@MBOW
1:52PM Flag
My question is "The default happened quite some time ago, so why did it only become public knowledge last night. One would expect as a "supporter owned club" that the supporters would have been consulted at the time, and as you quite rightly state, be given the opportunity to raise the funds.
As for whether or not planning would ever be accepted on the land, my questions are;
1) Why would a property developer purchase land knowing that there is no potential prospect of planning ever being granted, and stand to make NO profit in the event of a buy back? If it was purely for the love of the club why not just lend or donate the money when we were in a desperate time of need?
2) If I understand correctly, there is also a clause that the club have the right to decide NOT to train there at any time, and could therefore leave without obligation? Why would the owner(s) of the land do this? Is it because A) They stand to make a profit if the land is sold, Because they keep chickens? or C) They wants a large open space to have a supporters picnic in the summer? or D) Am I missing something?
Terrific post, and welcome to the Gasroom! I hope you stick around and help play your part in keeping WWFC supporters informed with how WWT are operating, and get answers to questions like these. Unfortunately it takes a while to digest information that's come in during meetings, and on this occasion has thrown up some issues that need explaining.
I think the very least, there should be a full timescale of when the payments stopped and minutes of any meetings that took place to discuss why the agreed rent procedure should not be adhered to.
OMG. These guys simply can't do anything right can they. Damned if they do... We haven't got any money don't you understand that? Without the sale of the training ground the club might not be here now. Please explain why someone should pay us what I recall was in excess of £300K and then expect us to be able to buy it back when we feel like it when we haven't got the cash to do that in the first place. It's called economics and the capitalist society that we all have to live in. Why should they give us the money? What logical reason is there to do that.
Maybe next time those that didn't go should go so they can hear it first hand instead of from @MBOW who is quite clearly upset that he didn't get elected (I'm guessing you might be Mr Bowring).
And someone else on here said that they are glad we didn't accept MK's offer of a Wycombe gets all the cash friendly! Are you crazy - we need all the money we can get - and just what have MK ever done to upset Wycombe? History is just that - history - so move on. Maybe that could have gone towards the rent for the training pitch.
@FrijidPink Are you for real? Ignoring the MK stuff which everyone is entitled to their opinion on (that is of little relevance here) - the offer to buy the training ground was there, with the option to buy back. There is no question over those facts.
I don't recall the exact rent amount (was it £2500 pm?), but was there anything stopping a call being made at that point to say 'hey fans, we're £2000 short this month, if we don't pay we lose the right to buy back. anyone fancy helping?'
This was never done, and £2500 between thousands of fans is a lot more achievable than £300000+ in one lump sum from the fans. It almost begs the question why was nobody asked>
I really really really hope that I'm wrong but part of me thinks it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the consortium only purchased the training ground in the first place on the 'understanding' that the rent would be left in arrears. Yes, pure speculation. But is it so unbelievable?
Frijidpink. On the contrary, I am not upset at all. I didn't expect to get elected. Elected or not, I would have been equally as annoyed about the training ground. You appear to be the only one on here that isn't, fair play, your entitled to your opinion.
Chickenhead - the above comments are not stupid but are made by people who really care about our club and worried about the consequences of the failure to retain a very valuable option.
FrijidPink. Surely the key point here is that we are a SUPPORTER owned club and as such should be kept in the picture regarding important decisions that affect the future of the club. The option to buy back was an asset which has been disposed of without any consultation/prior notification.
If the club didn't have the money to make the monthly loan payments we should have neen advised at that time.
I may be cynical, but was this information kept secret for so long to ensure that the three Board members seeking re-election were re-elected!
Hold on there, if and that's a bi gif, if it can proven that there information withheld that had financial implications then that's a erious matter. I missed the agm as was out of the country but this question needs to be answered.
If I put my cynical hot on, a property developer helps out then rent arrears aren't made public allowing a buy back clause to lapse.......this would smell. However I wasn't there so will be in scores Monday to ask these questions.
1) is the buy back clause no null and void
2) if there is a profit share on potential future sell off is this real or a "gentlemens agreement"
3) why weren't we as the fan a(owners) of the club not formed
4) what are the next steps
As said wasn't there, but am now truly alarmed by the implications....
