| vs Gateshead - match thread 20:07 - Oct 24 with 32850 views | RAFCBLUE |
Pitch looks ok.
1-0 up
And we still have idiots with smoke bombs. |  |
| |  |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:20 - Oct 25 with 3168 views | kel |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 22:38 - Oct 24 by RAFCBLUE |
Both true TVOS.
But when was the last time in league competition we conceded 2 goals or more for six consecutive league games and what was the equivalent point haul?
We've now conceded 14 in the last six league games and have just 3 points from 18 to show for it. |
Some valid points but I’ve always had you down as a poster who was more interested in the finances and compliance side of the club.
My memory isn’t as good as it used to be but I’m fairly certain you didn’t raise similar concerns when we were subjected to the football served up by Stockdale and Bentley. Apologies if that’s incorrect. |  | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:27 - Oct 25 with 3128 views | D_Alien |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:20 - Oct 25 by kel |
Some valid points but I’ve always had you down as a poster who was more interested in the finances and compliance side of the club.
My memory isn’t as good as it used to be but I’m fairly certain you didn’t raise similar concerns when we were subjected to the football served up by Stockdale and Bentley. Apologies if that’s incorrect. |
Or indeed, the football served up by BBM & Hill
It's good to know, at last, that the actual football has some interest |  |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:36 - Oct 25 with 3083 views | TVOS1907 |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:20 - Oct 25 by kel |
Some valid points but I’ve always had you down as a poster who was more interested in the finances and compliance side of the club.
My memory isn’t as good as it used to be but I’m fairly certain you didn’t raise similar concerns when we were subjected to the football served up by Stockdale and Bentley. Apologies if that’s incorrect. |
Hi kel
Your memory is fine. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:36 - Oct 25 with 3077 views | Rodingdale |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 19:42 - Oct 25 by judd |
Trust AGM will be before the next home game.
Notice of all other meetings have been published.
The last one was a bit of a mess with changed date being changed. 12 members plus 7 Trust board volunteers were in attendance. |
12 members attending sort of makes my point, are you saying it’s member apathy? Or is it people just don’t know about it and on a match day they’re doing what they have to do on a Saturday morning to carve themselves time to spend the afternoon at the match?
Your mention of volunteers, yes of course there is going to be a resourcing and/or band width issue if the trust is going to be more progressive,. A number of people have offered help to the club itself, but not been taken up, maybe the trust should take up those offers?
Why not get someone from Exeter to do a Q&A - one question could be how did you physically resource what you did?
We obviously need a trust with the wherewithal to do stuff, how can we create an income stream for the trust to pay for help for example administrating meetings, legal meetings (there’s money being spent on the MOI). What would the trust need? Or want? |  | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:49 - Oct 25 with 3042 views | judd |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:36 - Oct 25 by Rodingdale |
12 members attending sort of makes my point, are you saying it’s member apathy? Or is it people just don’t know about it and on a match day they’re doing what they have to do on a Saturday morning to carve themselves time to spend the afternoon at the match?
Your mention of volunteers, yes of course there is going to be a resourcing and/or band width issue if the trust is going to be more progressive,. A number of people have offered help to the club itself, but not been taken up, maybe the trust should take up those offers?
Why not get someone from Exeter to do a Q&A - one question could be how did you physically resource what you did?
We obviously need a trust with the wherewithal to do stuff, how can we create an income stream for the trust to pay for help for example administrating meetings, legal meetings (there’s money being spent on the MOI). What would the trust need? Or want? |
I'm not expressing an opinion, just pointing out some facts.
You make a valid point - inconvenience, apathy or communication?
Given previous attendance at the Bromley game, I don't have any thoughts.
Other trusts have been contacted. FSA are excellent.
Not sure what costs you allude to re MOI.
The Trust compiled an agenda.to take to the next meeting with the club board. A lot of what you mention was.also mentioned at last Saturdays meeting. |  |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:06 - Oct 25 with 2992 views | Rodingdale |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:49 - Oct 25 by judd |
I'm not expressing an opinion, just pointing out some facts.
You make a valid point - inconvenience, apathy or communication?
Given previous attendance at the Bromley game, I don't have any thoughts.
Other trusts have been contacted. FSA are excellent.
