04:00 GMT jimbo said:

I am really surprised AND disappointed that no official of Worcester City FC or official of The Trust have responded to my post !

Jim, who did you write to? I'll chase it up.

[The Verner]

Feb 29, 2016 0:27:48 GMT creaner said:

Feb 29, 2016 0:04:00 GMT jimbo said:

I am really surprised AND disappointed that no official of Worcester City FC or official of The Trust have responded to my post !

Jim, who did you write to? I'll chase it up.

See above Rob

[thatloudbloke]

Feb 29, 2016 0:27:48 GMT creaner said:

Feb 29, 2016 0:04:00 GMT jimbo said:

I am really surprised AND disappointed that no official of Worcester City FC or official of The Trust have responded to my post !

Jim, who did you write to? I'll chase it up.

Jim

this is only a banter board & not an official way to get directors or ST to respond, they may read this when they have time...  I contact either by email or through FB & whilst at games

please respect they do this for the club & do not get paid...

[alwaysnextyear]

Jimbo - I take it you mean this post ?

"There seems to be a lot of "knocking" this RECENTLY elected board of directors.
A couple of interesting points to me are:
The Chairman is basically no more than another director, so surely AH would be reporting the outcome of his meetings with the rest of the board.
There are several Trust officials on the current board, so surely that in effect mean that the board are active in the organisation of the Manchester match.
Also, Lord Faulkener is not on the board so I would imagine his meeting was not one that had to be reported back to the board."

What does anyone have to answer to ? You haven't asked any questions, just raised some " interesting points ". If you did want an answer of sorts to your points,

- As Jem Pitt replied on another thread, he is aware ( and I presume so are the rest of the Board ) of what was said between AH and Marc Bayliss, and described it as " we know what was said, and believe me, its not worth publishing ".
- You are correct, in that the Board via the Trust Officials are obviously active in the organisation of the Manchester match
- Can't disagree about your Lord Faulkener point either

What are you surprised and disappointed about ?