Emergency General Meeting - Instructions for WST members

[pagl]

Originally Posted by redtilidie

I have a few problems with this:

1. An EGM can only be held to discuss a single proposal/item, not a multiple item agenda.

2. How can you be asked to support something when you don't know what that something is. It's like voting in an election and not knowing for which candidate your vote is being allocated.

3. I think a rethink is needed by the individuals involved to clarify the points above in order that progress can be made to solve the crisis that we find ourselves in.

Is point 1 specified in the WST constitution?

An agenda will have to be published along with the items in the constitution that are to be discussed and changed and what they need to be changed to.
Otherwise the WST will reject the EGM proposal.

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by Wreck Sam

It has to be evolution or we could well leave the club adrift without a rudder or paddles. It is the football board that needs change as evidenced by the position we find ourselves in following several appalling decisions. If the WST board make it obvious they wish to frustrate any change then that would indicate that they are not fit to guide our club. But let them decide that ? The football board need to utilise experienced football personal. This is what we should be focusing on and not throwing the bath water baby and bath out of the window.

Agree wholeheartedly. The ball must be put back into the WST's court to sort out the mess. That is their role. If they are not up to it -- we can only base that on actions and outcomes, rather than words -- then their day is up. However, if they are wise enough to make the necessary changes then they deserve another chance. Unless, of course, a credible buyer does through their hat in the ring.

[LlayDragon]

Originally Posted by Quay Red

I keep seeing this type of comment. Where are these people? Do any names come to mind?
What are the guarantees that even if we were to find someone that fits the bill, that the decisions would be any better?
Watching this team flounder is hard work, not missed a game this year yet but until Hooper got injured we were looking OK.
Not sure that Bryan Hughes can turn this around as he appears to make odd choices. Replacing Hooper with Harris. Not playing Barton when he apparently said he thought Barton was a better footballer than Walker.
Messing about with the midfield when it's been obvious to all but the blind that we need a strong leader there.
Hughes appointment was a risk but followed the pattern of the employment of Keates and Ricketts. It hasn't worked this time.

I agree Hughes' appointment followed the pattern of being young and inexperienced, but in every other way it really didn't.

Keates had been completing his Sports Coaching degree and been seen as a caretaker manager before being given the role permanently. Rickets was already coaching in the league.

Hughes was working in Footgolf, having been unsuccessfully involved with Scarborough 4 years previously; he gains a long-term contract straight off the bat. Had he never played for us I can think of no reason he would even have been looked at. To say he was an unusual appointment is a glaring understatement.

Add in Flynn's token appointment, the fiasco with Borrow and employing Newell and that's 4 bad appointments on the bounce.

[Wreck Sam]

Originally Posted by LlayDragon

I agree Hughes' appointment followed the pattern of being young and inexperienced, but in every other way it really didn't.

Keates had been completing his Sports Coaching degree and been seen as a caretaker manager before being given the role permanently. Rickets was already coaching in the league.

Hughes was working in Footgolf, having been unsuccessfully involved with Scarborough 4 years previously; he gains a long-term contract straight off the bat. Had he never played for us I can think of no reason he would even have been looked at. To say he was an unusual appointment is a glaring understatement.

Add in Flynn's token appointment, the fiasco with Borrow and employing Newell and that's 4 bad appointments on the bounce.

Evidence enough there I think for the WST board to consider whether or not they are comfortable with the decline or if they support the principle that there cannot be improvement without change.

[Quay Red]

Originally Posted by Wreck Sam

QR... you seem to be advocating keeping the same people in place following evidence that the decision making has been bizarre putting it politely. Not identifying the exact personnel changes needed to help the board (that's help... not necessarily replace) doesn't mean we should be putting out a message that the same bad decision making by the same people should continue. The economies of truths have only made things more prickly. Do you accept change has to be embraced by the boards to start the process of meaningful improvements ? Or are you happy to continue as we are ? BH is only the latest symptom of board level decisions that are harming the club.

I suppose I'm torn in some ways as I have seen on many occasions over the last 50 - 60 years cry's of sack the board when results go south. I can understand the anger and frustration at the current plight but attacking individuals goes against the grain.
The board have access to football people if they need to. They collectively made an honest decision to appoint Bryan Hughes and have supported him. He will live or die by his decisions and his results.
The circumstances around that are clouded but even if an independent review of the process and timeline were conducted, I doubt it would resolve the anti trust issues.
The decision to not replace either Horne or Bircham surprised me as it meant the remaining board members having to take more responsibility for club matters. The majority of the work that the board do goes unnoticed and is vastly overshadowed by results (or lack of) on the pitch where it really matters to the vast majority of fans.
I think that the club / trust should arrange a members meeting to "clear the air" - Sooner the better. Maybe with an independent chair to ensure fairness.
Whilst I do not believe it's a realistic proposition, 2 or3 wins on the bounce would probably make this all go away.

[pagl]

Has anyone got the WST constitution to check what has to be changed?

[dixienormous]

Isn't it possible to rip up all the bollocks, sit down and put the club up for sale?

[dagg]

Originally Posted by henry8

It's up to you lot of course; but boycotting? This would mean less fans, less revenue and an even poorer team. We boycotted at Chester city, look where we ended up!
My advice would be (but up to you nothing to do with me but I would hate to see another Bury) Set up a sort of independent Supporters group. I would imagine you have more people who are not trust members than those who are. Gives an independent voice, a big % who could put a genuine view without the need for doing more damage. Or you could do so much more damage than the club will die instead?

Good post

[Funny_Old_Game]

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Isn't it possible to rip up all the bollocks, sit down and put the club up for sale?

Only if you get 99.99% approval to do so.