Confidence in the Boards - WST & Club

[Birdy]

I am just curious as to all this good 'off the field' stuff the board have done? Could someone provide some examples? If balancing the books is one of them then you would expect that of any board its pretty easy to do with the crowds we get.

[GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo]

Originally Posted by Ruabon Red

A postal/electronic/in person vote would achieve a true inclusive democratic vote. Our fanbase isn't just based in the town, an alternative is to hold the meetings on home matchdays, so that those based further afield don't have to make an extra journey.

Even stream them exclusively for members, by them using their membership number as a log in.

[Ruabon Red]

Originally Posted by GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo

Even stream them exclusively for members, by them using their membership number as a log in.

Yes, as long as it's in addition to other means so that fans without electronic access aren't excluded from involvement.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Birdy

I am just curious as to all this good 'off the field' stuff the board have done? Could someone provide some examples? If balancing the books is one of them then you would expect that of any board its pretty easy to do with the crowds we get.

Yeah its like praising a footballer for 'working hard', it should be a given. We'll be praising them for getting dressed properly next.

[Birdy]

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Could everyone who want the board out come and join
us in the Yale please for the Sutton game, we could then seriously show our true feeling towards the complete idiots in charge.

Sounds like the best option. People wouldn't think twice if it was private owners. Anyone make a 'board out' banner? You would probably get chucked out for it lol

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by eosceiriog

It does all go hand in hand. An overview indicates that all is not well. This business of (some) other things are going well is irrelevant.

I refuse to single out individuals. Only the Trust as whole can resolve this, The objective is not to slate people but get it right.

The grip the trust has means only they can to make things happen.

It would defuse things considerably if there were any indications of truly addressing the issues and concerns being raised, including moving way from the present inward looking narrow minded approach to a more open approach with external focus as well.

I hope we do not screw up but do not believe this spin about "sustainability".
Sustainability or continuity is not the sole prerogative of either fans owned or privately owned clubs.

This is a critical point where some folk go for individuals' jugulars rather than addressing the issues. Conversely, individuals -- and their attitudes and agendas -- can be part of the problem but, like you, I dislike the the level of ad hominem attacks posted on here, mostly in anonymity.

We, as a club, clearly have issues that need resolving. There are decisions that have been taken that some folk disagree with. However, being in disagreement with the Board's actions is insufficient grounds for massive change. Nevertheless, incompetence or making decisions without a reasonable level of competence, are grounds for concern and change.

I think it very difficult to support the Board's recruitment policy and process for selecting the club's football manager, and then allowing him to select his staff. Regardless how good or bad the current support staff are, the decision to use them or bring in replacements must be down solely to the manager, without undue influence from the Board.

Ultimately, my opinions about running Wrexham AFC are:

1. The WST Committee are ultimately responsible for the club, on behalf of its members. They should concentrate on membership and strategic policy.

2. The WST Committee and its nominated representatives should never use Wrexham AFC as a 'private club' of a select few, paid for by the many. (I see no evidence this is case, despite all the counter claims.)

3. The WST Committee nominate an operational Board to run Wrexham AFC.

4. The Chairman of the WST must then supervise the acts of the Wrexham AFC Board.

5. The Wrexham AFC Board should be responsible for the day-to-day strategy and supervision of the club and its employees. They should not be doing the jobs as well; that should be down to a paid CEO, who is responsible to the Board. (Our problem being that this post would cost money. Therefore, I can fully understand why the Board feel they should be doing the jobs themselves. But, by doing so, they are effectively monitoring their own judgements and acts. The danger then is they develop a 'group think' which is not challenged in a timely and appropriate manner.)

6. The Wrexham AFC Board must have the appropriate advice to select a football manager. (This is where 3PM's suggestion of a DoF makes sense. I think it should be a non-paid expert, who is a member of the Board, with the responsibility of recommending and selecting candidates. Other Board members should have an input into the selection process but, ultimately, the DoF is the expert.)

7. The manager must be responsible for all footballing aspects, including selecting his support staff, player recruitment, team selection and tactics. The DoF could offer advice to the manager but should not over-rule him.

8. WST members should realise we are effectively members of a co-operative, and are not owners, per se.

9. Football fans should support and not dictate policy. They can, of course, influence events, but we are not in charge of running the club. We go to watch our team play and hopefully win.

Most of these requirements are already established. How well they are adhered to is debatable. One of the biggest issues is accepting Point 9, because all genuine fans are emotionally attached to our club - that's why there is so much debate on here, and why we drag ourselves to the Racecourse to watch turgid football or mediocre football. With the model we have -- imperfect though it may be -- we fans have a degree of influence unheard of under previous owners. If we want change there are ways and means of doing it.

There have been numerous rumours of potential buyers being put off by the Board. One of the Board's principal responsibilities is to ensure it is never sold to shysters who have no interest in the club other than to make a 'fast buck' and leave the club in ruins. However, the 100% fan-owned model is, IMHO, inefficient and limits the club's growth. The German model is worthy of consideration (51% WST and 49% individual shareholders) but that would require the individuals to have representation on the Board. The current Board should not fear that, but encourage it. Provided those individuals prove to be worthy.

My final point is we need to evolve as a club. Revolution is dangerous. Stagnant closed-shops are equally damaging. Get it right; and lets get out of this bloody hell-hole soon, before everything does implode due to lack of cash-flow to mount a serious promotional push.

[chef1]

I would happily join the trust if it meant changing the board otherwise no way can I support a regime that is blatantly slowly killing us

[Mr Wonderful]

I might be thick but we have very little to attract shysters these days haven’t we? What assets have we got left to strip?
Apart from the playing staff very little.

Having said that I am loathe to criticise the board, so it’s an abstention from me.

[Phils-an-alki]

Originally Posted by Mr Wonderful

I might be thick but we have very little to attract shysters these days haven’t we? What assets have we got left to strip?
Apart from the playing staff very little.

Having said that I am loathe to criticise the board, so it’s an abstention from me.

Correct. Not much to pick at now.

Why are you loathe to criticise the board out of interest? I don't get that. The minute every fan takes that approach we might as well not bother.