| AGM change 20:28 - Nov 13 with 2920 views | 442Dale |
As reported in the latest Trust newsletter, the following came up during the last meeting between the club and the Trust:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/november-2024-news-letter/
“Simon opened the meeting by providing an update on future changes to the format of AGM’s. This will comprise a corporate/business agenda only to meet the essential requirements of an AGM, rather than in the past, incorporating a fans forum element, available to shareholders only. A Fans Forum will take place, at a date following the AGM, attendance to which will be open to a wider audience than shareholders only.”
This was raised at the Trust AGM last weekend, and reported as follows:
https://www.daletrust.co.uk/2024/11/trust-2024-agm/
“ Reference was made to the statement made by the Club regarding the new format of future AGMs, without the opportunity of a forum taking place once AGM business is concluded. A date for a Fans Forum will closely follow the AGM to allow participation to include all fans, and not limited to shareholders.”
That appears to re-report what we already knew. It was raised to establish with a concern that removing the forum part of the AGM may discourage the attendance of shareholders on the night, who may believe they wouldn’t get a chance to raise questions.
It was also noted that any AGM with an ‘AOB’ section (like the Trust one) would allow those questions to be asked anyway, so it just needed establishing why there was a need to remove the “forum element” of an AGM for the shareholders who have, in the past, played a massive role in securing the future of the club. [Post edited 13 Nov 20:34]
|  |
| |  |
| AGM change on 20:37 - Nov 13 with 2875 views | judd |
You would think that, given the size of shareholding the Trust hold/held, that this issue would have been put to members first before an insipid acceptance without consultation. [Post edited 13 Nov 21:14]
|  |
| |
| AGM change on 21:04 - Nov 13 with 2761 views | TalkingSutty |
| AGM change on 20:37 - Nov 13 by judd |
You would think that, given the size of shareholding the Trust hold/held, that this issue would have been put to members first before an insipid acceptance without consultation. [Post edited 13 Nov 21:14]
|
You would also think that having Murray Knight acting as a Trust/ fans representitive in the Boardroom would increase communication and inclusivity between the Trust members, fans, shareholders and those running the club. Gagging the shareholders at the AGM for probably the first time in the history of the club does the opposite of that and it is another example of making stupid decisions and aggravating the shareholders/ fans. I'm surprised Cameron Ogden agreed to that change and also disappointed. Sensitive stuff is discussed at AGMs and some questions might not be for the public domain, such as a fans forum. I would expect Murray to have challenged those in the Boardroom on that also, he represents the Trust members and the Trust are a major shareholder. You would have hoped that he would have done that and reported back to the Trust Committee. This fan in the Boardroom thing isn't working is it, or its not working in the manner that we thought it would do. [Post edited 13 Nov 21:58]
|  | | |
| AGM change on 09:30 - Nov 14 with 2399 views | Dalenet |
The club is majority owned by the Ogdens. The AGM is a legal requirement and actually has a small and limited agenda. Of course shareholders can turn up in force and ask questions related to the business under AOB. But one of the impacts of our new ownership model is that the minority shareholders now have little impact. You can't always have your cake and eat it.
Of course engaging with the fans is critical to the club and regular forum sessions are helpful. The majority of fans are not shareholders and would miss out if the AGM was the place to air views. And as for the Trust holdings, we have a Trust member on the Board. Whilst I joined others in buying shares when the club was in a mess, I don't feel they are worth anything now and have come to accept that. |  | | |
| AGM change on 11:06 - Nov 14 with 2262 views | Rehsad |
One important factor going forwards is the 'Golden Share' - both what it actually looks like and how it will be used. My understanding is that this Share will be held by the trust and therefore it is imperative that any AGM agenda item where the Golden Share input is relevant must be circulated well before the the actual RAFC AGM itself. I am a little concerned that a limited agenda AGM is being held prior to the full revision of the Articles having been circulated but I also accept that, with the exception of the Golden Share, actual non Ogden family shares count for very little. I fully share the views put forwards in Dalenet's above post - and am happy with the fact that cake exists - I don't have to eat it! | | | |
| AGM change on 15:42 - Nov 14 with 1971 views | judd |
Absolutely no argument that the bare minimum rights of shareholders are being respected, but the privilege for shareholders as established by precedent dating back to 2013 for "the ANNUAL SHAREHOLDERS FORUM" alongside a buffet to take place after the AGM has been removed in the manner that it has, using a tone that does not align itself with previous communication from the Ogden family, nor does it resonate with the ethos their investment is built on, is a concern, alongside that of unaudited accounts and the annual meeting being pushed as far back as possible in the calendar year. (Remember that the Trust had to remind the club in a meeting on 23rd November 2023 of its' obligations to hold an annual meeting that year, and this was minuted.)
