I think the 'sensitives' ( is that an improvement on snowflakes or just another casual turn of phrase?) just read what you posted and the phrasing used and drew their own conclusions. But as you are now back-tracking I'm going to let it rest. Its probably just your writing style
"below market rate" for a product that no companies were interested in is an interesting comment. presumably in that case market rate is nil.
As marlow is desperately backtracking on his earlier insinuation that howard was personally benefitting at the clubs expense from unauthorised "mates rates" and refuses to spell out what issues he is complaining about, I think I will file this in the "move on, nothing to see here" box.
Companies are not lining up to sponsor shirts in League One or Two, and if we have managed to get more
money from a current sponsor then that is good work, and should be applauded rather than treated with suspicion.
It would seem an odd thing to do to completely separate the Trust board and the football club Board. As owners of the football club, I would expect the Trust Board to want to have representation on the Club Board. in fact |I struggle to see what you are achieving by not.
As for Trust Board removing club directors, I assume that as they are the owners they can already do this.
every season ticket holder and every non-season ticket holder is allowed to join the trust if they want to, so again I don't really see the purpose in change here. you cant force those not interested in the Trust to become so.
I don't believe board meetings can ever be held in public. They would have to be sanitised to make them meaningless or the vast majority would have to be held in private which in turn would generate mistrust.
its hard to get the balance right re fan ownership. The ebbsfleet experience is at the extreme but didn't really work. Exeter lost their manager as a consequence of (to my mind) inappropriate supporter actions. My view is that it is about right.
Of course its much easier to see things as alright when things are reasonably buoyant on the field.
@mooneyman This was never the intention where the Trust took over the club in 2012, but became reality when Andrew Howard announced is resignation as Chairman and also announced the name of the new Chairman. I believe it was sometime after that the Trust Board agreed the appointment. My personal view is that the two appointments should not be held by the same person
I don't remember passing any comment on that Mooney.
Not sure I have enough understanding on the roles of either, but if as I suspect Howard and Michael Davies are execs and the rest including Stroud all non-execs, while I cant honestly say I am overly fussed, I cant really see a problem.
Don’t have it in me to scroll back to find all the innuendo but please, we are on here to support the blues, not to snipe and gripe.
I for one am glad to see the sponsorship deals coming through, as well as watch the superbly produced videos promoting them. It seems as if the back room staff are doing a sterling job of filling the coffers for the season to come and I have not been so confident of the way the club is being run in many a year; perhaps since I started taking an interest in the financial side at all (don’t have it in me to scroll back through life to work out if that is actually the case either!)
So come on chums, meet at the bar on the 7th and have a laugh over how serious it all got on the Gasroom that time...
@StrongestTeam said:
All for transparency, for example see no reason why transfer fees should be undisclosed and would love to see if we actually save any money by buying the worst burger baps in the northern hemisphere.
Leaking negotiations in the middle of them, when you think we are short of sponsors anyway doesn't seem particularly helpful though to anyone. And that is assuming its not made up anyway.
I'd be worried if we didn't bother approaching new companies , if mates rates took precedence over concrete offers from elsewhere etc, but knowing which name will be on the shirt two weeks before it launches doesn't interest me that much.
The negotiations were closed and complete long before I said anything here. If you read by earlier comments on this topic all I did was raise exactly the same concerns you have in your last para , asking the question about our process and ability to adhere to process with the current operating structure.
Nope, you claimed to be revealing info direct from board meetings about deals that haven't been announced.
Which has no bearing on sensitive negotiations as the deals were done and signed
@DevC said:
"below market rate" for a product that no companies were interested in is an interesting comment. presumably in that case market rate is nil.
As marlow is desperately backtracking on his earlier insinuation that howard was personally benefitting at the clubs expense from unauthorised "mates rates" and refuses to spell out what issues he is complaining about, I think I will file this in the "move on, nothing to see here" box.
It’s hard to backtrack from something never inferred,and you continually fail to quote anything worthy of the over reaction received. The behaviour by a few here only reiterates why some are right to be concerned. Transparency is poor at our club. That concerns me.
Personally I'd advocate a model based on much more separation between the club and trust boards, where no person was allowed to serve on both at the same time. The club board should be properly accountable to the trust board, with the trust board having the authority to remove club board members if they're not up to the job.