Not sure what costs you allude to re MOI.
The Trust compiled an agenda.to take to the next meeting with the club board. A lot of what you mention was.also mentioned at last Saturdays meeting. |
MOU - I’d understood from another thread that legal advice was taken, I assumed by the trust, maybe it was by the club? Solicitors don’t work for free in my experience.
My main point is that collectively mobilised the trust membership is more powerful than if it is fragmented and ill informed. If 12 people out of a few hundred members are involved then we are not mobilising the membership properly.
At the moment if you weren’t one of the 12 who attended on Saturday you won’t know what was discussed and what is going to be on the agenda with the board. Readers of this board can get a bit more, but it’s unverified information. Why can’t members get a quick note of the meeting, all members by email?
I made some points about the timing and organisation of meetings as suggestions for how that might be improved and I anticipated that resourcing might be put forward as a reason for not changing the way the trust engages, so I suggested that was something which the trust should have a think about and discuss with the membership. | | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:16 - Oct 25 with 2973 views | judd |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:06 - Oct 25 by Rodingdale |
MOU - I’d understood from another thread that legal advice was taken, I assumed by the trust, maybe it was by the club? Solicitors don’t work for free in my experience.
My main point is that collectively mobilised the trust membership is more powerful than if it is fragmented and ill informed. If 12 people out of a few hundred members are involved then we are not mobilising the membership properly.
At the moment if you weren’t one of the 12 who attended on Saturday you won’t know what was discussed and what is going to be on the agenda with the board. Readers of this board can get a bit more, but it’s unverified information. Why can’t members get a quick note of the meeting, all members by email?
I made some points about the timing and organisation of meetings as suggestions for how that might be improved and I anticipated that resourcing might be put forward as a reason for not changing the way the trust engages, so I suggested that was something which the trust should have a think about and discuss with the membership. |
The legal input by a lawyer was arranged by the Trust free of charge.
Members were invited to send in questions, and continue to do so, a number of which were read out on Saturday.
The upcoming AGM is a good forum for airing your slides points. York City ST are meeting next week in order to vote on making all meetings available on-line. That may be how we need to go, just validating those watching and voting are Trust members could be an issue to overcome. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:41 - Oct 25 with 2906 views | 442Dale |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:16 - Oct 25 by judd |
The legal input by a lawyer was arranged by the Trust free of charge.
Members were invited to send in questions, and continue to do so, a number of which were read out on Saturday.
The upcoming AGM is a good forum for airing your slides points. York City ST are meeting next week in order to vote on making all meetings available on-line. That may be how we need to go, just validating those watching and voting are Trust members could be an issue to overcome. |
The AGM will be the best place to agree a specific structure for reporting back to members. It does need sorting so everything is recorded for all.
The apathy is a concern, hopefully by creating that visible and consistent structure will help to deal with that, but it was obvious that despite much promotion, few took up the opportunity to provide questions to ask if they couldn’t attend. And fewer than would be preferable actually attended on the day.
Yet this thread contains many further questions. Have they all been sent into the Trust? We each have our own part to play and I’m not saying people don’t, but utilising the Trust within an agreed process can only work if we actually do so.
Of note, there was a specific request that questions asked on Saturday were sent in to the club ahead of the meeting that was scheduled for tomorrow to get initial written responses. These could then be followed up at the actual meeting, as well as being reported back to members and supporters in their original format with additional notes from when they are further discussed. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:53 - Oct 25 with 2882 views | NorthernDale |
Did somebody suggest that Oduroh is suspended for the Hartlepool game and is this correct? | | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 22:05 - Oct 25 with 2846 views | TVOS1907 |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:53 - Oct 25 by NorthernDale |
Did somebody suggest that Oduroh is suspended for the Hartlepool game and is this correct? |
He’s had 5 yellow cards so far, so he should be out on Saturday. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:21 - Oct 25 with 2704 views | TalkingSutty |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 21:41 - Oct 25 by 442Dale |
The AGM will be the best place to agree a specific structure for reporting back to members. It does need sorting so everything is recorded for all.
The apathy is a concern, hopefully by creating that visible and consistent structure will help to deal with that, but it was obvious that despite much promotion, few took up the opportunity to provide questions to ask if they couldn’t attend. And fewer than would be preferable actually attended on the day.