As well as failing to recognise the contributions of retired directors, shareholders are now being denied a privilege their investments have previously enjoyed, via an open source, rather than the privacy of personal emails, advising that this privilege is planned to cease.
Given the unsolicited gift of the Golden Share illustrating the desire of the Ogden family to embrace recommendations of the fan led review, I am not sure why this cessation of the shareholder forum has been announced and in the manner that it has been with tacit acceptance from the largest ordinary shareholding body, seemingly failing to consult relevant interested parties.
It may not matter to some, granted, but the established opportunity to get privately into management detail has now been taken away from shareholders, which appears strange, and this sort of opportunity will not be afforded to fans at the fans forum, I dare say. | |
| |
| AGM change on 19:12 - Nov 14 with 1766 views | 442Dale |
What is a struggle to understand is WHY the Trust have not established why the change has been made.
The bit about there being a normal fans forum to follow not long after is quite irrelevant, because we’ve always had those. The two are not connected. [Post edited 14 Nov 19:15]
| |
| |
| AGM change on 19:34 - Nov 14 with 1699 views | 100notout |
| AGM change on 19:12 - Nov 14 by 442Dale |
What is a struggle to understand is WHY the Trust have not established why the change has been made.
The bit about there being a normal fans forum to follow not long after is quite irrelevant, because we’ve always had those. The two are not connected. [Post edited 14 Nov 19:15]
|
The Ogdens are the majority shareholders and they very generously gave the trust a golden share. As I understand it the Trust have regular meetings with the BOD and solicit questions from fans before such meetings Thus giving all fans (via the Trust) the opportunity to raise issues and challenge decisions/ strategies etc. I have no problem therefore with the changes in the AGM PROVIDED that the Trust are strong enough in these meetings and robustly challenge the BOD where appropriate.
In my opinion the Trusts ability to do this has weakened since the departure of the Trust Chairman and this is more of a concern for me. I know we have a Trust board member in the board room but again in my opinion this is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Maybe it’s time for a change of personnel? | |
| |
| AGM change on 19:47 - Nov 14 with 1671 views | D_Alien |
| AGM change on 19:34 - Nov 14 by 100notout |
The Ogdens are the majority shareholders and they very generously gave the trust a golden share. As I understand it the Trust have regular meetings with the BOD and solicit questions from fans before such meetings Thus giving all fans (via the Trust) the opportunity to raise issues and challenge decisions/ strategies etc. I have no problem therefore with the changes in the AGM PROVIDED that the Trust are strong enough in these meetings and robustly challenge the BOD where appropriate.
