| Trust meeting with BoD 09:00 - Nov 3 with 28710 views | IOMDale |
Does anybody know how last night went or are we to wait for an update from the Trust? Because let's be honest, it won't be the BoD releasing information in a rush. |  | | |  |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:20 - Nov 7 with 3294 views | 442Dale |
No mention as yet of when the actual meeting will be rearranged for, which is imperative so that these written answers are discussed. This was explained as a crucial part of the process where written answers assist the Trust ahead of the scheduled meeting, which was postponed twice. Hopefully we will hear more about this shortly.
It’s also disappointing there is still no explanation for the original meeting changing/not yet taking place.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/05/action-plan-on-trust-feedback/
<<“We’d like to think that the purpose behind the meetings was to allow us at taking a lead where both the Trust (and by implication the fanbase) and the Club can work together. We stated at our meetings that whilst we would be raising difficult questions through this process, we need to be prepared for difficult answers at times, but that’s the mutual respect that is referred to. When things can’t happen, it is our intention to give explanations as to why they can’t.”>>
<<“ Q: More challenge to the Club as to where we stand at any one time?
A: This process we have started through these meetings gives us a very clear position about where the supporters see problems occurring and where they feel improvements can be made. The pressure is (rightly) now on us to deliver on that and make the changes required. Ultimately, all the responses have been provided with the intention of improving the Club and not fuelled through any self-interest. Where we cannot provide the improvements, we need to be justifying this and giving explanations.”>>
As above: sad, yet predictable. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:16 - Nov 8 with 3071 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:20 - Nov 7 by 442Dale |
No mention as yet of when the actual meeting will be rearranged for, which is imperative so that these written answers are discussed. This was explained as a crucial part of the process where written answers assist the Trust ahead of the scheduled meeting, which was postponed twice. Hopefully we will hear more about this shortly.
It’s also disappointing there is still no explanation for the original meeting changing/not yet taking place.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/05/action-plan-on-trust-feedback/
<<“We’d like to think that the purpose behind the meetings was to allow us at taking a lead where both the Trust (and by implication the fanbase) and the Club can work together. We stated at our meetings that whilst we would be raising difficult questions through this process, we need to be prepared for difficult answers at times, but that’s the mutual respect that is referred to. When things can’t happen, it is our intention to give explanations as to why they can’t.”>>
<<“ Q: More challenge to the Club as to where we stand at any one time?
A: This process we have started through these meetings gives us a very clear position about where the supporters see problems occurring and where they feel improvements can be made. The pressure is (rightly) now on us to deliver on that and make the changes required. Ultimately, all the responses have been provided with the intention of improving the Club and not fuelled through any self-interest. Where we cannot provide the improvements, we need to be justifying this and giving explanations.”>>
As above: sad, yet predictable. |
I feel your frustration completely 442, nobody has banged the drum louder than you and we all know it comes from a good place. I think it's also very important to remind ourselves ( I'm guilty of this) that the Trust can only work with what they have got in front of them..or not in the case of the Chairman They can't physically start knocking down doors and forcing him to comply with meetings. They can sound the alarm but that would probably result in lines of communication being cut completely.
There's a bigger picture that needs looking at here and a important question needs asking. Are those in the Boardroom going out of their way to deliberately destabilise the Supporters Trust and cause a division in the fanbase? Can anybody think of one good reason why the Chairman and Directors wouldn't fully embrace the Trust? This at a time when they need to be involved in the nitty gritty of any potential takeover. None of it makes sense does it, its the opposite of what you would expect? I think the original question is therefor a legitimate one. Being introduced to potential investors on line means very little really when you think about it and there could very well be other negotiations going on in the background at the same time.So i wouldn't look too much into that.