@Ozzie_the_Relaxed said:
Hold on there, if and that's a bi gif, if it can proven that there information withheld that had financial implications then that's a erious matter. I missed the agm as was out of the country but this question needs to be answered.
If I put my cynical hot on, a property developer helps out then rent arrears aren't made public allowing a buy back clause to lapse.......this would smell. However I wasn't there so will be in scores Monday to ask these questions.
1) is the buy back clause no null and void
2) if there is a profit share on potential future sell off is this real or a "gentlemens agreement"
3) why weren't we as the fan a(owners) of the club not formed
4) what are the next steps
As said wasn't there, but am now truly alarmed by the implications....
I think the posters earlier have dealt with Frijidpink's attempt to justify keeping supporters in the dark. What I would say that hasn't been said before is that WWT is a Community Benefit Society, therefore justifying the actions of the consortium in buying a distressed asset from an arm of such an organisation as rules of the game in capitalism (when Community Benefit Societies are meant to protect community assets (such as our fans' owned football club) from the worst excesses of capitalism) is a little off. I don't think any businessman (or woman) would seriously look at a lower-league football club and think that they could make money out of it by making the company profitable and taking a dividend on their shareholding.
If I had vast amounts of money (beyond the dreams of anyone who had my upbringing) then providing assistance to the football club in the way that Frank Adams did would not be a question, but rather a duty.
Also, slagging people off for not attending the AGM ignores very valid reasons why some people were not able to attend, be it the fact they live too far away, have family or other commitments (or in one case, a member was recovering from an operation).
Anyone seen the draft accounts for the football club, FALL etc on the Trust website. I'm no accountant but seems like there was funds to pay £2500 per month!
When a few more than the pathetically low number (circa 250?) who currently subscribe to the Community Share Scheme come on board, then we can perhaps expect it to "feel more like a supporter owned club"- as one of the candidates on Thursday put it.
Everything felt positive and re-assuring on Thursday evening. But, when all is said and done, money talks and we would not be where we are without the input of certain individuals whose motives are constantly questioned by a small but vocal minority.
The apathy among Wycombe fans also extends to the voluntary area apparently where several much smaller clubs locally can call upon substantially greater numbers.
At the end of the day if people are happy at the loss of a potentially valuable asset to the Football Club that is absolutely fine, they are after all entitled to their opinion.
For me there are a number of questions that should be answered:
Why did the Consortium wait until August/September to issue a default letter to the Trust. We were as I understand it £45,000 or 18 months in arrears and the letter could have been issued at any time from Spring 2014 onwards. Why the wait ?
Why, having issued the default letter did the Consortium, very laudible and generous as it is, then go ahead and waive the £45,000 arrears ? The issue about a % sell on to the Football Club if the land is sold is a non starter as that land will never be sold. It may be developed but it won't be sold.
Given the £250,000 from the Play Offs, Season Ticket sales and Share Scheme monies why was this debt not cleared in advance. There was ample opportunity to repay that debt if we had wanted to.
Who would be involved in running a football club or its supporters trust.
An issue comes along and straight away the default position is "ooh its disgusting. Those involved are at the very least useless and probably on the take, co-conspirators in some Machiavellian conspiracy to steal the assets of the club. The bastards"
Not for me to tell you what to believe.
Option 1) is that Mr Beeks is the devil incarnate, the Trust Board on the take too, all planning to make huge fortunes from this wonderful piece of land, just waiting to be developed into a massive housing estate, that's after of course the gold and uranium underneath has been mined first.
Option 2) is a little more mundane - all involved were trying to do their best in circumstances where the football club has no cash. The land has no real development value, (there is a noticeable lack of housing development on its boundaries strangely). When the club ran desperately short of cash, it did what any business in such circumstances did- it prioritised the people it had to pay with what cash it had to get through the month - salaries first, then key suppliers, then HMRC, then less key suppliers. Lease costs would be towards the bottom of that pile. Somehow with great effort from the Trust Board and a helping hand from Beeks, Kane and Howard, the club has just about survived. |Finances still tight, but for now at least the crisis is not quite so severe. Its a shame the option has gone, but not the end of the world given the lack of alternatives for the site and the first priorities of survival of the club, survival in the league and retention of the Ground have for now been protected.
