| Pitch inspection 10.30 10:10 - Dec 21 with 9884 views | turnthescrew |
N/T |  | | |  |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 16:33 - Dec 22 with 2000 views | 442Dale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 16:01 - Dec 22 by 49thseason |
There is a big dilemma at the centre of the Trust in that the elected Chairman is not the person representing the Trust on the club's BoD, and even then the position is one of an invitee rather than a fully paid-up board member. Questions will inevitably be asked about the reports received from the Trust's representative but is seems he is not responsible for directly answering and defers to other members of the Trust to do so, and like Chinese whispers, each re-telling could alter the story somewhat, and may then become influenced by opinions rather than actualities.
Whilst this is a weakness the Trust may or may not have to live with , it undoubtedly strains relationships.
Fans also place too big a burden on the Trust in that they want to know the inner machinations of the BoD and expect to be kept informed at a level of detail to which they are not entitled to know even if they are shareholders, particularly in respect of forward looking or sensitive matters perhaps under negotiation with other parties.
For its part, the BoD should accept that its affairs are of great interest to the fan-base and try to be more forthcoming in those matters that can be widely disclosed bearing in mind, that much will depend on the frequency of their meetings.
I can't imagine that there are many limited companies that have invited board members selected by a trust set up by their customers. Generally you would assume that they try to keep their customers onside by delivering a top quality buying experience and a high quality product which then begs the question "does the presence of the trust provide the BoD with an excuse to be less communicative with its customers than might otherwise be the case"?
Clearly, events over the last 4 or 5 years have been a breeding ground for mis-trust and anger and memories are long, but the club is now effectively owned by a single entity which we assume is benevolent and as such, my belief is that we have to place our faith in what they are attempting to do until such time as that faith is proven to be mis-placed. We shall see if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, personally I am fed up with thin gruel. |
Not sure which fans put too big a burden on the Trust regarding expecting to know levels of detail. There’s little recently that springs to mind that fits this.
My post was quite explicit that it’s the lack of a structured process that has hamstrung the Trust and the club itself for much longer than recent years.
Not having such a process allows your first paragraph to occur. They don’t have to live with it if it was actually sorted so everyone knew where they stood.
If that was in place, situations like the timing of an AGM, the postponement of a football match would be better dealt with. Of course, some may not think these matter too much, but for those who do they’ll feel more engaged by being aware of a structure that exists to offer information. |  |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 16:49 - Dec 22 with 1927 views | nordenblue |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 15:41 - Dec 22 by D_Alien |
I've referred to it, although in an oblique kind of way
It's open to interpretation of course... but (unlike me!) i'd not be inclined to pursue it; may not be in anyone's best interests right now? |
No it just came as a surprise to me personally, knowing judd and the work he's put in over the years and his genuine love for the club I'm shocked there's not been more of a concern raised about his reasoning behind it, not meaning to stir the pot in any way either. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 20:55 - Dec 22 with 1565 views | Dalenet |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 16:01 - Dec 22 by 49thseason |
There is a big dilemma at the centre of the Trust in that the elected Chairman is not the person representing the Trust on the club's BoD, and even then the position is one of an invitee rather than a fully paid-up board member. Questions will inevitably be asked about the reports received from the Trust's representative but is seems he is not responsible for directly answering and defers to other members of the Trust to do so, and like Chinese whispers, each re-telling could alter the story somewhat, and may then become influenced by opinions rather than actualities.
Whilst this is a weakness the Trust may or may not have to live with , it undoubtedly strains relationships.
Fans also place too big a burden on the Trust in that they want to know the inner machinations of the BoD and expect to be kept informed at a level of detail to which they are not entitled to know even if they are shareholders, particularly in respect of forward looking or sensitive matters perhaps under negotiation with other parties.
For its part, the BoD should accept that its affairs are of great interest to the fan-base and try to be more forthcoming in those matters that can be widely disclosed bearing in mind, that much will depend on the frequency of their meetings.
I can't imagine that there are many limited companies that have invited board members selected by a trust set up by their customers. Generally you would assume that they try to keep their customers onside by delivering a top quality buying experience and a high quality product which then begs the question "does the presence of the trust provide the BoD with an excuse to be less communicative with its customers than might otherwise be the case"?