When people distance themselves and communication becomes difficult, especially at a time when you would expect the opposite , it's always for a reason. The Trust have never been the enemy and they aren't now, we need to all step back and look at the bigger picture properly. At a time when negotiations with investors could be looming, it appears as though obstacles to properly communicate are being put in their way. It's the opposite of what you would expect and because of that it rings alarm bells for me. I could be wrong and apologies in advance if i am but my gut instinct tells me the Chairman and Directors will be making the decisions regarding any investors/ takeover and the Trust will be kept at arms length with minimal involvement. To be honest that's probably a decision plenty of people would take if they had major finance tied up in any deal, it's human nature when money is involved. Some major shareholders might even be happy with that arrangement. Maybe even the majority of shareholders would have enough faith in the Chairman to trust him to find the right investors and don't see Trust involvement as a priority? They haven't been asked so we don't know the answer to that.
As fans and shareholders we all need to unite behind the Trust now, a fragmented fan base won't protect the club. It's a time to switch on and consider all options, it appears to me that we have a supporters trust that is being disrespected and embarrassed, it's very worrying. It's not normal to have a Chairman who refuses to communicate with the fan base, even the Directors must realise that. [Post edited 8 Nov 2023 7:56]
|  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:26 - Nov 8 with 3038 views | D_Alien |
Without replying directly to TS's post, just look at the contrast between what SG was saying about joining the Fair Game initiative and the almost complete absence of communication now
Further to that, it appears there are attempts to discredit the Fair Game organisation. Rather than trying to smear by association, if people have something which casts doubt on its integrity, and perhaps why the club have withdrawn from it without any mention to the fanbase, they might wish to be more open about it. In doing so, it might be as well to ensure they have a case that would stand up in court... ... ...
[Post edited 8 Nov 2023 7:31]
|  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 09:59 - Nov 8 with 2856 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 06:16 - Nov 8 by TalkingSutty |
I feel your frustration completely 442, nobody has banged the drum louder than you and we all know it comes from a good place. I think it's also very important to remind ourselves ( I'm guilty of this) that the Trust can only work with what they have got in front of them..or not in the case of the Chairman They can't physically start knocking down doors and forcing him to comply with meetings. They can sound the alarm but that would probably result in lines of communication being cut completely.
There's a bigger picture that needs looking at here and a important question needs asking. Are those in the Boardroom going out of their way to deliberately destabilise the Supporters Trust and cause a division in the fanbase? Can anybody think of one good reason why the Chairman and Directors wouldn't fully embrace the Trust? This at a time when they need to be involved in the nitty gritty of any potential takeover. None of it makes sense does it, its the opposite of what you would expect? I think the original question is therefor a legitimate one. Being introduced to potential investors on line means very little really when you think about it and there could very well be other negotiations going on in the background at the same time.So i wouldn't look too much into that.
When people distance themselves and communication becomes difficult, especially at a time when you would expect the opposite , it's always for a reason. The Trust have never been the enemy and they aren't now, we need to all step back and look at the bigger picture properly. At a time when negotiations with investors could be looming, it appears as though obstacles to properly communicate are being put in their way. It's the opposite of what you would expect and because of that it rings alarm bells for me. I could be wrong and apologies in advance if i am but my gut instinct tells me the Chairman and Directors will be making the decisions regarding any investors/ takeover and the Trust will be kept at arms length with minimal involvement. To be honest that's probably a decision plenty of people would take if they had major finance tied up in any deal, it's human nature when money is involved. Some major shareholders might even be happy with that arrangement. Maybe even the majority of shareholders would have enough faith in the Chairman to trust him to find the right investors and don't see Trust involvement as a priority? They haven't been asked so we don't know the answer to that.
As fans and shareholders we all need to unite behind the Trust now, a fragmented fan base won't protect the club. It's a time to switch on and consider all options, it appears to me that we have a supporters trust that is being disrespected and embarrassed, it's very worrying. It's not normal to have a Chairman who refuses to communicate with the fan base, even the Directors must realise that. [Post edited 8 Nov 2023 7:56]
|
It’s entirely normal for BOD’s to pull up the drawbridge & go into bunker mentality mode when they are desperate to get out & trying to broker a deal which will be presented as a fait accompli to the trust/fans.