Once you have decided which option feels the more credible, you must judge again the hardworking Trust Board's actions. If you accept A, they are indeed culpable. If B feels just a smidgeon more credible, they deserve an apology from those who have abused them. It is as ever easy to create conspiracy theories and endless questions, it is much harder to actually do something and steer an organisation through difficult times. Yes communication could be better and there is a lesson here for all. But communication will only improve when trust in both directions is there. This thread demonstrates why Trusts and owners tend to start with good intentions re communication and gradually end up circling the wagons against the torrent of ill-informed suspicion and abuse.
For me, my view of the evidence supports option B. The trust directors and the football club directors retain my trust and have my gratitude for the sterling job they are doing.
Here is your post from Nov 17th Mr @DevC "meanwhile back in the real world rather than conspiracy land, the owners of the land do not have control of the land a) because the football club has a lease to use it b) because the football club has an option to buy it. Lets deal with real world issues rather than fantasy ones."
Not for the first time, you are wrong, How is fantasy land, better than the Isle of Troll ?
Until your fourth paragraph DevC, your appraisal of the situation made sense. However it is the LACK OF COMMUNICATION from the trust that BREEDS the suspicion and doubt of the supporters.
The Trust is always trumpeting it's philosophy of transparency, but it is still totally failing on this front. Whilst there would still have been a certain level of suspicion among some supporters if the failure to make the loan payments to the Consortium had been disclosed at the outset, it would not have reached anywhere near the level we have now. Even now, we have received no definitive information from the Board on WHY the loan payments were not made.
I think more supporters (including me) might be willing to subscribe to the share scheme if the current level of witholding information was significantly reduced.
@DevC Do you believe Trust members should have any involvement in decision making process at the club, or do you think everything is devolved to the Trust Board by electing them?
A fascinating question @peterparrotface and one that probably goes to the heart of why some people are disillusioned with the Trust. The problem, as i see it from afar, is that very few people are actually willing to give up serious amounts of time and or money to the Trust. Those that do end up on the board, and making the decisions, and those who don't or can't end up feeling left out.
The problem is, if we started issuing ballots every week on everything from next saturday's kit, to whether we should accept the most recent set of accounts, i can only imagine the participation levels dwindling even more. I've long thought that we were about 1000 people, or a dozen experts, short of where this club can be.
Supporter owned clubs are the last hope for professional football at our level. Supporter run clubs are probably a pipe dream.
Its always very sweet when Righty tries to go personal - for those old enough to know the reference he is the epitome of Geoffrey Howe to Healey.
Communication is critical Mr Mooneyman, and as ever it could be approved. But in my experience where communication is poor, there is usually fault on both sides.
Interesting question from PPF and response from Floyd with which I largely agree. I am no fan of direct democracy generally. The EU referendum is a classic case - its a crucial question for the future of the country yet it will be thought on soundbites and scare stories from both sides - quite simply the electorate does not have the time, interest and at times capacity to understand the full context and complexities of the situation they are being asked to decide. That's why I elect and pay representatives with the time and interest to fully understand the issues and tradeoffs involved with what are often finely balanced decisions.
Much the same applies to committees including WWFC. The Trust Board have a full understanding of the finances and people issues and overall situation facing the club. They full complexity of that situation can never be fully explained, there simply wouldn't be time, even leaving out the obvious commercial disadvantages to washing dirty linen in public audible to the competition, future players, key suppliers etc. So I accept the Trust Board with much better information than I have will make better decisions than I. So for me even in a relatively simple organisation like a fourth division football club, there is little room for direct democracy (reserved for only the most fundamental decisions) - far better to elect a committee and trust them to make sensible decisions armed with all the facts and if they don't vote someone else to have a go.
In an organisation set up as the Trust is, I am of the belief that day-to-day decision making is devolved to the elected board and that, once elected, the board members should be empowered and trusted to make each decision in the best interests of the organisation and its members. It should not be necessary for the board to consult the membership prior to each decision that they make.
