Email from the Trust. I take it to mean slide deck but no video:
It was impossible for many people to join the meeting on line last night and we apologise if you were one of them. During and after the pandemic Zoom allowed up to 300 into these meetings, via the subscription we hold. However, the number of participants has now been reduced to 100 and we were not informed of this change. The AGM online meeting will now be a Zoom Webinar, which will accomodate 1000 attendees.
In order to enable those who were not able to join on line last night, to be fully in the picture, I will be sending out by the end of the day:
- the presentation plus notes of Rob’s and my comments
- the Q&A session notes
- a link to enable those who were not able to join online, to share their view/vote now (this survey wlll be open until the end of 12.11.22)
I hope this will also allow any member who was unable to get to either of the meetings to be fully up to speed with our plans.
The one thing I'll add, and I'll say it gently, but when I've raised questions about the Couhigs' business model and motivations over the past few years, most people on here have shouted me down, lampooned me or patronised me. All perfectly acceptable responses and I've got a thick skin, so don't feel guilty, compadres. But I did think that after going through the Steve Hayes era more people would see the need for healthy skepticism, a desire for transparency and a willingness to ask difficult questions - even if some "conspiracy theories" turned out to be just that. As we conduct the post mortem of last night perhaps one or two of you who are now asking sensible questions of the Couhigs and the Trust might just pause for a second and ask yourselves whether your own willingness to go along with the ride for so long may have helped create the conditions where Rob and co thought they'd get away with last night's performance...
Trust email suggests a lot of the info is to be sent round to members later (not including the video by looks of it) , any issues last night were clearly as a result of Zoom not informing them they stopped allowing the higher limits that were available free in the pandemic. I guess Zoom presumably didn't send diagrams showing arse from elbow either.
Not sure in fairness that the zoom issue could have been resolved quickly to be honest and it would have been hard on those there in person to cancel it on the night and rearrange for later. Just one of those unfortunate things. I use zoom quite a lot and wasn't aware of this change.
Also very frustrating that a lot of us were stuck waiting to be let in at one point or another. I was left for 10 minutes.
I don't know if this meeting was thrust upon The Trust at short notice, it was about 1 week notice to us I think, and maybe that is an excuse for the competence issues. But I also guess that someone within the trust said 'hmmm this is pretty important guys, shall we make sure things work or ask someone who might know?'. Anyway we go again
I suspect in practise though it would have taken time to find out what was going on and what the solution was and not sure any upgrade would have applied to a meeting already in progress. I might be wrong - too old to be good technically (probably like the volunteers on the Trust board)
The slopey shoulderness about the trusts lack of understanding on the user limit would be impressive if it wasn’t so damning.
They’ve basically said “There was no way we could have know (except even the slightest google and a bit of due diligence) that the limit changed unless Zoom contacted us directly. We absolutely, probably, didn’t miss the automated email they would have sent weeks in advance of this change”.
300 may not have been nearly enough either so it’s still a piss poor excuse.
Yeah but to be fair if you had staged in person/zoom meetings before without any problem and had no knowledge of any change to zoom rules, would you have thought to check that something that worked before would work again. Not sure I would to be honest.
(sods law decrees that errors invariably happen on the most important stuff. You will almost certainly never forward an email about stationary to key customer Steve rather than inhouse admin Steve, but if you have a confidential memo about proposed pricing strategy sod decrees that every likelihood that key customer Steve will get it rather than in-house sales director Steve. Just the way it works.)
In the zoom case, Incompetence or understandable but nonetheless annoying error?
While RC officially announced the takeover in late 2019, they were funding the club through that summer.
We'd gone from the point of letting a lot of players go and about 7 players turned up to the first day of training that season. Then the Couhig's were involved as a 'taster', and levelled out the playing budget which let us bring in Fred, Wheeler and others.
The biggest issue with the Zoom thing isn't necessarily the incompetence that led to not noticing the limit. It's the arrogance that they just carried on with the meeting knowing full well that hundreds of members had no access. If they'd paused for 10-15 minutes I'm pretty sure they could've found a solution e.g. using the steps outlined by @TheAndyGrahamFanClub above. And if the expanded limit didn't apply to the existing meeting, they would've still had time to circulate a new invite.