There are multiple examples littered throughout the game & it’s not as if we don’t have previous in this regard. |  | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:29 - Nov 8 with 2800 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 09:59 - Nov 8 by Plattyswrinklynuts |
It’s entirely normal for BOD’s to pull up the drawbridge & go into bunker mentality mode when they are desperate to get out & trying to broker a deal which will be presented as a fait accompli to the trust/fans.
There are multiple examples littered throughout the game & it’s not as if we don’t have previous in this regard. |
You're probably right, not sure if that approach is needed though because our trust have always shown a appetite to work alongside every Board of Directors that we've ever had at the club, there's nothing tricky about the trust bods. The sooner the off field situation is sorted out the better for everybody involved. It's a situation that is none of our own making and i doubt those in the Boardroom ever had any ambitions to get involved with the football club in the first place. It's been a terrible last few years for the club, we all need a fresh start. [Post edited 8 Nov 2023 10:30]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:52 - Nov 8 with 2747 views | James1980 |
Have some posts been removed from this thread? |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:29 - Nov 8 with 2505 views | James1980 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 10:52 - Nov 8 by James1980 |
Have some posts been removed from this thread? |
Apologies I was looking at the wrong page | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:52 - Nov 8 with 2465 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 13:29 - Nov 8 by James1980 |
Apologies I was looking at the wrong page |
Tch! And after TS asked for us all to be on the same page, too | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:37 - Nov 8 with 2146 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:26 - Nov 8 by D_Alien |
Without replying directly to TS's post, just look at the contrast between what SG was saying about joining the Fair Game initiative and the almost complete absence of communication now
Further to that, it appears there are attempts to discredit the Fair Game organisation. Rather than trying to smear by association, if people have something which casts doubt on its integrity, and perhaps why the club have withdrawn from it without any mention to the fanbase, they might wish to be more open about it. In doing so, it might be as well to ensure they have a case that would stand up in court... ... ...
[Post edited 8 Nov 2023 7:31]
|
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6047aabc7130e94a70ed3515/t/64e72936481ec6
I'd be baffled why anyone would attempt to discredit Fair Game DA because their research shows what a good job they think the club are doing.
The link above gives the actual output of the Fair Game review for last season (2022/23).
In the opinion of Fair Game, Rochdale were deemed:
* 6th best in League 2 for Financial Sustainability
* 6th best in League 2 for Governance
* 6th best in League 2 for Fan Engagement
* Best in League 2 for Equality Standards
5th best club in League 2 overall.
I'm not sure where the concept of wanting to "discredit" Fair Game would come in when, in their own report, they believe that Rochdale as a club are doing a really good job vs others in League 2
Fair Game are a charitable organisation so reliant on donations to fund academic research but clearly they've no axe to grind with our Board or desire to promote them either so you'd have to consider their assessment they on their model we were the 5th best League 2 club fair.
The won't necessarily fit the current manifesto, particularly on "Fan Engagement" but when only 14 of the 92 can be bothered participating with Fair Game that itself speaks volumes.
I don't see Gary Neville's Salford City in there for instance and he's quite a good vocal advocate for a lot of the points that Fair Game are making about the changes needed for smaller clubs to survive, particularly the role of an independent regulator.
No participation either from Wrexham, Notts County, Stockport County or many others who are doing really well in League 2 - I don't see such a clamour to get their chairman out explaining why they aren't members when most clubs in the pyramid aren't participating. |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:46 - Nov 8 with 2123 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:37 - Nov 8 by RAFCBLUE |
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6047aabc7130e94a70ed3515/t/64e72936481ec6
I'd be baffled why anyone would attempt to discredit Fair Game DA because their research shows what a good job they think the club are doing.
The link above gives the actual output of the Fair Game review for last season (2022/23).