For the board members to be trusted, however, there is a need for transparency regarding the reasons why decisions have been made. It is also important that clear communication is made to the membership regarding any potentially contentious decisions that have been made BEFORE asking them to vote to elect or re-elect board members.
My concern with the training ground situation is that no information on this topic was made available prior to the AGM itself, although members unable to attend the AGM who wished to vote in the board election by proxy had to have submitted their votes some days prior to the event. From the conversation on this forum it would appear also that information on the training ground situation provided during the AGM was both unclear and too late to be properly discussed and digested before the vote to elect board members took place.
I can see how it could be argued that a decision by the Trust board to keep the situation under wraps enhanced the possibility of existing members of said board being re-elected at the AGM; i.e. protection of board members own interests. Any suspicion of a deliberate cover up will have a negative impact on members' trust in the elected board.
The issue of transparency will never be resolved. The Trust does have a very clear list of issues they will consulte on. They are the enshrined rights of the club.
Anything outside of these has been delegated to various boards to work on. It would be great to hear more but where is the right level. I've been told by two or three people who've been on club boards that you don't want to know alot of things they know.
Trouble is everyone seems to want different levels of information. You won't be able to please everyone. Should the club have told the fans about the training ground issue? Maybe. I don't really see an ideal solution on this.
@Floyd I see what you say but I don't see why the two extremes are used as examples - why is it a choice between "issuing ballots every week" or the Trust Board deciding everything.
Could the Trust Board ask for advice from the membership occasionally, or for feedback on something other than naming Scores? Could there be an attempt to engage and involve people, other than buying shares or weeding? Maybe this is unfair and it does happen and people don't respond, as you suggest. I don't know.
@Right_in_the_Middle yes there is a clear list of issues the Trust will consult on, but these are things that fans of any club would be consulted on at any club aren't they?
Someone said to me on Saturday that "they want my money but they don't want my opinion", which may be harsh but might be a bit of an insight as to why people aren't rushing to buy-in to the share scheme and this idea that they own the club, but don't run it - as @micra points out earlier.
@peterparrotface The main reason I think people aren't investing in the share scheme is that they simply can't afford to. Those that can afford but still don't will have a whole variety of reasons and in some cases excuses for not doing so. I'm not sure changing the running of the club will bring an avalanche of investment.
As to being consulted on basic issues. Does this happen at every club?
Comments
Terrific post, and welcome to the Gasroom! I hope you stick around and help play your part in keeping WWFC supporters informed with how WWT are operating, and get answers to questions like these. Unfortunately it takes a while to digest information that's come in during meetings, and on this occasion has thrown up some issues that need explaining.
It does seem slightly odd that the posts from those at the meeting are much more relaxed than those from those who didn't go. Any reason for this?
@ritm The reason probably is that people who weren't there have had the chance to digest the information and view it from a distance.
I think the very least, there should be a full timescale of when the payments stopped and minutes of any meetings that took place to discuss why the agreed rent procedure should not be adhered to.
OMG. These guys simply can't do anything right can they. Damned if they do... We haven't got any money don't you understand that? Without the sale of the training ground the club might not be here now. Please explain why someone should pay us what I recall was in excess of £300K and then expect us to be able to buy it back when we feel like it when we haven't got the cash to do that in the first place. It's called economics and the capitalist society that we all have to live in. Why should they give us the money? What logical reason is there to do that.
Maybe next time those that didn't go should go so they can hear it first hand instead of from @MBOW who is quite clearly upset that he didn't get elected (I'm guessing you might be Mr Bowring).
And someone else on here said that they are glad we didn't accept MK's offer of a Wycombe gets all the cash friendly! Are you crazy - we need all the money we can get - and just what have MK ever done to upset Wycombe? History is just that - history - so move on. Maybe that could have gone towards the rent for the training pitch.
@FrijidPink Are you for real? Ignoring the MK stuff which everyone is entitled to their opinion on (that is of little relevance here) - the offer to buy the training ground was there, with the option to buy back. There is no question over those facts.