It's pretty disgraceful that the actual response was just to shrug their shoulders and carry on.
If you’ve sending out an email to the entire trust mailing list urging them of the importance of this meeting and encouraging everyone i am emailed to attend a cursory “better double check the capacity for this big meeting” should be asked.
I mean, if zoom wasn’t a thing and a physical hall would need to be booked, you’d want to make sure at least the majority of people would fit into the room. It’s not rocket science.
I understand the mood at the moment is to criticise, and arguably there is much to criticise. Honestly though if IT wasn't my thing, if I had no knowledge that the rules of Zoom had changed and if I had previously organised combined on site/zoom meetings without incident, I don't know if I would have thought or had any reason to check. I would now having become aware but at the time probably not.
If it's any consolation to those who couldn't get in, at least you didn't have to endure 3 hours of intermittent sound due to speakers not facing the mic, the inability to hear questions from the floor (which Rob kept (angrily) answering before Nigel could repeat them to the Zoom audience). Then there was the refusal to take live questions in Zoom, the rushed 'vote' at the end, and all this to a backdrop of burping, farting and discussions about medical issues from Zoom attendees who failed to mute their Microphones.
The 100 who started in Zoom was only 60 long before the end as people lost the will to live or tuned into I'm a celeb instead.
I wonder whether in future they will conclude that zoom/in person hybrids is too hard and just say if you want to participate, you have to physically be there.
We do still have a success plan even with the latest developments with the Couhigs though.
Namely, a surge in form and gaining promotion - and staying in the championship with the embiggened rewards.
With Hayes' plan of making us chimps in the Wasps' zoo, paying rent for a stadium ridiculously beyond even what the Couhig's are planning, we really had zero future.
Clearly it's still a major all in or bust hope, but at least it is still a hope.
our club 7 years ago was a solid league 2/league 1 proposition under the guidance of Gareth and Dobbo and a hard working fully supporter owned model
our club had a small budget but got better value for money than most
some poor decisions by those tasked with running the club/ trust saw revenues decline commensurately and a lack of football technical knowledge and football commercial knowledge at the club ( football management aside)
the trust then realising the financial hole they had led the club into - panicked and began flirting with any and every potential sugar daddy to do a deal with to sell off the family’ heirlooms
the trust made some very naive and poorly considered choices at this time
the trust negotiated with seasoned experienced businessmen and came out of the deal in second place
anyone who aired concerns or forecast this happening was derided and outcast and besmirched
the club was promoted to league 1 due to Gareth , a good squad he and dobbo put together , and had nothing to do with ownership or investment
the club was thenpromoted to the championship for similar reasons but was aided by covid significantly - any supporter who denies that is not being honest
covid also saw the ownership financially supported strongly by grants; furlough and the EFL
the new owners the trust sold our soul to have introduced fireworks , very high food prices , very little improvement in matchday experience , terrible merchandise and retail management , no increase in gates , no commercial increases . They HAVE increased the clubs annual losses substantially
we remain as it stands, exactly where we were 7 years ago - a league 2/league 2 club . In every aspect . We enjoy league 1 status currently but naturally sit as a yo yo club between the two
so we are exactly where we were 5-7 years ago except the trust has managed to see us lose ownership of the club from 100% to 10% shareholding .
I’m glad for anyone to challenge the points and facts outlined above , I may be wrong on some but to me , spelling it out in this way , it appears one of the most incompetent , wasteful , detrimental cases of self sabotage and harm by a club trust , perhaps ever.
I think the words, and forgive me if I'm wrong, from The Chair were " I don't see why that matters" regarding the problems regarding Zoom (Lionel Richie's Commodores, anyone?) and thus member vote participation.
I was clicked off after the No's were coming through on the live feed.
I also heard the beleaguered Chair say we are where we are because of the previous deal signed by The Trust agreed on the sale of 75% shareholding, again a recording of last night's jolly-up would be appreciated in order to verify.
You know the Trust deal that could only be seen in the presence of a Trust board director.
