Nominees for the Trust Board of Directors Election at AGM named
In accordance with the Trust’s Rules, one third of the current Trust Board is required to retire. John Bignell, Nigel Kingston and Trevor Stroud are therefore retiring from the Board and are offering themselves for re-election. Mark Bowring, David Roberton and Will Schafer-Peek are also offering themselves for election and a ballot will therefore be held to elect Directors to the three available positions.
If you are a Trust member, check your emails for a link to each candidate's personal statement in the Trust's communication to you to confirm AGM details.
0
Comments
Pleased to see David Roberton is standing again and his reasons for standing down
God no...He just wants to see the club remain L2 with no ambition and pander to the "we own the club na na na" brigade. He'll have his work cut out to convince me! I sincerely hope Trevor Stroud gets re-elected as he works tirelessly for this club and deserves a second term.
One question for those that know. 2 of the retirees were only elected in the last year so why are they potentially standing down? Anyone know..
I am quite certain, having spoken to the man, that David Roberton does not want the club to remain in League Two so that last remark is patently ridiculous.
I think (but not certain) that Bignell and Kingston are seeking election not because they are "retiring" on rotation but because they were co-opted on to the committee in order to replace Woodward and Roberton who resigned since the last AGM in February. I stand to be corrected if someone knows otherwise.
I don't know David Roberton that well but he always gives the impression of being a pretty decent sort of guy and I will be voting for him.
Having read his Statement a couple of things concern me and should concern you also.
Reference is made to the Trust Board allowing the Football Club Board to be run as though it was a private Company and not as a subsidiary of the Trust.
Secondly, it would appear that Trust Directors are not or have not been given information about WWFC Budgets and Plans for the future.
What exactly is going on and perhaps more importantly why are our existing Trust Directors allowing this to happen ?
Trevor Stroud would be a huge loss to the club if he was not re-elected
Just realised, my email address has changed since I joined the Trust - who should I contact about it? Ta.
[email protected]
Thanks
John Bignell and Nigel Kingston were co-opted onto the Trust board and not elected, so I suppose they are running because of that.
Seems strange though as Andrew Howard and Ivor Beeks were appointed to the Football Club board and not elected, so not sure why there is a need for JB and NK to be elected onto the Trust board?
Can anyone clarify?
PPF, it will depend on the rules for the organisation concerned which in companies are usually contined in the articles of association. These rules were established when the organisation was set up (unless members agree later to vary them).
in most PLCs, (and I believe in the Trust's case, it is generally the case that there is a requirement for Directors to be voted on to the Board by the shareholders/members. Where Directors are co-opted during the year, there is normally a requirement for them to be elected at the next AGM - effectively giving the members the chance to ratify that co-option. Meanwhile a cetain number of those previously elected may be obliged to retire and be re-elected each year.
The rules are not the same for all organisations and maybe different for the Football club and the Trust. So there may or may not be a requirement for example Howard and Beeks who were co-opted to be formally elected by the shareholders of that company. (there probably is) and there may or may not be a requirement for directors once relected to retire and be elected by rotation (probably not). Actually it is a relatively moot point. The shareholders of the football club are 100% the Trust itself, not the Trust members. The Trust directors would decide whether to vote individuals onto the Football club board, not the trust members. At any time members have right to call a legal meeting and vote directors off the Board, so whether they are formally voting them on or simply have the right to vote them off at any time if they wish is largely an academic point.
If as I suspect your question is "why do I get a vote for the trust directors but not the football club directors", the answer is simply that you "own" a share of the Trust which in turn owns the football club. You do not directly own a share of the football club.
@DevC But why not? Why are we selling a share scheme for supporters as a supporter owned club when that isn't the case?
That simply is not the way it is structured. It is a fan owned club but that ownership is through a middle vehicle - the Trust. So you elect representatives (the trust Board) who then act as shareholders of the club.
