By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Well done on making employees Executive Directors. Would have liked to see the initiative extended to a Trust representative on the board as a shareholder.
I know that the inability of the club to update the next match board on Sandy Lane is a matter that vexes several posters.
However, I'm sure that you will all be pleased to note that the egos of the newly appointed Directors have been boosted by the swift updating of the 'Who's Who' page on the club website.
I know that the inability of the club to update the next match board on Sandy Lane is a matter that vexes several posters.
However, I'm sure that you will all be pleased to note that the egos of the newly appointed Directors have been boosted by the swift updating of the 'Who's Who' page on the club website.
Cheers. Now if they could just find the time to update their Goldbond article to make it look a little less like one of Tazzy’s awayday reviews then I’ll probably be happy.
Were the Trust consulted around whether they’d want some representation or input?
If not, what are the plans going forward to work with the club now there have been changes where people at Spotland may have different roles?
Not sure if a Trust representation on the board is a good thing It would take a very strong character to withstand the pressure brought to bear should things get difficult also some things are not for public airing and a trust members first duty is to the trust not the board.
Not sure if a Trust representation on the board is a good thing It would take a very strong character to withstand the pressure brought to bear should things get difficult also some things are not for public airing and a trust members first duty is to the trust not the board.
Once a Trust member is appointed to the Board the principal, in fact the only, loyalty that person would have in that role is to the Club. They will be privy to confidential personal and business information not to be shared with others. They will almost inevitably be party to collective decisions that will be unpopular with the Trust and the wider supporter base - and they cannot (should not) go public with their disagreement. You cannot run a business if those at the top are seen to be open disagreement - a Board has to run on the basis of collective responsibility.
So the Board makes a decision that has the fanbase in uproar. Regardless of whether that decision has been taken on sound grounds or is a total and utter cock-up, the Trust's rep has to keep their gob shut - unless they are mandated by the Board to be the public face of that decision - ie they put the poor sap up front to take the shit.
There seems to be a view that a Trust rep would be on the Board to look after the interests of the fans. It doesn't work like that - the best interest of the fans won't always be the same as the best interest of the club as a business. This isn't just an issue for company owned clubs, this is an issue for fan-owned clubs where there controlling Trust or co-operative or whatever has to appoint a Board or Committee to run or set policy etc for the Club as a business.
What we want is Club - supporter liaison. We have that via the Trust. Could it be better? Possibly, but it is a two way process and needs trust from both sides. It needs an acknowledgement from supporters that we are not always going to be told everything because of confidentiality etc, and an acknowledgement from the Club that the Trust Committee does not/cannot represent the views of all fans and so does not have that collective responsibility that the Club Board would have.
Football clubs are probably among the most scrutinised businesses around. We care, and so we speculate about the machinations at Board and operational level within the club; we offer our opinions as to who should do what, how things should be done, and when things should be done - and we each maintain our inalienable right to be the only person who knows what should be done, by whom and when!
While all around us, government and businesses fail due to our lack of diligence as to their competence or otherwise, and oligarchs and big business go about their merry way around the globe corrupting and polluting the world aided and abetted by the regulatory agencies who control what we see...
Once a Trust member is appointed to the Board the principal, in fact the only, loyalty that person would have in that role is to the Club. They will be privy to confidential personal and business information not to be shared with others. They will almost inevitably be party to collective decisions that will be unpopular with the Trust and the wider supporter base - and they cannot (should not) go public with their disagreement. You cannot run a business if those at the top are seen to be open disagreement - a Board has to run on the basis of collective responsibility.
So the Board makes a decision that has the fanbase in uproar. Regardless of whether that decision has been taken on sound grounds or is a total and utter cock-up, the Trust's rep has to keep their gob shut - unless they are mandated by the Board to be the public face of that decision - ie they put the poor sap up front to take the shit.
There seems to be a view that a Trust rep would be on the Board to look after the interests of the fans. It doesn't work like that - the best interest of the fans won't always be the same as the best interest of the club as a business. This isn't just an issue for company owned clubs, this is an issue for fan-owned clubs where there controlling Trust or co-operative or whatever has to appoint a Board or Committee to run or set policy etc for the Club as a business.
What we want is Club - supporter liaison. We have that via the Trust. Could it be better? Possibly, but it is a two way process and needs trust from both sides. It needs an acknowledgement from supporters that we are not always going to be told everything because of confidentiality etc, and an acknowledgement from the Club that the Trust Committee does not/cannot represent the views of all fans and so does not have that collective responsibility that the Club Board would have.
Football clubs are probably among the most scrutinised businesses around. We care, and so we speculate about the machinations at Board and operational level within the club; we offer our opinions as to who should do what, how things should be done, and when things should be done - and we each maintain our inalienable right to be the only person who knows what should be done, by whom and when!
While all around us, government and businesses fail due to our lack of diligence as to their competence or otherwise, and oligarchs and big business go about their merry way around the globe corrupting and polluting the world aided and abetted by the regulatory agencies who control what we see...
The word I would use Smaclad is erudite and btw I shared you're Rang-Tan video on my Facebook page, its a pity nobody will watch it I haven't got any friends.
The word I would use Smaclad is erudite and btw I shared you're Rang-Tan video on my Facebook page, its a pity nobody will watch it I haven't got any friends.
Share this version then if you ever get any friends they can sign the petition
It’s not bollocks to suggest the trust should not have a person on the board if they want to be seen as impartial and remain a supporters trust.
As an aside why are we relying on a charity and the trust to raise funds for our dilapidated five a side pitch on pearl st. It’s reminiscent of when the club had the big screen in the corner of the wilbutts for one game only then asked fans to pay for it if we wanted it to be made permanent. Massively tinpot.