In my opinion the Trusts ability to do this has weakened since the departure of the Trust Chairman and this is more of a concern for me. I know we have a Trust board member in the board room but again in my opinion this is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Maybe it’s time for a change of personnel? |
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right about how the Trust is now represented
This is how it was before the recent ex-Chair of the Trust became involved - at the crucial time, during the Ogden takeover. I've no doubt that the ex-Chair helped facilitate the introduction of the Ogdens to the club and its fans, and this level of engagement is absent once again (it was an almost impossible act to follow)
There are only very committed people involved, so this is no reflection on those who remain but the current situation is akin to a vacuum, where events are reported rather than engaged with. This also helps answer 442's question, which i'm certain he's aware of anyway, but is probably too polite to say
The one good thing we have is that the ex-Chair is once again free to voice his considered opinion |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| AGM change on 03:25 - Nov 15 with 1345 views | wozzrafc |
| AGM change on 19:47 - Nov 14 by D_Alien |
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right about how the Trust is now represented
This is how it was before the recent ex-Chair of the Trust became involved - at the crucial time, during the Ogden takeover. I've no doubt that the ex-Chair helped facilitate the introduction of the Ogdens to the club and its fans, and this level of engagement is absent once again (it was an almost impossible act to follow)
There are only very committed people involved, so this is no reflection on those who remain but the current situation is akin to a vacuum, where events are reported rather than engaged with. This also helps answer 442's question, which i'm certain he's aware of anyway, but is probably too polite to say
The one good thing we have is that the ex-Chair is once again free to voice his considered opinion |
While I totally agree with the need for the trust to provide a link between the fans and the board, a timely reminder to those posting about those representing the trust.
The trust is a representative body which is elected by fans. For the trust to work and be strong it needs people to step up. Any member is entitled to put themselves forward for the board. This is the way you drive the direction of the Trust.
Various people have put hours of work over the last 20 years to get the trust is where it is today. The previous chairman and those before him ensured the trust was established ready and able to mobilise when the time was required.
Do not underestimate the work these people have put in. As fans wemight not always agree with there approach, but they ensure the trust has survived. The trusts shareholding has been accumulated through years of hard work
There are many excellent contributors with a variety of different but equally worthwhile views and opinions . Maybe it’s time for others to put down their keyboards and step up .
From personal experience I, as I’m sure others will agree it’s fulfilling. [Post edited 15 Nov 3:44]
| | | |
| AGM change on 05:59 - Nov 15 with 1266 views | TalkingSutty |
| AGM change on 03:25 - Nov 15 by wozzrafc |
While I totally agree with the need for the trust to provide a link between the fans and the board, a timely reminder to those posting about those representing the trust.
The trust is a representative body which is elected by fans. For the trust to work and be strong it needs people to step up. Any member is entitled to put themselves forward for the board. This is the way you drive the direction of the Trust.
Various people have put hours of work over the last 20 years to get the trust is where it is today. The previous chairman and those before him ensured the trust was established ready and able to mobilise when the time was required.
Do not underestimate the work these people have put in. As fans wemight not always agree with there approach, but they ensure the trust has survived. The trusts shareholding has been accumulated through years of hard work
There are many excellent contributors with a variety of different but equally worthwhile views and opinions . Maybe it’s time for others to put down their keyboards and step up .
From personal experience I, as I’m sure others will agree it’s fulfilling. [Post edited 15 Nov 3:44]
|
I don't think anybody is underestimating the work put in by any volunteers down the years, they all should be commended. The Trust members should be commended also for renewing their memberships and contributing financially, supporting functions, submitting questions, purchasing shares etc. Without the members there is no Supporters Trust, so it's a team effort from everybody, as was witnessed in the recent battle with the hostile takeover. You don't have to have served on the Trust Committee or volunteered to voice your opinion, or even criticise how you view the running of the Trust. All Trust members should be encouraged to do that.
I've posted previously on this particular thread and since the Bottomley turmoil ive spoken to several members of the Trust Committe and volunteered my services but not had a response, that's fine and i don't take it personal. I know i'm not for everybody. I spoke to a ex Chairman of the Trust, Col, during the Morton House saga and he said that further down the line the Trust needs a complete overhaul of how it is operating, big changes needed to be made to make it stronger. To ensure that people in the boardroom are challenged and held to account properly if needed, by the Supporters Trust. To avoid another scenario where one individual in the Boardroom is allowed to do as he pleases with the club and the Trust have to just fall in line. He has since left his position as we know and i dont think that we have really seen any of those changes implemented. I don't think the fan in the Boardroom is working how we envisaged, it seems more of a hinderence to me. Just my opinion.