The trust board should become much more transparent and democratic. I would change the trust membership model so that every season ticket holder becomes an automatic member of the trust with equal voting rights (there's an argument to extend it to any supporter who's bought tickets to more than, say, five matches in the preceding season as well). By extending the membership we're much more likely to get genuinely contested elections to the trust board and no cabals / slates developing, bringing in supporters with a wealth of skills that could benefit the club and who could add real value to the trust board.
Finally I'd make trust board meetings much more open to scrutiny, having the open to the public and livestreamed on the web (we don't all live in High Wycombe, sadly). Just as with local authorities, commercially sensitive and personnel discussions should be able to be held in closed sessions where necessary.
As a result we would be able to have scrutiny by Gasroom debate, @micra, yes indeed. But that debate would be informed debate rather than insinuation and speculation - and would be so much more productive as a result. We would finally have true supporter ownership that ties us all in together and allows us to shape our club - and a backroom operation to mirror and complement the great work done by GA and AH and their team on the sporting side.
An excellent contribution.
With fear of upsetting Dev, floyd and others , and in line with the concerns in the post quoted above ,can I raise the question as to why a basic search on the trust websites of afc Newport County ,Exeter city and afc Wimbledon delivers comprehensive minutes from all meetings of the board, some very detailed information and redacted where required to protect commercial and sensitive information from going public, but our trust provides no similar access to minutes and information ?
@marlowchair said:
people care for our club and have an interest in things like the performance of our business.You might ask what’s more harmful potentially,speculating or real information?
I'm of the opinion that real information, needlessly shared, is the most potentially harmful. With @Baldric i have a hard time working out what your motivation is.
The same as anyone’s on here, to discuss,gossip,speculate,chat,inform, and enjoy being an owner of a trust owned club.
If I saw JJ walking out of costa Marlow with GA smiling and holding a signed contract and said that on here you wouldn’t question my motives or take issue I guess ? But I pass on what I know about the new kit sponsor deal and you do question my motives.
I agree with @aloysius and others, that it is good governance to have different people in the role of Club Chairman and Trust Chairman. I would like to see that split happen. That is not to say that there is a problem with the present incumbent but a situation could arise in the future when it might be a problem.
@Steve_Peart said:
I agree with @aloysius and others, that it is good governance to have different people in the role of Club Chairman and Trust Chairman. I would like to see that split happen. That is not to say that there is a problem with the present incumbent but a situation could arise in the future when it might be a problem.
It wouldn’t make a difference to me if that was Dev,Baldric,You,Me & Don Woodward in that picture . It’s nothing about Mr Howard or Mr Stroud it’s nothing personal.
@marlowchair nobody has questioned Aloysius and his posts about how to do things differently. He hasn't dissed anyone. Your posts still sound bitter and whatever your point was - however cogent- is now lost in time. If you want to win your argument you need to re-consider your approach xx
They have Baldric.The latter parts of page 2 and also page 3 demonstrate examples of overly defensive responses to Aloysius raising questions and concerns.I take on board your observation that my writing style contributes but to say no one questions others alternate views isn’t correct.
Comments
I think the 'sensitives' ( is that an improvement on snowflakes or just another casual turn of phrase?) just read what you posted and the phrasing used and drew their own conclusions. But as you are now back-tracking I'm going to let it rest. Its probably just your writing style
I can’t wait to see this thread when the new shirt comes out in stripes, the wrong the colors and with a huge swan on the front.
and JJ refuses to sign because of it.
Modeled by returning loanee Scott Brown.
"below market rate" for a product that no companies were interested in is an interesting comment. presumably in that case market rate is nil.
As marlow is desperately backtracking on his earlier insinuation that howard was personally benefitting at the clubs expense from unauthorised "mates rates" and refuses to spell out what issues he is complaining about, I think I will file this in the "move on, nothing to see here" box.
Dev as the voice of reason. We really need a game don’t we?
Companies are not lining up to sponsor shirts in League One or Two, and if we have managed to get more
money from a current sponsor then that is good work, and should be applauded rather than treated with suspicion.
Moving on to Aloysius post.