Clearly, events over the last 4 or 5 years have been a breeding ground for mis-trust and anger and memories are long, but the club is now effectively owned by a single entity which we assume is benevolent and as such, my belief is that we have to place our faith in what they are attempting to do until such time as that faith is proven to be mis-placed. We shall see if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, personally I am fed up with thin gruel. |
The thing that grates me 49th is the lack of respect for the paying customer. How many people travelled to the game yesterday and wasted their hard earned cash. Boston fans had two coaches booked. They must have known on Friday night that the pitch wasn't draining. The ref was Liverpool based and he miraculously appeared at the ground for a 10.30am inspection. He must have been asked to come early the night before as he wasn't based in a local hotel. Why would he have left home around 8.30am for a 60-90 minute journey unless somebody had asked him to do it the night before? Yet we are just expected to soak up a standard message that the game is off and we should expect to turn up when they can rearrange it . No apology, no suggestion on what they need to do. We know the £500k spent in the pitch in 2020 hasn't worked - so what is the plan. Why wasn't the refunded fees from the supplier of the pitch been used to at least buy some rain covers? This is the second fixture we have had to postpone and it has cost me almost £500 in accommodation and travel costs. I am simply taken for granted, as is everybody else. I want the Trust to fight for the fans. Not roll over and have my belly tickled.
Of course what I really want is the two Chairs to read the riot act to the Exec who thought the annoucement yesterday was acceptable with a detailed explanation of where the pitch is and what they can do about it. We are not a community/fan led club when the club can't be arsed. Is anybody going to take a chance on buying tickets ahead of the day for the Alty or Stockton games if it rains in the next 3 weeks? Of course not.
Rant over. What else is the Trust for if it isn't to be in the know and challenge on behalf of the fans in real time? And finally, I have never believed that Murray can be held accountable in his 'token' role on the Board. It has to be a paid exec who is responsible, and accountable, for fan engagement. The two Chairs need to be clear on what that looks like. [Post edited 23 Dec 15:45]
| | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 21:15 - Dec 22 with 1518 views | EllDale |
From my point of view I won’t be buying a ticket for the Stockton game until I arrive at the ground given that the weather forecast shows heavy rain that morning.
That forecast may well change of course. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 22:10 - Dec 22 with 1395 views | 442Dale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 19:38 - Dec 21 by D_Alien |
Agree with this. We stay 6th with games in hand (but a shit pitch)
The board have to get the pitch sorted; first of all in the short term (rain covers), then in the close season, doing the work required
I love the "community club" ethos espoused by the Ogdens, but the bottom line is we're first and foremost a football club, and if we can't play for lack of the basics in terms of pitch management, might as well forget the rest
As for the Trust: i've put a question on the Golden Share to be tabled at the Trust/Board meeting. What comes out of that will help determine whether the Trust as it's currently constituted needs to be supported, revised, or abandoned [Post edited 21 Dec 19:40]
|
Having been made aware of this report on the Trust site, is this what you refer to at the end of your post:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2024/12/report-directors-meeting-19th-december-2024/
Oh, and irrespective of my own views on how we play, the way a question around it has been reported doesn’t come across very well. | |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 22:42 - Dec 22 with 1323 views | D_Alien |
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'd not checked the Trust website, and had said that i didn't need a reply in person from the Trust so hadn't realised it'd been written up (thought it might've been after Christmas)
The Golden Share question has been answered, specifying changes to the Articles of Association required prior to being issued. The important point is in specifying it'll be issued to the Trust, i.e. not any other fans association
I don't see any point is setting up an alternative to the Trust - although others might. It'd just become like the kind of thing our neighbours at Gigg Lane have been doing, with one group vying with the other
That leaves the question of how the Trust can move forward. But first, the Golden Share must become a reality [Post edited 22 Dec 22:43]
|  |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 23:10 - Dec 22 with 1250 views | mikehunt |
Re, the pitch SG was asked specifically about the state of the pitch and the cost of rectifying the problems, at a recent Fans Forum. He was asked whether we had any redress with the company who had undertaken the work. His reply was somewhat non-committal, saying something like the board would have to look in to it.
I would like to know what kind of warranty/guarantee covered the work on the pitch. Patently obvious the work was not fit for purpose. Unless, of course, the wrong type of sand has been used again, [Post edited 23 Dec 12:15]
|  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 09:29 - Dec 23 with 977 views | watford_dale |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 23:10 - Dec 22 by mikehunt |
Re, the pitch SG was asked specifically about the state of the pitch and the cost of rectifying the problems, at a recent Fans Forum. He was asked whether we had any redress with the company who had undertaken the work. His reply was somewhat non-committal, saying something like the board would have to look in to it.
I would like to know what kind of warranty/guarantee covered the work on the pitch. Patently obvious the work was not fit for purpose. Unless, of course, the wrong type of sand has been used again, [Post edited 23 Dec 12:15]
|
Baltimore Orioles baseball pitch drainage system can clear 16 inches an hour. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 10:46 - Dec 23 with 838 views | Rodingdale |
Reads like “mind your own business” as SG said once at a fans forum. | | | |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 10:53 - Dec 23 with 804 views | kel |
| Pitch inspection 10.30 on 10:46 - Dec 23 by Rodingdale |
Reads like “mind your own business” as SG said once at a fans forum. |
To be fair I thought that comment was quite justified given the question that was asked. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