I look at the Trust now and i see a committee full of very good people, i know them all and they love the club, they must do to volunteer their services. Unfortunately though i still look on our Trust as being very subservient to those in the Boardroom, not much has changed. In fact i think there's now a fear and a feeling of 'treading on egg shells' when it comes to dealing with the Co- Chairman Simon Gauge.. nobody wants to upset Simon. If that is the case then Cameron Ogden and fellow Directors needs informing and it needs to be done in an official capacity, not word of mouth. It needs properly documenting. Weve had enough of that, its been going on too long now and needs addessing properly and not putting in the 'too hard to do' tray. Does the Trust Director properly challenge Simon or does he just keep the peace and act as a convenient buffer for him, compromised by his position, a position that doesn't seem to have any defining structure to it?
I submitted a question at the recent Q&A meeting with the Directors ( Simon Gauge) but it didn't get asked. It was suggested to me by a Committee member that it didn't get asked..'because Simon wouldn't like it'. I'm not sure if the meetings are minuted, the Q&A are published later though. My question was 'If at any point i lost confidence in how the club was being run on a day to day basis and also with individuals within the Boardroom, what is the procedure to escalate this up to the owners of the club, the Ogden family?' I asked that question as a Shareholder and a Trust member and i thought it was a fair question bearing in mind we now have new owners. A recent Director almost killed the club remember and very few dared to challenge him..so the question was very relevant. I'm assuming somebody on the Trust Committee vetted the questions and decided which ones to ask. Subservient and keeping the peace, all phrases that I used further up the post.
So yes i would go on the Trust Committee but it would be conditional on me being involved in the meetings with those in the Boardroom and i would want people alongside me who if needed wouldn't be afraid of having difficult conversations and challenging those who need challenging. Grown up meetings with no egos in the room and if something needs saying then you say it, everybody working together as a team including Cameron and Simon. Maybe Cameron could think about utilising one of his own recently appointed Directors as a point of contact for the Trust Committe, should they have any concerns that they want to address in confidence.
I do think that the Trust needs a full reset and it should start with a one on one meeting with Cameron Gauge and his family, let them outline how they want their Supporters Trust to work, their vision for it within the structure of the club. Start with a blank sheet of paper with no outside influence from others. The Trust should really be showing leadership with the promise of the Golden Share on the horizon and working hand in hand with the Ogdens and the Board of Directors. Individuals who don't like that need replacing, the club can't progress if we don't all work as one. Serious question, is EVERYBODY in the boardroom fully supportive of Cameron and his family's fantastic gesture in respect of the Golden Share? There has always been a 'us and them' with Simon Gauge and some of the daft decisions coming out of the club tell me that's not changed since the Ogdens became involved. I would suggest that it's become even more ingrained since the Trust Director went into the Boardroom and that position has become akin to a human shield which needs to be penetrated before getting through to Simon. The fans have been worried all week about the manager leaving, the only way to find out what was happening was to listen to Cameron Ogden on Radio Manchester, why didnt the club inform the fans via their official website? Not worthy of knowing obviously, it's very poor and another example of how the fans are viewed.
I'm certainly not posting to criticise those who serve on the Trust Committee but I do honestly feel as though something radical needs to happen to make the organisation more relevant in the Ogdens future plans for the Club. There's a place for selling raffle tickets and organising fund raising functions but the promise of the Golden Share should have the Trust Committee hammering down the front door of the Ogdens family home and shouting at them ...'We're here and we have a army of fans to support you and we want to be involved in everything'. If individuals try to put up a human barrier, trample over them if its for the good of the club and call them out very loudly at every opportunity, get them challenged properly. All of us need to think about how the Trust can be remodelled and given a proper voice going into the future. If it's the start of a new era then it's the time to re-think how we can make the Trust stronger. I think it needs to start with a new mindset from not just those involved with the Trust committee but also the trust members and the whole fan base.
Sorry for the long post, my cats been ill overnight so i've been up looking after him. [Post edited 15 Nov 8:56]
| | | |
| AGM change on 07:07 - Nov 15 with 1157 views | D_Alien |
| AGM change on 03:25 - Nov 15 by wozzrafc |
While I totally agree with the need for the trust to provide a link between the fans and the board, a timely reminder to those posting about those representing the trust.