In the opinion of Fair Game, Rochdale were deemed:
* 6th best in League 2 for Financial Sustainability
* 6th best in League 2 for Governance
* 6th best in League 2 for Fan Engagement
* Best in League 2 for Equality Standards
5th best club in League 2 overall.
I'm not sure where the concept of wanting to "discredit" Fair Game would come in when, in their own report, they believe that Rochdale as a club are doing a really good job vs others in League 2
Fair Game are a charitable organisation so reliant on donations to fund academic research but clearly they've no axe to grind with our Board or desire to promote them either so you'd have to consider their assessment they on their model we were the 5th best League 2 club fair.
The won't necessarily fit the current manifesto, particularly on "Fan Engagement" but when only 14 of the 92 can be bothered participating with Fair Game that itself speaks volumes.
I don't see Gary Neville's Salford City in there for instance and he's quite a good vocal advocate for a lot of the points that Fair Game are making about the changes needed for smaller clubs to survive, particularly the role of an independent regulator.
No participation either from Wrexham, Notts County, Stockport County or many others who are doing really well in League 2 - I don't see such a clamour to get their chairman out explaining why they aren't members when most clubs in the pyramid aren't participating. |
So why has SG discredited Fair Game by withdrawing Dale from their list of "signed-up" clubs? Maybe it was a decision taken by the BoD at the time, but we don't know when that was because it was done without any publicity which - given the original enthusiasm - can only be seen as a snub for Fair Game [Post edited 8 Nov 2023 20:47]
| |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:47 - Nov 8 with 2120 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:37 - Nov 8 by RAFCBLUE |
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6047aabc7130e94a70ed3515/t/64e72936481ec6
I'd be baffled why anyone would attempt to discredit Fair Game DA because their research shows what a good job they think the club are doing.
The link above gives the actual output of the Fair Game review for last season (2022/23).
In the opinion of Fair Game, Rochdale were deemed:
* 6th best in League 2 for Financial Sustainability
* 6th best in League 2 for Governance
* 6th best in League 2 for Fan Engagement
* Best in League 2 for Equality Standards
5th best club in League 2 overall.
I'm not sure where the concept of wanting to "discredit" Fair Game would come in when, in their own report, they believe that Rochdale as a club are doing a really good job vs others in League 2
Fair Game are a charitable organisation so reliant on donations to fund academic research but clearly they've no axe to grind with our Board or desire to promote them either so you'd have to consider their assessment they on their model we were the 5th best League 2 club fair.
The won't necessarily fit the current manifesto, particularly on "Fan Engagement" but when only 14 of the 92 can be bothered participating with Fair Game that itself speaks volumes.
I don't see Gary Neville's Salford City in there for instance and he's quite a good vocal advocate for a lot of the points that Fair Game are making about the changes needed for smaller clubs to survive, particularly the role of an independent regulator.
No participation either from Wrexham, Notts County, Stockport County or many others who are doing really well in League 2 - I don't see such a clamour to get their chairman out explaining why they aren't members when most clubs in the pyramid aren't participating. |
Upon relegating us, didn't the club issue a statement about the desire to "re-engage" with supporters? |  |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:09 - Nov 8 with 2053 views | TVOS1907 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:37 - Nov 8 by RAFCBLUE |
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6047aabc7130e94a70ed3515/t/64e72936481ec6
I'd be baffled why anyone would attempt to discredit Fair Game DA because their research shows what a good job they think the club are doing.
The link above gives the actual output of the Fair Game review for last season (2022/23).
In the opinion of Fair Game, Rochdale were deemed:
* 6th best in League 2 for Financial Sustainability
* 6th best in League 2 for Governance
* 6th best in League 2 for Fan Engagement
* Best in League 2 for Equality Standards
5th best club in League 2 overall.