It’s not bollocks to suggest the trust should not have a person on the board if they want to be seen as impartial and remain a supporters trust.
As an aside why are we relying on a charity and the trust to raise funds for our dilapidated five a side pitch on pearl st. It’s reminiscent of when the club had the big screen in the corner of the wilbutts for one game only then asked fans to pay for it if we wanted it to be made permanent. Massively tinpot.
Went back and looked at the Trust site to check I had remembered this correctly.
My interpretation was that this project largely supports the work of the club in the community, it is linked more to Dale in the Community/the charitable arm of the club, rather than the professional side of things - though no doubt the facility could be used for some first team related activity. My vote was based on that premise because if the principal use was to be as a first team training facility then that would really be a load of bollox.
Agree that asking the fans to stump up for a scoreboard really was a load of....big hairy testicles (think 'bollox' is getting a bit overused this morning!).
I think the club should maintain its premises. Instead of blowing twenty grand on catering facilities use that and some of the Spurs money to revamp the five a side pitch. We can’t go around slagging Bury of as the buckets with a straight face when we are scrounging handouts off people to do our facilities up.
From what we see, the Dale Trust has an excellent working relationship with the Dale directors and pretty much have had since its inception 15 years ago. They were even nominated for an award recognising this recently. There's no need, at present, to have a Trust representative on the board with the potential compromises alluded to earlier. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Apart from getting a luncheon at the town hall cancelled and the club sulking over it (An embarrassing episode for both parties) I don’t know of any issue of disagreement between board and trust.
From what we see, the Dale Trust has an excellent working relationship with the Dale directors and pretty much have had since its inception 15 years ago. They were even nominated for an award recognising this recently. There's no need, at present, to have a Trust representative on the board with the potential compromises alluded to earlier. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I totally agree. Smaclad articulated better than I did, I cant really argue with his excellent post my post was based on my opinion his was based on fact and common sense. The Trust does a great Job always, has my thanks to all involved for what has been achieved over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong has Mr Mason been invited onto the trust committee? if so that's an own goal in my opinion, maybe Smaclad can give his understanding on it. Again this just my opinion but it seems a conflict of interests if its true.
I totally agree. Smaclad articulated better than I did, I cant really argue with his excellent post my post was based on my opinion his was based on fact and common sense. The Trust does a great Job always, has my thanks to all involved for what has been achieved over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong has Mr Mason been invited onto the trust committee? if so that's an own goal in my opinion, maybe Smaclad can give his understanding on it. Again this just my opinion but it seems a conflict of interests if its true.
No, Mr Mason has not been asked to join the Trust committee.
No, Mr Mason has not been asked to join the Trust committee.
Thanks for clarity was he asked to participate or sit in on meetings or am I wrong on that? btw let me repeat my thanks for all trust members I should join I apologise for not doing so in the past as I believe in its value.
Thanks for clarity was he asked to participate or sit in on meetings or am I wrong on that? btw let me repeat my thanks for all trust members I should join I apologise for not doing so in the past as I believe in its value.
No, he wasn’t or hasn’t been asked to participate or sit in at any Trust meetings either.
My "bollox" comment was meant to highlight the perceived disconnect between the club and the Trust. We are one and the same.
I would also point out that the capability at board level of trust members and trust board holders to act in accordance with proper governance and adhering to business practices that do not incur the wrath of regulatory bodies can only be of benefit to the club of which the Trust is a significant shareholder and donator of funds. To appoint a Trust representative to the main board consisting of Dale fans would not cause a conflict of interest. It would serve to enhance already string links.
I totally agree. Smaclad articulated better than I did, I cant really argue with his excellent post my post was based on my opinion his was based on fact and common sense. The Trust does a great Job always, has my thanks to all involved for what has been achieved over the years. Correct me if I'm wrong has Mr Mason been invited onto the trust committee? if so that's an own goal in my opinion, maybe Smaclad can give his understanding on it. Again this just my opinion but it seems a conflict of interests if its true.
I think that a club Board member appointed to the Trust Board/Committee would at some point become conflicted. And remember, a role of the Trust is to represent the interests of the fans to the Club - such representation might be viewed as tainted if a senior representative of the Club is involved in determining the Trust's approach to such matters.
As Judd says in another post on this thread, we all have the best interests of the Club at heart. However, our roles in promoting those interests are different and the respective approaches to governance should recognise and reflect that. With goodwill on all sides open and constructive dialogue will see us through, but our two organisations should remain separate to get on and each do their best in their respective roles.
The question about an invite to Mr Mason has been answered elsewhere - I'm not on the Trust Board so couldn't have answered that one.
I think that a club Board member appointed to the Trust Board/Committee would at some point become conflicted. And remember, a role of the Trust is to represent the interests of the fans to the Club - such representation might be viewed as tainted if a senior representative of the Club is involved in determining the Trust's approach to such matters.
As Judd says in another post on this thread, we all have the best interests of the Club at heart. However, our roles in promoting those interests are different and the respective approaches to governance should recognise and reflect that. With goodwill on all sides open and constructive dialogue will see us through, but our two organisations should remain separate to get on and each do their best in their respective roles.
The question about an invite to Mr Mason has been answered elsewhere - I'm not on the Trust Board so couldn't have answered that one.
Roccydalian has cleared up my misunderstanding regarding Jim Mason and the trust. I am reluctant to raise it again other than as a point of interest but I am sure that it was suggested on here that Mr Mason was going to engage with the trust more than his predecessors. At the time Jim Mason was the CEO and quite rightly saw an open dialogue with the trust as beneficial for all parties. Whether now that Jim Mason is a board member changes anything I'm not sure? ongoing dialogue between both parties is welcomed. Any confusion was mine and I thank Roccy for correcting me.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