The one that allegedly changed on the Tuesday after.
No wonder they didn't want to give members any prior warning of their fresh lunacy.
Comments
Oh lol, sorry
Email from the Trust. I take it to mean slide deck but no video:
It was impossible for many people to join the meeting on line last night and we apologise if you were one of them. During and after the pandemic Zoom allowed up to 300 into these meetings, via the subscription we hold. However, the number of participants has now been reduced to 100 and we were not informed of this change. The AGM online meeting will now be a Zoom Webinar, which will accomodate 1000 attendees.
In order to enable those who were not able to join on line last night, to be fully in the picture, I will be sending out by the end of the day:
- the presentation plus notes of Rob’s and my comments
- the Q&A session notes
- a link to enable those who were not able to join online, to share their view/vote now (this survey wlll be open until the end of 12.11.22)
I hope this will also allow any member who was unable to get to either of the meetings to be fully up to speed with our plans.
The one thing I'll add, and I'll say it gently, but when I've raised questions about the Couhigs' business model and motivations over the past few years, most people on here have shouted me down, lampooned me or patronised me. All perfectly acceptable responses and I've got a thick skin, so don't feel guilty, compadres. But I did think that after going through the Steve Hayes era more people would see the need for healthy skepticism, a desire for transparency and a willingness to ask difficult questions - even if some "conspiracy theories" turned out to be just that. As we conduct the post mortem of last night perhaps one or two of you who are now asking sensible questions of the Couhigs and the Trust might just pause for a second and ask yourselves whether your own willingness to go along with the ride for so long may have helped create the conditions where Rob and co thought they'd get away with last night's performance...
Trust email suggests a lot of the info is to be sent round to members later (not including the video by looks of it) , any issues last night were clearly as a result of Zoom not informing them they stopped allowing the higher limits that were available free in the pandemic. I guess Zoom presumably didn't send diagrams showing arse from elbow either.
Zoom sent me an email about the reduction in participants and I've never even had a Zoom account.
Another excuse...
It's poor because people were shouting, messaging and making clear what was happening but delaying the big speech was never entertained.
Not sure in fairness that the zoom issue could have been resolved quickly to be honest and it would have been hard on those there in person to cancel it on the night and rearrange for later. Just one of those unfortunate things. I use zoom quite a lot and wasn't aware of this change.
CLICK
UPGRADE
PAY
Job done
Also very frustrating that a lot of us were stuck waiting to be let in at one point or another. I was left for 10 minutes.
I don't know if this meeting was thrust upon The Trust at short notice, it was about 1 week notice to us I think, and maybe that is an excuse for the competence issues. But I also guess that someone within the trust said 'hmmm this is pretty important guys, shall we make sure things work or ask someone who might know?'. Anyway we go again
I suspect in practise though it would have taken time to find out what was going on and what the solution was and not sure any upgrade would have applied to a meeting already in progress. I might be wrong - too old to be good technically (probably like the volunteers on the Trust board)
The slopey shoulderness about the trusts lack of understanding on the user limit would be impressive if it wasn’t so damning.
They’ve basically said “There was no way we could have know (except even the slightest google and a bit of due diligence) that the limit changed unless Zoom contacted us directly. We absolutely, probably, didn’t miss the automated email they would have sent weeks in advance of this change”.
300 may not have been nearly enough either so it’s still a piss poor excuse.
Led by donkeys.
Never attribute to malice what can explained by incompetence. Although, given the circumstances, incompetence might be worse than malice.
Yeah but to be fair if you had staged in person/zoom meetings before without any problem and had no knowledge of any change to zoom rules, would you have thought to check that something that worked before would work again. Not sure I would to be honest.
(sods law decrees that errors invariably happen on the most important stuff. You will almost certainly never forward an email about stationary to key customer Steve rather than inhouse admin Steve, but if you have a confidential memo about proposed pricing strategy sod decrees that every likelihood that key customer Steve will get it rather than in-house sales director Steve. Just the way it works.)
In the zoom case, Incompetence or understandable but nonetheless annoying error?