I'm not sure where the concept of wanting to "discredit" Fair Game would come in when, in their own report, they believe that Rochdale as a club are doing a really good job vs others in League 2
Fair Game are a charitable organisation so reliant on donations to fund academic research but clearly they've no axe to grind with our Board or desire to promote them either so you'd have to consider their assessment they on their model we were the 5th best League 2 club fair.
The won't necessarily fit the current manifesto, particularly on "Fan Engagement" but when only 14 of the 92 can be bothered participating with Fair Game that itself speaks volumes.
I don't see Gary Neville's Salford City in there for instance and he's quite a good vocal advocate for a lot of the points that Fair Game are making about the changes needed for smaller clubs to survive, particularly the role of an independent regulator.
No participation either from Wrexham, Notts County, Stockport County or many others who are doing really well in League 2 - I don't see such a clamour to get their chairman out explaining why they aren't members when most clubs in the pyramid aren't participating. |
"No participation either from Wrexham, Notts County, Stockport County or many others who are doing really well in League 2"
Probably because two of them were in the National League at the time. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:13 - Nov 8 with 2027 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 20:46 - Nov 8 by D_Alien |
So why has SG discredited Fair Game by withdrawing Dale from their list of "signed-up" clubs? Maybe it was a decision taken by the BoD at the time, but we don't know when that was because it was done without any publicity which - given the original enthusiasm - can only be seen as a snub for Fair Game [Post edited 8 Nov 2023 20:47]
|
Perhaps a deliberately loaded question on your part DA?
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2021/09/trust-backs-fair-game-approach/
The above suggests SG wasn't the Board member who participated in 2021. It's a fair question to ask though.
Still only has 15% of the league clubs interested shows it doesn't have any bit in the game, nor will it ever do without regulation.
And they ranked us 5th in League 2 on Fan Engagement in 2022/23. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:15 - Nov 8 with 2018 views | 442Dale |
Were the Trust consulted about their inclusion in that statement before it’s release on the evening after relegation was confirmed at Stockport? | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:17 - Nov 8 with 2009 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:09 - Nov 8 by TVOS1907 |
"No participation either from Wrexham, Notts County, Stockport County or many others who are doing really well in League 2"
Probably because two of them were in the National League at the time. |
National League clubs are in there TVOS.
https://www.fairgameuk.org/fair-game-clubs
Altrincham, Chesterfield, Dorking, Ebbsfleet, Gateshead.
Has someone asked Mark Stott or Ryan Reynolds why they're discrediting a non-mandatory lobby group?
Perhaps they don't think its going to change anything. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:17 - Nov 8 with 2006 views | 442Dale |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:13 - Nov 8 by RAFCBLUE |
Perhaps a deliberately loaded question on your part DA?
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2021/09/trust-backs-fair-game-approach/
The above suggests SG wasn't the Board member who participated in 2021. It's a fair question to ask though.
Still only has 15% of the league clubs interested shows it doesn't have any bit in the game, nor will it ever do without regulation.
And they ranked us 5th in League 2 on Fan Engagement in 2022/23. |
Wouldn’t you say it’s more important what Rochdale fans think about the fan engagement by Rochdale Football Club?
Try and limit it to a “yes” or “no” answer if possible. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:26 - Nov 8 with 1982 views | TVOS1907 |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:17 - Nov 8 by RAFCBLUE |
National League clubs are in there TVOS.
https://www.fairgameuk.org/fair-game-clubs
Altrincham, Chesterfield, Dorking, Ebbsfleet, Gateshead.
Has someone asked Mark Stott or Ryan Reynolds why they're discrediting a non-mandatory lobby group?
Perhaps they don't think its going to change anything. |
I was referring to the link in the post to which I replied.
By the way, by replying directly to a post instead of the thread, there's no need to use the poster's name as you're obviously replying to them, by implication.
Hope that saves typing time. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:32 - Nov 8 with 1959 views | judd |
Missing the point there.
It was a club statement.
They may as well have said in conjunction with Fat Pat.
