Active members only get discounts to boost engagement?

[Inside Left]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

That's not my understanding but I could well be wrong. We elect WST board member who then decide who should be on the club board. How they decide that I don't know but fans have zero say in it, that's certain.

You now raise that interesting idea that maybe 2 Board members could be elected directly from the membership and without having to serve on the WST board.
This would be in addition to the current structure.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

You now raise that interesting idea that maybe 2 Board members could be elected directly from the membership and without having to serve on the WST board.
This would be in addition to the current structure.

I don't see an issue with that.

The current set up has worked to a certain extent, basically everything bar the most important thing, on the pitch. If everything stays the same will that come eventually? I'm not convinced. Its been long enough now, we should be seeing the fruits on the pitch.

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

You now raise that interesting idea that maybe 2 Board members could be elected directly from the membership and without having to serve on the WST board.
This would be in addition to the current structure.

Good idea. Lets follow the way Jester do it and elect the football board. That's real success.
Sorry for the sarcasm but the Rules governing the club appointments are clear.
The football club board has to have a majority representation of trust board members. Additional board members can be appointed (Like Phil Salmon) to fill specific roles.

A popularity contest for places on the board would likely diminish it's effectiveness and is pointless unless the rule regarding trust majority was changed.

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by Inside Left

You now raise that interesting idea that maybe 2 Board members could be elected directly from the membership and without having to serve on the WST board.
This would be in addition to the current structure.

A resolution i put forward was for the Trust board to propose club board members and then the WST membership vote to approve each candidate or not as they deem fit. I saw that as not increasing democracy as the club owners can directly rather than indirectly influence the board that runs it's football club. However, crucially i thought this gave the club board a mandate directly from the membership they serve. We have seen labels of an "un-elected board" on this very thread and a simple membership approval would remove all of that.

So while i thought this was step towards democracy and gave the board a mandate to act, the Trust board opposed it.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

Good idea. Lets follow the way Jester do it and elect the football board. That's real success.
Sorry for the sarcasm but the Rules governing the club appointments are clear.
The football club board has to have a majority representation of trust board members. Additional board members can be appointed (Like Phil Salmon) to fill specific roles.

A popularity contest for places on the board would likely diminish it's effectiveness and is pointless unless the rule regarding trust majority was changed.

Is it working though?

Chester fans couldn't run a bath, they are utterly useless, so they cannot be used as any kind of yardstick. They'd fck it up no matter what the set up was.

[Rob]

To keep things non personal I was focusing on non-Board stuff as that can always be emotive.

Back to my initial example, in effect decisions and lock ins now are the equivalent of fans back in 1868 making choices on (in theory) where we train today.

On the face of it I think the Groves is a good idea, but there is a part of me that would have expected a wider debate to ensure we are not being bounced into something that fits with a 2018-19 council agenda or whatever state Phil Wynn's education department is in at this particular point in time

Then how do you get people engaged to want to know more and so on and so on.....

(Hi Phil! *waves*)

[DoomandGloom]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

Good idea. Lets follow the way Jester do it and elect the football board. That's real success.
Sorry for the sarcasm but the Rules governing the club appointments are clear.
The football club board has to have a majority representation of trust board members. Additional board members can be appointed (Like Phil Salmon) to fill specific roles.

A popularity contest for places on the board would likely diminish it's effectiveness and is pointless unless the rule regarding trust majority was changed.

Unless I'm misreading this I think you're alluding to the fact that Chester voted in people who didn't have the skills to do the job they were given. We cannot go down that road, that would, IMHO, be madness.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by DoomandGloom

Unless I'm misreading this I think you're alluding to the fact that Chester voted in people who didn't have the skills to do the job they were given. We cannot go down that road, that would, IMHO, be madness.

See what you mean but Chester can't seem to do anything right and the apathy in their fans is still astonishing.

You could also argue that due to the lack of success on the pitch it would be madness to continue as we are. We've been through just about every type of manager, young, experienced, big name, doing well in this league etc none have worked out so at some point you would logically look to those appointing the managers and the structure above the manager.

The lack of success on the pitch won't be tolerated by fans forever and that isn't scaremongering or a dig.

[DoomandGloom]

Originally Posted by Phils-an-alki

See what you mean but Chester can't seem to do anything right and the apathy in their fans is still astonishing.

You could also argue that due to the lack of success on the pitch it would be madness to continue as we are. We've been through just about every type of manager, young, experienced, big name, doing well in this league etc none have worked out so at some point you would logically look to those appointing the managers and the structure above the manager.

The lack of success on the pitch won't be tolerated by fans forever and that isn't scaremongering or a dig.

It's about opinions, luck, skill etc. But if we look at it another way, Keates was appointed by that same system and was poached away by team in a higher league, the same could be said about Ricketts. So were the appointments right? Circumstances meant they left, but they were not sacked for failing.