I can't think of a legal reason why it HAS to be structured in that way rather than fans individually owning shares in the foobtall club itself but there would be disadvantages of that approach too - limited number of shares, protection of limited liability, avoidance of the significant compliance costs relating to a PLC style arrangement, would fans be allowed to sell to another, etc. etc
I am aware that Exeter are structured in a similar way to us and have similar debates from time to time. Even if I was an expert, which I am not, benefots and disbenefits of various strucutures are too complex to fully list here. But personally if "fan ownership" is the ruiight model, this way of doing it doesnt seem a bad way. The model of democracy - fans elect representatives with the skills, knowledge and time to fully investigate and understand issues at the club before choosing a path seems a sensible model to me.
One advantage - there are many others - of this structure is that the financial position of the club does not jeopardise the trust's ownership of the ground (which is in a seaprate subsidiary of the trust, FALL. Similarly the share scheme monies don't go straight into the club's coffers to be swallowed up by banks etc but stay with the trust to be drip fed into the club as and when required.
It's also generally considered helpful that the trust can have on its board representatives of a wide range of interest including individuals who would not be at all comfortable sitting as a director of a trading company and exposing themselves to the attendant risks if the company hits financial trouble.
@Wig_and_Pen That's interesting, thanks. Strong reasoning. And @DevC cheers
I think the reality of the situation is that the Trust board have appointed two people who run the club. Within the structure that exists that is entirely within their powers. While times are good this won't be a problem, but I do worry about when results are going badly whether this creates the togetherness needed for a supporter owned club to get through them.
Good luck to all those standing.
The question which hangs over all this is: what, exactly, was David Roberton getting at by raising the issue of the "Trust Board allowing the Football Club Board to be run as though it was a private Company and not as a subsidiary of the Trust"?
He resigned on this point of principle and is now seeking re-election. Reading between the lines (and I accept I could be utterly wrong) I would say that he could now, effectively, be seeking a mandate from the Trust Members to get back onto the Trust Board and challenge this situation.
I have had the feeling for a while now that there has been an increasing level of autocracy about the way in which Andrew Howard has been running the club - and there are a few people who agree with me in this respect and are equally uncomfortable with it. I must stress that David Roberton is NOT one of these. He may, indeed, hold such views but has not spoken to me upon this matter. What I say here, therefore, is merely conjecture.
If the above synopsis is correct, however, and DR hadn't resigned but simply remained on the Trust Board, possibly as the only one who was prepared to stand up to the Football Club Directors then he would have been, more or less, powerless to do anything to curb their activities. By seeking a mandate from the membership his position would be considerably strengthened.
Just a thought...
Sorry to everyone else for having to reprint this nonsense, but who on earth are the 'we own the club na na na' brigade? Do they shout this at WWT meeting or on the terraces?
Also on what basis do you think that David Roberton wishes WWFC to stay in the 4th division? Did you see him celebrating Southend's last minute goal at Wembley?
@AlgernonFudgebucket - I read pretty much the same thing into what DR's statement said. I hope this gets discussed amongst WWT members and WWFC supporters in general. We are a supporters' owned club, but that means supporters showing some backbone in making sure their interests are served by WWT and their oversight of WWFC.
Disappointingly I haven't received the email with the nominations. Got the on inviting me to stand so must be on the mailing list. Wonder if just me or more widespread.
Don't really understand what these people do in practise and therefore what skills are required. Unless there is a compelling reason to change, not sure I see a compelling reason to vote off people who stepped up when Roberton appeared to go off in a huff when Beeks was re-appointed. His message would have to give very clear and compelling explanation of why he chose to resign then rather than influence from inside and more importantly why having resigned he now wants to stand again. Snippets reported here haven't done so.
Hi @DevC - there seems to have been a mailing problem with people that have BT addresses. If you are affected email [email protected]
I haven't received the email either. Obviously only sent to the chosen few!
It hasn't gone to 163 members with BT addresses - we are re-sending at the weekend and it should go through but if you email Colin he can get something sent over for you
That would explain it. thanks.
Might be good to put the statements on the website.
Now you have been there for a year? perhaps you could give an overview of skills you see as crucial to the roles. I am still a little unclear as to what exactly the role is. Without that my vote is pretty meaningless.