The trust is a representative body which is elected by fans. For the trust to work and be strong it needs people to step up. Any member is entitled to put themselves forward for the board. This is the way you drive the direction of the Trust.
Various people have put hours of work over the last 20 years to get the trust is where it is today. The previous chairman and those before him ensured the trust was established ready and able to mobilise when the time was required.
Do not underestimate the work these people have put in. As fans wemight not always agree with there approach, but they ensure the trust has survived. The trusts shareholding has been accumulated through years of hard work
There are many excellent contributors with a variety of different but equally worthwhile views and opinions . Maybe it’s time for others to put down their keyboards and step up .
From personal experience I, as I’m sure others will agree it’s fulfilling. [Post edited 15 Nov 3:44]
|
As mentioned in my post, it's recognised that all those involved with the Trust are committed people. No need to raise that as if it's being questioned - it's not
A subsequent reply has outlined better than i could the salient issues. It's concerning, to say the least, that questions are being filtered at the top of the Trust and illustrates where changes ought to be considered. I don't doubt the Camerons have had to deal with very hard-nosed business issues in order to accumulate their fortune, which now benefits our club beyond measure. We should accept their ability to address such things head on. Not doing so is what got us into trouble in the first place | |
| |
| AGM change on 07:50 - Nov 15 with 1077 views | wozzrafc |
| AGM change on 07:07 - Nov 15 by D_Alien |
As mentioned in my post, it's recognised that all those involved with the Trust are committed people. No need to raise that as if it's being questioned - it's not
A subsequent reply has outlined better than i could the salient issues. It's concerning, to say the least, that questions are being filtered at the top of the Trust and illustrates where changes ought to be considered. I don't doubt the Camerons have had to deal with very hard-nosed business issues in order to accumulate their fortune, which now benefits our club beyond measure. We should accept their ability to address such things head on. Not doing so is what got us into trouble in the first place |
My point is if people think the trust isn’t doing what it should then they have it in their power to change it!
People should join the board put forward your ideas, any member has a right to stand The trust will work best when it has a board with a broad set of views. A strong trust needs a strong board and members participation. I’m sure the board will welcome more people to get involved.
Since the days of killie and Dunphy the trust has had to adapt. The previous two chairmen have done a fantastic job first in forcing botters out of the club and fighting off Morton house, then leading the fight for survival last season. It would be a shame after all that for the trust to lose influence.
The trust role has changed and it must adapt to continue its ability to hold the board to account.
But remember communication is a two way street, the board must want to work with trust. In my day kille appointed a director responsible directly to liaise and question was off the table. I would suspect this was different in botters days and would do would he could to hamstring the trust.
The trust need to establish that relationship and set out the rules of engagement. As stated above the golden share is paramount.
[Post edited 15 Nov 7:54]
| | | |
| AGM change on 08:28 - Nov 15 with 1004 views | D_Alien |
| AGM change on 07:50 - Nov 15 by wozzrafc |
My point is if people think the trust isn’t doing what it should then they have it in their power to change it!
People should join the board put forward your ideas, any member has a right to stand The trust will work best when it has a board with a broad set of views. A strong trust needs a strong board and members participation. I’m sure the board will welcome more people to get involved.
Since the days of killie and Dunphy the trust has had to adapt. The previous two chairmen have done a fantastic job first in forcing botters out of the club and fighting off Morton house, then leading the fight for survival last season. It would be a shame after all that for the trust to lose influence.
The trust role has changed and it must adapt to continue its ability to hold the board to account.
But remember communication is a two way street, the board must want to work with trust. In my day kille appointed a director responsible directly to liaise and question was off the table. I would suspect this was different in botters days and would do would he could to hamstring the trust.
The trust need to establish that relationship and set out the rules of engagement. As stated above the golden share is paramount.
[Post edited 15 Nov 7:54]
|
Thanks for your response, it's a refreshing perspective
Clarity of purpose, diplomacy - both required and it'd be no surprise to anyone that i'd fall down on one of those
Just to add, i may have done 442 a disfavour earlier since i know he's directly challenged "the top table" at meetings, rightly so | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