The Fair Game assessment of our ranking flies in the face of what the club actually acknowledged as severely lacking. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:47 - Nov 8 with 1911 views | D_Alien |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:13 - Nov 8 by RAFCBLUE |
Perhaps a deliberately loaded question on your part DA?
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2021/09/trust-backs-fair-game-approach/
The above suggests SG wasn't the Board member who participated in 2021. It's a fair question to ask though.
Still only has 15% of the league clubs interested shows it doesn't have any bit in the game, nor will it ever do without regulation.
And they ranked us 5th in League 2 on Fan Engagement in 2022/23. |
Loading isn't an issue, when there are genuine questions to be asked about who exactly is taking these decisions. There's no "ownership" of them since there's no communication about them
That, in itself, is a decision too | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:03 - Nov 8 with 1866 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 21:32 - Nov 8 by judd |
Missing the point there.
It was a club statement.
They may as well have said in conjunction with Fat Pat.
The Fair Game assessment of our ranking flies in the face of what the club actually acknowledged as severely lacking. |
Rightly or wrongly judd, I've interpreted the Trust statement that came 11 days prior to the club one (and before we were relegated at Stockport) that all parties were working together to make things better.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/04/trust-to-host-supporters-meetings/
It ended with it is our intention to publish the working plans on the Trust website before the end of May before a series of meetings with Club officials throughout the Summer to get plans in place before a ball has been kicked in the new season.
The Fair Game methodology is there to read and be challenged. What can be said is that they applied that to all clubs assessed. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:17 - Nov 8 with 1824 views | judd |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 22:03 - Nov 8 by RAFCBLUE |
Rightly or wrongly judd, I've interpreted the Trust statement that came 11 days prior to the club one (and before we were relegated at Stockport) that all parties were working together to make things better.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/04/trust-to-host-supporters-meetings/
It ended with it is our intention to publish the working plans on the Trust website before the end of May before a series of meetings with Club officials throughout the Summer to get plans in place before a ball has been kicked in the new season.
The Fair Game methodology is there to read and be challenged. What can be said is that they applied that to all clubs assessed. |
Fair Game ranked the club far higher than the subsequent club statement in terms of fan re- engagement.
Note : Re-
There is clearly an on-going battle with regards fan engagement if this thread is recognised as indicative. | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:04 - Nov 9 with 1548 views | James1980 |
EFL supporters survey dropped in my inbox yesterday At the EFL we are conducting a detailed Supporters Survey and we would like to invite you to take part.
As a supporter of Rochdale we would love to hear more about your experiences of EFL football, and the things that matter most to you about your Club and your enjoyment of football as a fan. Oh the irony | |
| |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:33 - Nov 9 with 1537 views | TalkingSutty |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:04 - Nov 9 by James1980 |
EFL supporters survey dropped in my inbox yesterday At the EFL we are conducting a detailed Supporters Survey and we would like to invite you to take part.
As a supporter of Rochdale we would love to hear more about your experiences of EFL football, and the things that matter most to you about your Club and your enjoyment of football as a fan. Oh the irony |
People can flower it up how they want (and some have), communications coming out of the boardroom in particular have been virtually non existent for a long time. They can't even provide shareholders with important financial information when requested and god knows what's been going on with the Trust meetings that should have happened recently. The biggest culprit is the Chairman, his demeanour borders on arrogance and ignorance and there's no place for it at this club. A supposedly fan owned club. The Trust, Shareholders, fans don't deserve it and it shows him in a really poor light. It definitely doesn't make the fan base feel inclusive and as a result of that it doesn't make you want to open your wallet and start spending your money on things like bricks for the wall, sponsorship or hospitality packages for games. We normally have a hospitality package at a couple of games every season but haven't bothered this season, I don't want to be around people who only want to communicate if your spending money, I'm also rubbish at playing happy families and biting my tongue, so it's not a pleasant environment to be in all afternoon.
