WST Board majority vote to fire Hughes - Club Board not involved?

[dlrwrexham]

Originally Posted by Rk11

The issue here is people are across 2 boards.

This has to be a fundamental change made to the Trust constitution.

[dylanthomas]

Originally Posted by Rob

Two sets of minutes out https://wst.org.uk/wp/?page_id=179

Sept meeting with Brian Phillips (BP), Bryan Still (BS), Stephen Lloyd (SL), Gavin Jones (GJ), Sarah Smith-Howard (SSH), Spencer Harris (SH), Robert Stock (RS), John Mills (JM), Jonathan Hughes (JH), Carl Hogan (CH) & Pete Jones chairing attending and appear to be voting.

"The main agenda item tonight is the current on field position and the fact we had not won for 8 games and were now in a relegation position.
A discussion took place to discuss the current on the field problems and the manager’s position. This culminated in a vote on the mangers’ position."

"VOTE There were two options proposed: in favour of retaining BH with an experienced assistant or in favour of relieving him of his duties. Relieving BH of his duties was passed by a majority vote.

"SH left the meeting to inform BH and, assisted by CH, drew up a press release for discussion and agreement with the board."

Is this at odds with the update Governing Board and Operational Board Policy 8.1?

As everyone will know there is a WST Board / Club Operational Board.

8.1 has a big list of the delegation of power and responsibilities , "The Trust Board delegates the following powers and responsibilities to the Operational Board:"

First is "The responsibility to select and appoint a first team manager and assistant subject to ratification by the Trust Board including the general terms and conditions of his contract;"

Second is:
"o The responsibility to terminate the contract of the first team manager subject to ratification by the Trust Board"

As explained in May https://wst.org.uk/wp/?p=534 "Eight years ago, we were strongly advised by Supporters Direct to adopt a two-board structure. A football club board to run the day to day operational side with a trust board to run everything else and to oversee the work of the football club board as well as providing the majority of board members who sit on it. We believe that this structure has generally worked well and although we had originally planned to formalise the relationship, we never actually took that step.

"As we indicated at the members meeting of 7th February, we have looked closely at how the two boards operate. We remain convinced that the two-board structure works best and that a policy formalising that relationship would help going forward including to better explain the position for club owners and for future board members. Having carefully thought about who does what, the Trust board unanimously agreed the attached board policy to be introduced with immediate effect. "


Should the Club Board not have had the vote then passed upwards for the ratification rather than WST Board having a quick vote and then someone leaving the meeting to tell Hughes, or have I missed something? (entirely possible!)

Perhaps the board started listened to recent critism and involved the second board in such an important decision - a positive in my book!

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by dylanthomas

Perhaps the board started listened to recent critism and involved the second board in such an important decision - a positive in my book!

They should have involved them in the way they're meant to according to their own rules, though, surely? I appreciate it makes very little difference given the composition of the two boards, but it seems like following the policies they put in place is fairly vital.

[Foxy]

Originally Posted by WrexhamO

Rumours that the club board and Pete vote as a block. Means they only have to persuade 2 more board members to get a majority.

Not surprising . “Pete” is an absolute disgrace and has failed in his one key function, along with being a totally useless interviewer on the numerous meet the manager evenings . It wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t so conceited in his “Toppest Red “ status.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Jaded

They should have involved them in the way they're meant to according to their own rules, though, surely? I appreciate it makes very little difference given the composition of the two boards, but it seems like following the policies they put in place is fairly vital.

Well yes, process is dull, but as you say whats the point of policy documents if ignored.

[Prodigal Dragon]

The Wrexham AFC Board should have proposed Bryan Hughes’ sacking to the WST Committee for them to either endorse or reject.

Fundamentally, we have the tail wagging the dog under the current set up. IMHO, the Wrexham AFC Board should have primacy, simply because the club should be about football. All the fund raising and membership initiatives should be secondary to running the club.

We need to overhaul the club’s constitution to make it fit for purpose and more accountable to the WST members.

[Hometown Unicorn]

Originally Posted by Rob

Two sets of minutes out https://wst.org.uk/wp/?page_id=179

Sept meeting with Brian Phillips (BP), Bryan Still (BS), Stephen Lloyd (SL), Gavin Jones (GJ), Sarah Smith-Howard (SSH), Spencer Harris (SH), Robert Stock (RS), John Mills (JM), Jonathan Hughes (JH), Carl Hogan (CH) & Pete Jones chairing attending and appear to be voting.