Yet this thread contains many further questions. Have they all been sent into the Trust? We each have our own part to play and I’m not saying people don’t, but utilising the Trust within an agreed process can only work if we actually do so.
Of note, there was a specific request that questions asked on Saturday were sent in to the club ahead of the meeting that was scheduled for tomorrow to get initial written responses. These could then be followed up at the actual meeting, as well as being reported back to members and supporters in their original format with additional notes from when they are further discussed. |
So rather than ask the questions in person on the night and gauge the body language and initial response, send the questions to the club in advance so the answers can be formulated in preparation for the meeting? That would be the best way of avoiding a full and frank exchange and also give those answering the questions the opportunity to all be singing off the same hymn sheet. We used to do that when Bottomley and his cronies used to meet up with the Trust and it wasn't a good idea then. It's not how you should be conducting a question and answer session. Who suggested it, not a member of the Trust Committee i hope ? [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 23:33]
|  | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:34 - Oct 25 with 2666 views | 442Dale |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:21 - Oct 25 by TalkingSutty |
So rather than ask the questions in person on the night and gauge the body language and initial response, send the questions to the club in advance so the answers can be formulated in preparation for the meeting? That would be the best way of avoiding a full and frank exchange and also give those answering the questions the opportunity to all be singing off the same hymn sheet. We used to do that when Bottomley and his cronies used to meet up with the Trust and it wasn't a good idea then. It's not how you should be conducting a question and answer session. Who suggested it, not a member of the Trust Committee i hope ? [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 23:33]
|
No. I did.
No members are in the room to read body language or hear responses and when the Trust report back it becomes their version of answers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but by including the actual written response of the club as well, it gives a clearer picture of where the club stand on a particular subject.
The issue around sending in questions in advance and seeing how those involved at the club responded was connected to fans forums, I believe. That gave them the opportunity to prepare a reply which would not give those present much chance to witness how they would have dealt with a question out of the blue.
As none of us go to the actual Trust meetings with the club, ensuring the answers are as detailed as possible, I don’t see what’s wrong with what was proposed. But totally appreciate others may have different opinions.
For reference, see the answers here and ask could the level of information and detailed next steps have been improved had they included written responses from the club:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/07/meeting-with-the-club-29-6/ [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 23:42]
| |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:42 - Oct 25 with 2656 views | mikehunt |
Have to mention Moulden’s save to prevent a third goal for them. He went to ground to stop a one on one shot but their guy dinked him instead. The ball was already over Louie’s head when he flicked out his arm and managed to flap it away where one of our defenders dealt with it. Definitely earned us a point.
Also, good to see Nevett get his head to a couple of corners. We’ll make a Dawson out of him yet 😀 |  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:48 - Oct 25 with 2641 views | TalkingSutty |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:34 - Oct 25 by 442Dale |
No. I did.
No members are in the room to read body language or hear responses and when the Trust report back it becomes their version of answers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but by including the actual written response of the club as well, it gives a clearer picture of where the club stand on a particular subject.
The issue around sending in questions in advance and seeing how those involved at the club responded was connected to fans forums, I believe. That gave them the opportunity to prepare a reply which would not give those present much chance to witness how they would have dealt with a question out of the blue.
As none of us go to the actual Trust meetings with the club, ensuring the answers are as detailed as possible, I don’t see what’s wrong with what was proposed. But totally appreciate others may have different opinions.
For reference, see the answers here and ask could the level of information and detailed next steps have been improved had they included written responses from the club:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/07/meeting-with-the-club-29-6/ [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 23:42]
|
Maybe the Trust could invite two or three Trust members to accompany them to the meetings, or even a selection of those who submitted their questions, without giving sight of the questions in advance. A written response is still a chance to formulate the answer at leisure. If you are going to send the questions in advance you might as well not bother meeting up and just let the club post the answers on line. It was even suggested a few years ago that the Trust ask the question, the Directors answer it and then it's reported back. That's it, no digging down on the answer..similar to the fans forums.Those present just report back the answer. It's holding nobody to account and it doesn't encourage any sort of debate. As you say we all have different opinions, which is a good thing. [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 23:51]
| | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:59 - Oct 25 with 2609 views | 442Dale |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:48 - Oct 25 by TalkingSutty |
Maybe the Trust could invite two or three Trust members to accompany them to the meetings, or even a selection of those who submitted their questions, without giving sight of the questions in advance. A written response is still a chance to formulate the answer at leisure. If you are going to send the questions in advance you might as well not bother meeting up and just let the club post the answers on line. It was even suggested a few years ago that the Trust ask the question, the Directors answer it and then it's reported back. That's it, no digging down on the answer..similar to the fans forums.Those present just report back the answer. It's holding nobody to account and it doesn't encourage any sort of debate. As you say we all have different opinions, which is a good thing. [Post edited 25 Oct 2023 23:51]
|
The importance of follow up to any answer was emphasised. At no stage would written answers alone be enough. It would however allow supporters to see what the club said initially and what that follow up was.
