wattsville_boy wrote: January 26th, 2024, 11:26 pm
Bangitintrnet wrote: January 26th, 2024, 9:37 am
lowandhard wrote: January 26th, 2024, 8:19 am
Apathy to serve in football politics is no doubt present to some extent but I don’t believe that it is present as regards transparency.
It was obvious that the motion was carried, that wasn’t in doubt. The count was. I had a decent view and made it much more emphatic than that. A rough head count just isn’t good enough on such occasions, a paper ballot should have occurred for posterity as well as justice to be served. The blurring of the majority further muddies the waters.
Irrespective, I and quite a few others were frankly astonished that the minority who voted last night are content to be kept in the dark and therefore unable to make judgement on the performance of those who represent us.
I didn't go to the meeting, but your last sentence is key for me. "Unable to make judgement on those who represent us"
Why is the trust a political party in some peoples eyes? What does it actually achieve?
Is this attitude, of demanding the Power to vote people out of position, at the heart of the lack of appetite for standing?
As we can see from the posts above, there is a distinct lack of focusing on the future. Indeed should the trust have a future, if people are simply not interested in discussing having one, at the meeting specifically for that purpose?
There is an element of knowing of the mistakes that were made in the past so that they won't be repeated in the future.
I was angry at the way the club has been managed (and still am to some extent), but I do have sympathy for those on the board trying to spin several plates at the same time. I'm sure there's guilt at not doing as good a job as they would have liked and I honestly believe they were sincere in saying that they would be available for advice to the committee of the new Trust.
I suspect the reticence about transparency is that all the mistakes will be revealed in somewhat gory details. The truth is that any admission of mistakes probably wouldn't need to go outside the new Trust committee, just filed away for future reference in a folder titled 'How not to run a football club'. Members of the Trust possibly will just want to know number of members, whether it's up, down or in stasis, how much money is being generated and where it's going. But obviously we wait and see if that is what the members wish to know.
I think it'll be a positive thing. It's an opportunity for a reset and to build something hopefully of value. Something that could enthuse fans and increase Trust membership year on year. The difficulty will be finding the balance between cost and benefit...
What we don't know, but can surmise, is that a large part of the £1.2 million loss is linked to third parties and confidentially. That can be surmised, because the loss that the club should have made during covid, didn't show up at the time. Why that happened is anyone's guess, but the club was granted loans to cover losses at the time like all clubs.
The annual overspend has also proved necessary, and the trust membership were willing to meet the proposed overspend, before it was needed to be shown in the future budget.
Put those two major financial problems on the successfully dealt with list, and then compare what a trust run club has achieved, and the trust run club has managed above its financial weight. That's why I believe it should be in a position to take over the reins at the end of HJ custonianship. Therefore to me at least, the mindset of simply having an observation and reporting role at Club board level, doesn't cut the mustard. To me those directors should be professionals, and should add value to the HJ board.