"The main agenda item tonight is the current on field position and the fact we had not won for 8 games and were now in a relegation position.
A discussion took place to discuss the current on the field problems and the manager’s position. This culminated in a vote on the mangers’ position."

"VOTE There were two options proposed: in favour of retaining BH with an experienced assistant or in favour of relieving him of his duties. Relieving BH of his duties was passed by a majority vote.

"SH left the meeting to inform BH and, assisted by CH, drew up a press release for discussion and agreement with the board."

Is this at odds with the update Governing Board and Operational Board Policy 8.1?

As everyone will know there is a WST Board / Club Operational Board.

8.1 has a big list of the delegation of power and responsibilities , "The Trust Board delegates the following powers and responsibilities to the Operational Board:"

First is "The responsibility to select and appoint a first team manager and assistant subject to ratification by the Trust Board including the general terms and conditions of his contract;"

Second is:
"o The responsibility to terminate the contract of the first team manager subject to ratification by the Trust Board"

As explained in May https://wst.org.uk/wp/?p=534 "Eight years ago, we were strongly advised by Supporters Direct to adopt a two-board structure. A football club board to run the day to day operational side with a trust board to run everything else and to oversee the work of the football club board as well as providing the majority of board members who sit on it. We believe that this structure has generally worked well and although we had originally planned to formalise the relationship, we never actually took that step.

"As we indicated at the members meeting of 7th February, we have looked closely at how the two boards operate. We remain convinced that the two-board structure works best and that a policy formalising that relationship would help going forward including to better explain the position for club owners and for future board members. Having carefully thought about who does what, the Trust board unanimously agreed the attached board policy to be introduced with immediate effect. "


Should the Club Board not have had the vote then passed upwards for the ratification rather than WST Board having a quick vote and then someone leaving the meeting to tell Hughes, or have I missed something? (entirely possible!)

Woah woah woah hold on a minute. How does Carl Hogan get a voting right? Who elected him?

That man shouldn't be near big decisions like this one.

[Foxy]

So one of the options (the one not taken) according to the minutes was to retain Brian Hughes with an “experienced assistant” to help him out, Yet weeks before that, according to the club, they had already appointed an experienced “assistant manager” in Bryan Flynn.

This probably is definitive proof that it was a bare faced lie that Brian Flynn was ever assistant manager. Add it to the catalogue of lies and deceit from the club killers, along with the most significant that there has been no interest in terms of investment; when according to Bryn Law there definitely has.

[GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo]

Originally Posted by Foxy

Not surprising . “Pete” is an absolute disgrace and has failed in his one key function, along with being a totally useless interviewer on the numerous meet the manager evenings . It wouldn’t be so bad if he wasn’t so conceited in his “Toppest Red “ status.

Pete Jones has only ever done as he's told, and has never questioned the decision makers.

The below is part of series events surrounding the 2007 elections, which was when splitting the assets was proposed that year and Kop redevelopment. 12 years on and the same is happening now, 200 odd posts deleted from an old Yahoo forum, people being denied access to that site, ignoring an AGM. It goes on and on.
kopwatch

The board’s lack of commitment to allowing rational discussion to take place is further emphasised by the e-mail from board member Peter Jones to other board members on May 29th (Doc 23)
“I also spoke with Anthony Fairclough (WFC Chief Executive) today who asked if I could be available on Friday for a meeting with Nev, Geoff, Anthony and Paul Roberts from the council with the proviso of bringing out a statement to blow Resolutions F and J out of the window. I told Anthony that I would be available, but would want another Trust Board member with me. Anyone else available?”

Board candidate Phil Wynn was contacted by Peter Jones on the evening of May 30th and told that further press attacks would take place on the following Friday unless Resolutions F & J were withdrawn.
Following the Chairs outburst and the call from Peter Jones we felt that the board of the WST was conducting a campaign of intimidation with the support of the football club owners.
As a courtesy to the many fans who had seconded these resolutions we made a public announcement of this on the Red Passion website inviting seconders to withdraw their support for them. Several did so.(Doc.25)
Acting on his conversation with Pete Jones, Phillip Wynn contacted Anthony Fairclough with an offer for the “fresh approach” candidates to meet up with the club owners to discuss any points of concern. No meeting was ever called and the club owners on the conduct of the WST AGM made no further press statements.

Worked out very well...