It would also help to reduce instances of “the club said they will look into this”. One look at the link above and the report on the meeting with the club included in the September Trust newsletter indicates the process needs to improved. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 00:03 - Oct 26 with 2613 views | TalkingSutty |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 23:59 - Oct 25 by 442Dale |
The importance of follow up to any answer was emphasised. At no stage would written answers alone be enough. It would however allow supporters to see what the club said initially and what that follow up was.
It would also help to reduce instances of “the club said they will look into this”. One look at the link above and the report on the meeting with the club included in the September Trust newsletter indicates the process needs to improved. |
Understand that, any sort of communication should be embraced👍 | | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 09:48 - Oct 26 with 2275 views | 442Dale |
As yet, there appears to be no accompanying story on the Trust site or OS to explain this change in date.
Presumably this will appear in short order, because if not it would give an indication of the level of the commitment and respect towards supporters. The Trust should also be making clear their feeling on such late changes to plans made months ago. Edit: there could be various reasons that require such a late change, but until we know about them then we can only look at the fact that at the start of June it was stated that this would be a “ Club Board/Staff Reps + Dale Trust meeting”. It gives both parties the opportunity to arrange people to attend.
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2023/06/fan-engagement-programme-for-23-24/
At this moment in time, the lack of further explanation, which may be understandable, is poor. Really poor. There is time to change that, hopefully that occurs soon. [Post edited 26 Oct 2023 9:59]
| |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:01 - Oct 26 with 2259 views | AtThePeake |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 18:56 - Oct 25 by RAFCBLUE |
https://www.weownexetercityfc.co.uk/history-and-achievements
There are lots of similarities ATP starting with raising nearly £0.4m to clear their CVA.
What I do think they are unique in is having their Trust as majority shareholder with the balance held by private individuals.
Over those 21 years the Trust has contributed circa £2m in donations and even more besides for specific projects and fundraising appeals, totalling in excess of £65k. As well as monetary benefit, volunteer effort is estimated to be in the region of £250,000 per annum. |
Of course there are similarities, but the final paragraph is exactly why they're not comparable, which (correct me if I'm wrong tonyroch) is where the frustration comes from when people suggest something along the lines of "if Exeter can do it then so can we." They have a fanbase that's more than double the size of ours and so it's unrealistic to expect for us to raise that kind of money on a regular basis and be able to compete in L1 as a fan-owned club like Exeter are.
When I'm advocating for Trust ownership I'm advocating for a realignment of expectations alongside that and my feeling is that I'd rather support a Chester that's fan-owned with the security of trust ownership and competing in the NLN than a Rochdale that are struggling to fund a competitive squad in the NL and don't have that same security net. Although I do appreciate that I'm in the minority there. |  |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:10 - Oct 26 with 2234 views | AtThePeake |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:01 - Oct 26 by AtThePeake |
Of course there are similarities, but the final paragraph is exactly why they're not comparable, which (correct me if I'm wrong tonyroch) is where the frustration comes from when people suggest something along the lines of "if Exeter can do it then so can we." They have a fanbase that's more than double the size of ours and so it's unrealistic to expect for us to raise that kind of money on a regular basis and be able to compete in L1 as a fan-owned club like Exeter are.