It would seem an odd thing to do to completely separate the Trust board and the football club Board. As owners of the football club, I would expect the Trust Board to want to have representation on the Club Board. in fact |I struggle to see what you are achieving by not.
As for Trust Board removing club directors, I assume that as they are the owners they can already do this.
every season ticket holder and every non-season ticket holder is allowed to join the trust if they want to, so again I don't really see the purpose in change here. you cant force those not interested in the Trust to become so.
I don't believe board meetings can ever be held in public. They would have to be sanitised to make them meaningless or the vast majority would have to be held in private which in turn would generate mistrust.
its hard to get the balance right re fan ownership. The ebbsfleet experience is at the extreme but didn't really work. Exeter lost their manager as a consequence of (to my mind) inappropriate supporter actions. My view is that it is about right.
Of course its much easier to see things as alright when things are reasonably buoyant on the field.
So you think it is ideal for the same person to be chairman of the Trust and chairman of the Board?
@mooneyman This was never the intention where the Trust took over the club in 2012, but became reality when Andrew Howard announced is resignation as Chairman and also announced the name of the new Chairman. I believe it was sometime after that the Trust Board agreed the appointment. My personal view is that the two appointments should not be held by the same person
his not is
I don't remember passing any comment on that Mooney.
Not sure I have enough understanding on the roles of either, but if as I suspect Howard and Michael Davies are execs and the rest including Stroud all non-execs, while I cant honestly say I am overly fussed, I cant really see a problem.
Don’t have it in me to scroll back to find all the innuendo but please, we are on here to support the blues, not to snipe and gripe.
I for one am glad to see the sponsorship deals coming through, as well as watch the superbly produced videos promoting them. It seems as if the back room staff are doing a sterling job of filling the coffers for the season to come and I have not been so confident of the way the club is being run in many a year; perhaps since I started taking an interest in the financial side at all (don’t have it in me to scroll back through life to work out if that is actually the case either!)
So come on chums, meet at the bar on the 7th and have a laugh over how serious it all got on the Gasroom that time...
Which has no bearing on sensitive negotiations as the deals were done and signed
It’s hard to backtrack from something never inferred,and you continually fail to quote anything worthy of the over reaction received. The behaviour by a few here only reiterates why some are right to be concerned. Transparency is poor at our club. That concerns me.
if it makes you happy being "concerned" about some mysterious issue you are unable to articulate, you go ahead. I am sure you are harmless.
Tonight's radio show could get tasty...
I'm looking forward to next season Dave Tarpey in the new yellow shirt with Panda Pop logo on the front
@Wendoverman But will new manager Matt Bloomfield pick him? Especially with Jacobson starting for the opposition.
I'd probably go with Ruth myself with new joiners Pierre and Ingram at the back.
Bloomfield will pick him, but only on Thursdays from window B.
He'll just play his mates @Jonny_King
An excellent contribution.
With fear of upsetting Dev, floyd and others , and in line with the concerns in the post quoted above ,can I raise the question as to why a basic search on the trust websites of afc Newport County ,Exeter city and afc Wimbledon delivers comprehensive minutes from all meetings of the board, some very detailed information and redacted where required to protect commercial and sensitive information from going public, but our trust provides no similar access to minutes and information ?
Is that a fair and valid question ?
?
Is the Wycombe Sound studio in Marlow?
Did you see JJ and GA emerge, arms across each other’s shoulders, beaming @marlowchair ?
I agree with @aloysius and others, that it is good governance to have different people in the role of Club Chairman and Trust Chairman. I would like to see that split happen. That is not to say that there is a problem with the present incumbent but a situation could arise in the future when it might be a problem.
https://goo.gl/images/k2zFz3
It wouldn’t make a difference to me if that was Dev,Baldric,You,Me & Don Woodward in that picture . It’s nothing about Mr Howard or Mr Stroud it’s nothing personal.
@marlowchair nobody has questioned Aloysius and his posts about how to do things differently. He hasn't dissed anyone. Your posts still sound bitter and whatever your point was - however cogent- is now lost in time. If you want to win your argument you need to re-consider your approach xx
They have Baldric.The latter parts of page 2 and also page 3 demonstrate examples of overly defensive responses to Aloysius raising questions and concerns.I take on board your observation that my writing style contributes but to say no one questions others alternate views isn’t correct.