Hi @DevC - I wouldn't say you are voting for three people to fulfill role A,B and C as such, you are voting for the three people you think will best serve the members on the Trust board.
What we have tried to do is assign relevant roles to match people's strength so we can make the best progress possible as supporter owned club.
These are currently as follows:
Trevor Stroud - Chairman
Colin Treacher - Company Secretary
John Bignell - Trust Membership Sec
Garry Heath - Corporate Governance
Alan Cecil - Share Scheme Admin
David Cook - Stadium Governance
John Derben - Volunteering
Dale Jenkins - Communications
James Sumner - TBC
Mark Burrell - Finance/Debt
Nigel Kingston - Share Scheme Marketing
It's not an exhaustive list and things overlap too but we are trying to put people in positions where they can make a positive difference. For what it's worth I think it makes the Trust a more organised body, with a decent sense of direction, and less of a scattergun approach where people could all end up running around like headless chickens.
I think I am right in saying Trevor is re-standing by rotation and as Nigel & John were co-opted they are standing, almost as a chance for members to ratify those co-options. Of course there are three other candidates standing so if you think they would make the best contribution to the Trust board then that is the decision each member has to make
Sorry for the rambling - happy to answer any other questions you may have
Thank you. That is really useful. I agree any committee with defined responsibilities will be more effective than one where all do a bit of everything (and no one does the less interesting stuff).
Does rather beg the question of why one member doesn't have a defined role, but I suspect you may not be able to comment on that , so lets let that one pass.
Can I assume that through no fault of their own or in way a comment upon their abilities, there are no square pegs in round holes (e.g. really need to a finance guy to do numbers but don't have enough of them so a marketing guy is having to fill in to do his best?)
Assuming no obvious skill holes, what do we have here. The chairman is standing for re-election. Unless voters feel that the Trust is going in completely the wrong direction, his re-election us surely a bit of a no-brainer. (I should emphasise I don't know any of the candidates personally)
Share scheme marketing obviously needs marketing skills. Looking at his profile, Mr Kingston has extensive experience in that area and the marketing I have seen has been pretty good. Again unless members have reason to oppose him, his re-election would appear pretty logical.
Which leaves four candidates vying for one spot - trust membership sec. Not quite sure what this does or what skills it needs. Think I would need to hear the pitches to fully decide this one nor is Mr Bignalls profile quite as clear as to what skills he brings. (no negative inference) I presume there will be hustings?
And finally an observation. I may have completely misread the true situation here (and don't expect you to comment). However IF one board member is not pulling his weight in the team for whatever reason and if a good candidate misses out on election, perhaps a job for the trust chairman to have a word to see if he can persuade one to step down in favour of the other.
I understand you may only be able to comment on para 3.
As for James, he was head of the share scheme marketing but recently stepped down, I don't know the reasons nor have I spoken to him and found out why so I won't comment further on that.
In terms of your third paragraph, I think it's a pretty mixed skillset and we have moved forward positively in the last year in many aspects. There's still a lot to achieve though; we face a continual challenge for financial security, need to keep promoting our share scheme as a means to achieving said security, need to keep pushing supporter ownership and trust membership, etc etc.
As for your final observation, I really think it's as simple as the idea that if you are serving on the Trust board you should be trying to contribute positively in some way and from there the board has tried to assign people towards tasks they would excel in
I'm happy to speak for myself and tell you how I see things are moving but remember that is all this is, I am not speaking on behalf of WWT.
I think I've answered everything?
Good thanks
David Roberton will definitely get my vote. A more committed, trustworthy and genuinely " wwfc through and through" supporter you will not find, even in that list of current office bearers. I saw him work with the Football Supporters Federation , to help save our club, at first hand and was deeply impressed with the cool, intellelectual way that he handled the issues. Beeks and Kane and Hayes were not interested to help at that time and he took a lot of the burden onto his shoulders, quietly. Also, he,s not the sort to be dazzled by fast cars or fancy golf establishments. His concern is the advancement of WWFC, no ulterior motives.
Seconded !
Thirded!!
And a big fat fourthed from me.