When I'm advocating for Trust ownership I'm advocating for a realignment of expectations alongside that and my feeling is that I'd rather support a Chester that's fan-owned with the security of trust ownership and competing in the NLN than a Rochdale that are struggling to fund a competitive squad in the NL and don't have that same security net. Although I do appreciate that I'm in the minority there. |
- And I also appreciate that there would be a huge amount of work and funding required to make it a reality. | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:30 - Oct 26 with 2193 views | James1980 |
Any exiles in the Exeter area who could give us a report on the match day experience down in Devon? | |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:40 - Oct 26 with 2158 views | Rodingdale |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:01 - Oct 26 by AtThePeake |
Of course there are similarities, but the final paragraph is exactly why they're not comparable, which (correct me if I'm wrong tonyroch) is where the frustration comes from when people suggest something along the lines of "if Exeter can do it then so can we." They have a fanbase that's more than double the size of ours and so it's unrealistic to expect for us to raise that kind of money on a regular basis and be able to compete in L1 as a fan-owned club like Exeter are.
When I'm advocating for Trust ownership I'm advocating for a realignment of expectations alongside that and my feeling is that I'd rather support a Chester that's fan-owned with the security of trust ownership and competing in the NLN than a Rochdale that are struggling to fund a competitive squad in the NL and don't have that same security net. Although I do appreciate that I'm in the minority there. |
I’ve never said we should be a L1 club, although it may be a long term aspiration. Completely agree Rochdale is not Exeter and if we are fan owned we would need to be comfortable with playing at a lower level than L1. But wouldn’t it be nice to again be able to say again that we are well run and playing decent football at whatever level that’s possible. | | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 12:21 - Oct 26 with 1987 views | kel |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 20:36 - Oct 25 by TVOS1907 |
Hi kel
Your memory is fine. |
Hi TVOS, thanks for that.
I’ve convinced myself recently that my memory is fading though. Some days I’ll go on X/Twitter to find a tweet I thought I’d read previously but it’s not there. It’s happened quite a lot over the last few months. | | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 13:28 - Oct 26 with 1860 views | TVOS1907 |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 12:21 - Oct 26 by kel |
Hi TVOS, thanks for that.
I’ve convinced myself recently that my memory is fading though. Some days I’ll go on X/Twitter to find a tweet I thought I’d read previously but it’s not there. It’s happened quite a lot over the last few months. |
Hi kel, how odd, I wonder why that happens? | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 14:47 - Oct 26 with 1699 views | fermin |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 10:01 - Oct 26 by AtThePeake |
Of course there are similarities, but the final paragraph is exactly why they're not comparable, which (correct me if I'm wrong tonyroch) is where the frustration comes from when people suggest something along the lines of "if Exeter can do it then so can we." They have a fanbase that's more than double the size of ours and so it's unrealistic to expect for us to raise that kind of money on a regular basis and be able to compete in L1 as a fan-owned club like Exeter are.
When I'm advocating for Trust ownership I'm advocating for a realignment of expectations alongside that and my feeling is that I'd rather support a Chester that's fan-owned with the security of trust ownership and competing in the NLN than a Rochdale that are struggling to fund a competitive squad in the NL and don't have that same security net. Although I do appreciate that I'm in the minority there. |
I would support you on that but I wonder how many others would. I have already realigned my expectations. The club's financial stability is more important to me than chasing after status as long as we do our best on and off the pitch.
As regards Exeter the post above said that they had raised £2m over 21 years which is £100k a year more or less so I do not suppose that makes much of a dent in their running costs. I believe that they are also relying on the add-on money they must have received for Ollie Watkins rather like we did over the years with Dawson etc. However, we can copy them in other ways with people taking on voluntary roles. |  | | |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 15:05 - Oct 26 with 1641 views | 442Dale |
| vs Gateshead - match thread on 14:47 - Oct 26 by fermin |
I would support you on that but I wonder how many others would. I have already realigned my expectations. The club's financial stability is more important to me than chasing after status as long as we do our best on and off the pitch.
As regards Exeter the post above said that they had raised £2m over 21 years which is £100k a year more or less so I do not suppose that makes much of a dent in their running costs. I believe that they are also relying on the add-on money they must have received for Ollie Watkins rather like we did over the years with Dawson etc. However, we can copy them in other ways with people taking on voluntary roles. |
We could if people cared enough to properly engage with those who would be vital in such a model.
There would have to be a massive shift in attitudes for that to happen. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