I don't recall the exact rent amount (was it £2500 pm?), but was there anything stopping a call being made at that point to say 'hey fans, we're £2000 short this month, if we don't pay we lose the right to buy back. anyone fancy helping?'
This was never done, and £2500 between thousands of fans is a lot more achievable than £300000+ in one lump sum from the fans. It almost begs the question why was nobody asked>
I really really really hope that I'm wrong but part of me thinks it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the consortium only purchased the training ground in the first place on the 'understanding' that the rent would be left in arrears. Yes, pure speculation. But is it so unbelievable?
Frijidpink. On the contrary, I am not upset at all. I didn't expect to get elected. Elected or not, I would have been equally as annoyed about the training ground. You appear to be the only one on here that isn't, fair play, your entitled to your opinion.
Chickenhead - the above comments are not stupid but are made by people who really care about our club and worried about the consequences of the failure to retain a very valuable option.
FrijidPink. Surely the key point here is that we are a SUPPORTER owned club and as such should be kept in the picture regarding important decisions that affect the future of the club. The option to buy back was an asset which has been disposed of without any consultation/prior notification.
If the club didn't have the money to make the monthly loan payments we should have neen advised at that time.
I may be cynical, but was this information kept secret for so long to ensure that the three Board members seeking re-election were re-elected!
@FrijidPink I sometimes wonder if you are real poster or just a wind up merchant. Nearly every post you put on this forum astounds me!
Hold on there, if and that's a bi gif, if it can proven that there information withheld that had financial implications then that's a erious matter. I missed the agm as was out of the country but this question needs to be answered.
If I put my cynical hot on, a property developer helps out then rent arrears aren't made public allowing a buy back clause to lapse.......this would smell. However I wasn't there so will be in scores Monday to ask these questions.
1) is the buy back clause no null and void
2) if there is a profit share on potential future sell off is this real or a "gentlemens agreement"
3) why weren't we as the fan a(owners) of the club not formed
4) what are the next steps
As said wasn't there, but am now truly alarmed by the implications....
Spot on
I think the posters earlier have dealt with Frijidpink's attempt to justify keeping supporters in the dark. What I would say that hasn't been said before is that WWT is a Community Benefit Society, therefore justifying the actions of the consortium in buying a distressed asset from an arm of such an organisation as rules of the game in capitalism (when Community Benefit Societies are meant to protect community assets (such as our fans' owned football club) from the worst excesses of capitalism) is a little off. I don't think any businessman (or woman) would seriously look at a lower-league football club and think that they could make money out of it by making the company profitable and taking a dividend on their shareholding.
If I had vast amounts of money (beyond the dreams of anyone who had my upbringing) then providing assistance to the football club in the way that Frank Adams did would not be a question, but rather a duty.
Also, slagging people off for not attending the AGM ignores very valid reasons why some people were not able to attend, be it the fact they live too far away, have family or other commitments (or in one case, a member was recovering from an operation).
Anyone seen the draft accounts for the football club, FALL etc on the Trust website. I'm no accountant but seems like there was funds to pay £2500 per month!
Spoke to a few people who went to the AGM last week on Saturday and none seemed to have the concerns addressed on here. Just saying
When a few more than the pathetically low number (circa 250?) who currently subscribe to the Community Share Scheme come on board, then we can perhaps expect it to "feel more like a supporter owned club"- as one of the candidates on Thursday put it.
Everything felt positive and re-assuring on Thursday evening. But, when all is said and done, money talks and we would not be where we are without the input of certain individuals whose motives are constantly questioned by a small but vocal minority.
The apathy among Wycombe fans also extends to the voluntary area apparently where several much smaller clubs locally can call upon substantially greater numbers.
At the end of the day if people are happy at the loss of a potentially valuable asset to the Football Club that is absolutely fine, they are after all entitled to their opinion.
For me there are a number of questions that should be answered:
Why did the Consortium wait until August/September to issue a default letter to the Trust. We were as I understand it £45,000 or 18 months in arrears and the letter could have been issued at any time from Spring 2014 onwards. Why the wait ?
Why, having issued the default letter did the Consortium, very laudible and generous as it is, then go ahead and waive the £45,000 arrears ? The issue about a % sell on to the Football Club if the land is sold is a non starter as that land will never be sold. It may be developed but it won't be sold.