So just to summarize, we are going to fill Adams Park, but can't figure out how to fill a Zoom meeting?
While RC officially announced the takeover in late 2019, they were funding the club through that summer.
We'd gone from the point of letting a lot of players go and about 7 players turned up to the first day of training that season. Then the Couhig's were involved as a 'taster', and levelled out the playing budget which let us bring in Fred, Wheeler and others.
The biggest issue with the Zoom thing isn't necessarily the incompetence that led to not noticing the limit. It's the arrogance that they just carried on with the meeting knowing full well that hundreds of members had no access. If they'd paused for 10-15 minutes I'm pretty sure they could've found a solution e.g. using the steps outlined by @TheAndyGrahamFanClub above. And if the expanded limit didn't apply to the existing meeting, they would've still had time to circulate a new invite.
It's pretty disgraceful that the actual response was just to shrug their shoulders and carry on.
If you’ve sending out an email to the entire trust mailing list urging them of the importance of this meeting and encouraging everyone i am emailed to attend a cursory “better double check the capacity for this big meeting” should be asked.
I mean, if zoom wasn’t a thing and a physical hall would need to be booked, you’d want to make sure at least the majority of people would fit into the room. It’s not rocket science.
To quote @shev “So just to summarize, we are going to fill Adams Park, but can't figure out how to fill a Zoom meeting?”
Nah, zoom meeting filling has been cracked.
maybe we should sneak down to Adam’s park and remove all the seats and then claim a sell out and standing room only.
I understand the mood at the moment is to criticise, and arguably there is much to criticise. Honestly though if IT wasn't my thing, if I had no knowledge that the rules of Zoom had changed and if I had previously organised combined on site/zoom meetings without incident, I don't know if I would have thought or had any reason to check. I would now having become aware but at the time probably not.
If it's any consolation to those who couldn't get in, at least you didn't have to endure 3 hours of intermittent sound due to speakers not f
acing the mic, the inability to hear questions from the floor (which Rob kept (angrily) answering before Nigel could repeat them to the Zoom audience). Then there was the refusal to take live questions in Zoom, the rushed 'vote' at the end, and all this to a backdrop of burping, farting and discussions about medical issues from Zoom attendees who failed to mute their Microphones.The 100 who started in Zoom was only 60 long before the end as people lost the will to live or tuned into I'm a celeb instead.
I wonder whether in future they will conclude that zoom/in person hybrids is too hard and just say if you want to participate, you have to physically be there.
That's rather an ageist comment Dev🧙
I favour the harshest of punishments for those who don't mute their mics on Zoom calls.
Clearly an event like this needs to be run as a webinar, not a call.
We do still have a success plan even with the latest developments with the Couhigs though.
Namely, a surge in form and gaining promotion - and staying in the championship with the embiggened rewards.
With Hayes' plan of making us chimps in the Wasps' zoo, paying rent for a stadium ridiculously beyond even what the Couhig's are planning, we really had zero future.
Clearly it's still a major all in or bust hope, but at least it is still a hope.
I’m glad for anyone to challenge the points and facts outlined above , I may be wrong on some but to me , spelling it out in this way , it appears one of the most incompetent , wasteful , detrimental cases of self sabotage and harm by a club trust , perhaps ever.
I think the words, and forgive me if I'm wrong, from The Chair were " I don't see why that matters" regarding the problems regarding Zoom (Lionel Richie's Commodores, anyone?) and thus member vote participation.
I was clicked off after the No's were coming through on the live feed.
I also heard the beleaguered Chair say we are where we are because of the previous deal signed by The Trust agreed on the sale of 75% shareholding, again a recording of last night's jolly-up would be appreciated in order to verify.
You know the Trust deal that could only be seen in the presence of a Trust board director.
The one that allegedly changed on the Tuesday after.
No wonder they didn't want to give members any prior warning of their fresh lunacy.
I think you’ll find that Zoom was by Fat Larrys band.
Good evening Mr Carrots
Wasnt Zoom by the Fat Larry's band ?
Is that funding? Or a debt?
We got out of league two long before Couhig, as did Exeter as a trust run club.