Tuesday Meeting

[cashman]

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

I think that we all know - and IK alluded to it.. - Rob would only turn up if he was allowed to do so!!!!!!

If that is so, then hes the "Head" ceo, in name only.

[JEFF]

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

I think that we all know - and IK alluded to it.. - Rob would only turn up if he was allowed to do so!!!!!!

3. Rob is our CEO. He must have our support. Not least to get ready for the games ahead

Finally Ilyas went on to say that D'on had resigned and would have no further input into Asfc. Rob Heys would step up to the plate and remain CEO in overall charge of the day to day running of the club with guidance from both Ilyas and Peter

Two quotes from the thread when DON 'resigned'.

If Rob is in overall charge of the day to day running of the Club who could not allow him to attend ? He would have no boss to tell him what to do and what not to do. Obviousley Rob is NOT in overall charge of the day to day running of the Club. So who is ?

[yerself]

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

A commitee/body/group of people - some FANs, some professionals will be in charge of these shares,

Reading this brought MyFootballClub and Ebbsfleet United to mind. Have a read at this article on the BBC website.

BBC - What happened to MyFootballClub and Ebbsfleet United?

[Pendle Red]

Originally Posted by yerself

Reading this brought MyFootballClub and Ebbsfleet United to mind. Have a read at this article on the BBC website.

BBC - What happened to MyFootballClub and Ebbsfleet United?

Thanks for that Yerself a very interesting and thought provoking topic partculary as at the time Stanley were mooted as being a possibility for MyFootballClub.

There are lots of different angles on community/trust ownership some good & some bad, there are success stories as there are failures.

Bundesliga Clubs certainly seem to lead the way when it comes to governance in Football.

Even our Politicians have got involved with cross party support for some sort of supporters representation.

http://www.allpartyfootball.com/APFG...009%5B1%5D.pdf

The key is finding not just a short plan or even a medium term plan but a long term sustainable plan that can grow with the Club and is right for all.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Pendle Red

Thanks for that Yerself a very interesting and thought provoking topic partculary as at the time Stanley were mooted as being a possibility for MyFootballClub.

There are lots of different angles on community/trust ownership some good & some bad, there are success stories as there are failure.

The key is finding not just a short plan or even a medium term plan but a long term sustainable plan that can grow with the Club and is right for all.

That is the nail on the head n why the jurys out in my case, not being knowledgeable enough,i know what i don't want, but do NOT know what is the best tactic. i would have liked to have heard every viewpoint, but absence last night by some prevented that.

[lancsdave]

I think Ebbsfleet is the worst possible example to put forward, from what I understand the suggestions so far is nowhere near that scenario.

As far as I can make out the suggestion is for the fans to own the club not run it day to day. There's a massive difference.

[Whalley Red]

The problem with the myfootballclub model is that is mixed up ownership, governance and management of the club, right down to influence over the management of the football team. That was never going to work!

We await Ilyas' Action Plan, but a community-based club does not mean management by committee.

In terms of ownership, if the fans/community own more than 50% of the shares (once the new ones are issued), that is all it is, ownership.

The formation of a representative committee to represent this fans/community 'group' would therefore be in charge of hiring/firing the day-to-day managers of the Club just as any single owner would do. The representative committee would therefore have a say about the governance of the Club (i.e. the direction that the Club takes and the manner in which it is directed) and be involved in the Board of Directors.

It would still delegate the day-to-day running of the Club to a Managing Director and CEO, as it currently stands. The committee would only be responsible for deciding who these people would be, so I don't see any problem with this setup and it is markedly different to the myfootballclub model.

The big issue for me is whether we can convince the fans/community to buy the extra 200,000 shares and not continue to depend on the generosity of Ilyas and Peter Marsden.

[maccawozzagod]

the scheme has failed yet 3500 people have paid fifty quid for a third year of having no say? Seems like a success to me and better than paying 250 for a hundredth of a share that isn't a share.

And the stanley model would be nothing like that anyhoo.

[DAV007]

anything is better than the current ownership situation.

[Stanleymad]

Natural to be scared of change some people would rather better the devil u know senario cos to them it's safe and that's understandable. But as the club as it stands is losing money, it's not gaining much in new interest and investment from sponsors, the current runners (I do dismiss rob from this bit as he's tied by others) the damage has been done and only person who is keeping the place afloat is ilyas who is financially gaffer taping the huge holes together atm, he can't do this indefinitely so change has to happen at some point before the un avoidable change of fortune happens again for real.

I would think ilyas had looked into the options very carefully and no doubt delved into this further than we know. The 3 point model seems to be the best way to approach this and doing so protects our investment and interest. Fans can't run the club day to day properly that needs professional running by those who are qualified and able, that's where a board elected by fans who wish to be part of it and somewhat not different to the OSC where meetings are held, motions past by vote and elections each year are held by agm, ensuring those can do put themselves forward and elected by vote, if persons can't continue or change is needed ie board unsuitable then new ones re elected, also u can have note in place that same people cannot keep seats over a selected time/period to give others chance. So that eliminates fear of people taking over too much or governance - keeping board fresh and with new energy and input.

[JEFF]

Originally Posted by Stanleymad

the current runners (I do dismiss rob from this bit as he's tied by others)

Ilyas told us that he had put Rob in charge since DON's resignation, so who is he tied by ?

[Stanleymad]

Originally Posted by JEFF

Ilyas told us that he had put Rob in charge since DON's resignation, so who is he tied by ?

Apparently he is adjusting for a short period with don to his new position under the guidance of him so I gather if I heard ilyas right last nite, hence choosing my statement carefully as can't judge robs helm as it's only in infancy and not alone fully. Hence don has not gone and is permitted to keep his job allowing rob to take over as such.

[sparkie]

Originally Posted by mab

Would have thought and kinda hoped RH would have turned up...

I was up at the club yesterday to report a few problems I'd had with the sports bar for our little uns birthday party on sunday. Whilst I was waiting for the receptionist to appear I spotted the staff signing in/out sheet on the counter top, Rob was marked as 'holiday', i would hazard a guess that he wasn't around yesterday one way or another and as such couldnt be at the meeting.

[theresonlyoneaccy]

Originally Posted by VALAIRIAN

Ground funded by IK, then given to the club.

Quick thought: could there be a gym at the potential new ground. I see a lot of function rooms at other grounds but I can't see Stanley having enough interest for more than one. If there is going to be a new ground, can we stop spending money on our current pitch? Seems a bit silly.

[theresonlyoneaccy]

Originally Posted by bdc

To be fair Cashy, would you honestly turn up to a meeting that is going to discuss how to reduce your shareholding for EW/DON?

Yes, to argue against it, to show why you need one man at the top to make the decisions?