Given the £250,000 from the Play Offs, Season Ticket sales and Share Scheme monies why was this debt not cleared in advance. There was ample opportunity to repay that debt if we had wanted to.
No wonder people are suspicious.
I'd venture that point three above probably answers question one.
Who would be involved in running a football club or its supporters trust.
An issue comes along and straight away the default position is "ooh its disgusting. Those involved are at the very least useless and probably on the take, co-conspirators in some Machiavellian conspiracy to steal the assets of the club. The bastards"
Not for me to tell you what to believe.
Option 1) is that Mr Beeks is the devil incarnate, the Trust Board on the take too, all planning to make huge fortunes from this wonderful piece of land, just waiting to be developed into a massive housing estate, that's after of course the gold and uranium underneath has been mined first.
Option 2) is a little more mundane - all involved were trying to do their best in circumstances where the football club has no cash. The land has no real development value, (there is a noticeable lack of housing development on its boundaries strangely). When the club ran desperately short of cash, it did what any business in such circumstances did- it prioritised the people it had to pay with what cash it had to get through the month - salaries first, then key suppliers, then HMRC, then less key suppliers. Lease costs would be towards the bottom of that pile. Somehow with great effort from the Trust Board and a helping hand from Beeks, Kane and Howard, the club has just about survived. |Finances still tight, but for now at least the crisis is not quite so severe. Its a shame the option has gone, but not the end of the world given the lack of alternatives for the site and the first priorities of survival of the club, survival in the league and retention of the Ground have for now been protected.
Once you have decided which option feels the more credible, you must judge again the hardworking Trust Board's actions. If you accept A, they are indeed culpable. If B feels just a smidgeon more credible, they deserve an apology from those who have abused them. It is as ever easy to create conspiracy theories and endless questions, it is much harder to actually do something and steer an organisation through difficult times. Yes communication could be better and there is a lesson here for all. But communication will only improve when trust in both directions is there. This thread demonstrates why Trusts and owners tend to start with good intentions re communication and gradually end up circling the wagons against the torrent of ill-informed suspicion and abuse.
For me, my view of the evidence supports option B. The trust directors and the football club directors retain my trust and have my gratitude for the sterling job they are doing.
Here is your post from Nov 17th Mr @DevC "meanwhile back in the real world rather than conspiracy land, the owners of the land do not have control of the land a) because the football club has a lease to use it b) because the football club has an option to buy it. Lets deal with real world issues rather than fantasy ones."
Not for the first time, you are wrong, How is fantasy land, better than the Isle of Troll ?
Did you vote in the AGM election in the end @DevC ??
Can't comment on your post. Far too many assumptions and what ifs in the first bit again. Maybe the real world will hit the West Country soon.
Until your fourth paragraph DevC, your appraisal of the situation made sense. However it is the LACK OF COMMUNICATION from the trust that BREEDS the suspicion and doubt of the supporters.
The Trust is always trumpeting it's philosophy of transparency, but it is still totally failing on this front. Whilst there would still have been a certain level of suspicion among some supporters if the failure to make the loan payments to the Consortium had been disclosed at the outset, it would not have reached anywhere near the level we have now. Even now, we have received no definitive information from the Board on WHY the loan payments were not made.
I think more supporters (including me) might be willing to subscribe to the share scheme if the current level of witholding information was significantly reduced.
@DevC Do you believe Trust members should have any involvement in decision making process at the club, or do you think everything is devolved to the Trust Board by electing them?
A fascinating question @peterparrotface and one that probably goes to the heart of why some people are disillusioned with the Trust. The problem, as i see it from afar, is that very few people are actually willing to give up serious amounts of time and or money to the Trust. Those that do end up on the board, and making the decisions, and those who don't or can't end up feeling left out.
The problem is, if we started issuing ballots every week on everything from next saturday's kit, to whether we should accept the most recent set of accounts, i can only imagine the participation levels dwindling even more. I've long thought that we were about 1000 people, or a dozen experts, short of where this club can be.