If we do end up with new owners i hope to god they display some sort of people skills instead of creating a ' us and them' environment which has been nurtured by the current Chairman. He's succeeded in alienating the whole fan base which in turn impacts the clubs finances.I've got money that i want to spend at the club but I'm not doing it until i feel I'm valued by those charged with it. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who feels that way because others have said the same thing.
Any new owners ( if there are any decent ones out there) should start by inviting a room full of people up to the club ( or the pub) for a informal discussion with a wide range of supporters, not just the supporters trust. They would learn more about how to approach their job and fans expectations in that one session than they would in the first twelve months at the club. Fans working hand in hand with those in the Boardroom is the only way to get the club back on track and there's a small army of fans chomping at the bit to help. Any Chairman with a bit of ambition and drive would have been all over that a long time ago. [Post edited 9 Nov 2023 9:15]
| | | |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 08:19 - Nov 9 with 1465 views | Dalenet |
| Trust meeting with BoD on 07:33 - Nov 9 by TalkingSutty |
People can flower it up how they want (and some have), communications coming out of the boardroom in particular have been virtually non existent for a long time. They can't even provide shareholders with important financial information when requested and god knows what's been going on with the Trust meetings that should have happened recently. The biggest culprit is the Chairman, his demeanour borders on arrogance and ignorance and there's no place for it at this club. A supposedly fan owned club. The Trust, Shareholders, fans don't deserve it and it shows him in a really poor light. It definitely doesn't make the fan base feel inclusive and as a result of that it doesn't make you want to open your wallet and start spending your money on things like bricks for the wall, sponsorship or hospitality packages for games. We normally have a hospitality package at a couple of games every season but haven't bothered this season, I don't want to be around people who only want to communicate if your spending money, I'm also rubbish at playing happy families and biting my tongue, so it's not a pleasant environment to be in all afternoon.
If we do end up with new owners i hope to god they display some sort of people skills instead of creating a ' us and them' environment which has been nurtured by the current Chairman. He's succeeded in alienating the whole fan base which in turn impacts the clubs finances.I've got money that i want to spend at the club but I'm not doing it until i feel I'm valued by those charged with it. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who feels that way because others have said the same thing.
Any new owners ( if there are any decent ones out there) should start by inviting a room full of people up to the club ( or the pub) for a informal discussion with a wide range of supporters, not just the supporters trust. They would learn more about how to approach their job and fans expectations in that one session than they would in the first twelve months at the club. Fans working hand in hand with those in the Boardroom is the only way to get the club back on track and there's a small army of fans chomping at the bit to help. Any Chairman with a bit of ambition and drive would have been all over that a long time ago. [Post edited 9 Nov 2023 9:15]
|
I don't disagree with most of that. The Board has created a vacuum on communications when there is no need for it. We know they are spending time talking to potential suitors and that is where their focus is, but the existing business suffers if the fanbase drfit away. If you are trying to sell a business, you need to show you have something good to sell.
We have lost 3 Board directors in the past 6 months. None have been replaced as far as I can see. One of those lost Board members was showcased as somebody with strong marketing and customer engagement skills. If a smaller board is now focussed on the sale, who is running the business? Why haven't they tried to recruit onto the Board? Is there a Board member with strong business or communication skills that could manage the day to day and start engaging with the fans? Hoping we don't need new board members because a new owner is on the cards is naive.
I remain worried that we haven't cut our cloth for this league. The Chairmans hoped for "bounce back" doesn't look to be on the cards and we lose more funding in 8 months time. If he can't find a sugar daddy he needs to start talking to the fans about plan B. As shareholders we are in the dark - and as you say - they can't get those comms right either. Murray has to press his Board colleagues to be more open and transparent. I am worried that we will run out of cash anyday. Has the Director's loan been drawndown? Is this the last chance saloon?
I'm still not of the view that the Chairman has to go - but he isn't winning many friends right now and given what he has done to save the club, and using his family's cash to do it, that should be a strong legacy. My plea to him is please don't tarnish that. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