Supporter owned clubs are the last hope for professional football at our level. Supporter run clubs are probably a pipe dream.
Its always very sweet when Righty tries to go personal - for those old enough to know the reference he is the epitome of Geoffrey Howe to Healey.
Communication is critical Mr Mooneyman, and as ever it could be approved. But in my experience where communication is poor, there is usually fault on both sides.
Interesting question from PPF and response from Floyd with which I largely agree. I am no fan of direct democracy generally. The EU referendum is a classic case - its a crucial question for the future of the country yet it will be thought on soundbites and scare stories from both sides - quite simply the electorate does not have the time, interest and at times capacity to understand the full context and complexities of the situation they are being asked to decide. That's why I elect and pay representatives with the time and interest to fully understand the issues and tradeoffs involved with what are often finely balanced decisions.
Much the same applies to committees including WWFC. The Trust Board have a full understanding of the finances and people issues and overall situation facing the club. They full complexity of that situation can never be fully explained, there simply wouldn't be time, even leaving out the obvious commercial disadvantages to washing dirty linen in public audible to the competition, future players, key suppliers etc. So I accept the Trust Board with much better information than I have will make better decisions than I. So for me even in a relatively simple organisation like a fourth division football club, there is little room for direct democracy (reserved for only the most fundamental decisions) - far better to elect a committee and trust them to make sensible decisions armed with all the facts and if they don't vote someone else to have a go.
In an organisation set up as the Trust is, I am of the belief that day-to-day decision making is devolved to the elected board and that, once elected, the board members should be empowered and trusted to make each decision in the best interests of the organisation and its members. It should not be necessary for the board to consult the membership prior to each decision that they make.
For the board members to be trusted, however, there is a need for transparency regarding the reasons why decisions have been made. It is also important that clear communication is made to the membership regarding any potentially contentious decisions that have been made BEFORE asking them to vote to elect or re-elect board members.
My concern with the training ground situation is that no information on this topic was made available prior to the AGM itself, although members unable to attend the AGM who wished to vote in the board election by proxy had to have submitted their votes some days prior to the event. From the conversation on this forum it would appear also that information on the training ground situation provided during the AGM was both unclear and too late to be properly discussed and digested before the vote to elect board members took place.
I can see how it could be argued that a decision by the Trust board to keep the situation under wraps enhanced the possibility of existing members of said board being re-elected at the AGM; i.e. protection of board members own interests. Any suspicion of a deliberate cover up will have a negative impact on members' trust in the elected board.
You're a sensitive soul if you took that as a personal slight @DevC . Great use of the distraction to not answer the question though.
Did you vote in the AGM board vote?
The issue of transparency will never be resolved. The Trust does have a very clear list of issues they will consulte on. They are the enshrined rights of the club.
Anything outside of these has been delegated to various boards to work on. It would be great to hear more but where is the right level. I've been told by two or three people who've been on club boards that you don't want to know alot of things they know.
Trouble is everyone seems to want different levels of information. You won't be able to please everyone. Should the club have told the fans about the training ground issue? Maybe. I don't really see an ideal solution on this.
@Floyd I see what you say but I don't see why the two extremes are used as examples - why is it a choice between "issuing ballots every week" or the Trust Board deciding everything.
Could the Trust Board ask for advice from the membership occasionally, or for feedback on something other than naming Scores? Could there be an attempt to engage and involve people, other than buying shares or weeding? Maybe this is unfair and it does happen and people don't respond, as you suggest. I don't know.
@Right_in_the_Middle yes there is a clear list of issues the Trust will consult on, but these are things that fans of any club would be consulted on at any club aren't they?
Someone said to me on Saturday that "they want my money but they don't want my opinion", which may be harsh but might be a bit of an insight as to why people aren't rushing to buy-in to the share scheme and this idea that they own the club, but don't run it - as @micra points out earlier.
@peterparrotface The main reason I think people aren't investing in the share scheme is that they simply can't afford to. Those that can afford but still don't will have a whole variety of reasons and in some cases excuses for not doing so. I'm not sure changing the running of the club will bring an avalanche of investment.
As to being consulted on basic issues. Does this happen at every club?