DEMAND CHANGE. An Open Letter Back to the Board

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by 3pmsaturday

I disagree with your first point as I genuinely feel losing directors would be detrimental to the club. That said I agree with the Dixie point and feel that a person who has recent pro experience with the football activities and structure of a club (not just a retiring pro perhaps) would be ideal.

And there is the crux to your suggestion. The current board are simply not receptive to the idea of bringing in a football director. Hence why i said there would have to be change in the directors to bring in the DOF

[Woody]

Originally Posted by 3pmsaturday

There are pros and cons to our model, however, the most important element is stability off the pitch and success on it.

The board have implemented plans to give us financial stability, they are pushing the future of the club with various plans in the medium to longer term. They need to reflect those plans with a plan for the success on the pitch.

WTF

[Haruki]

Originally Posted by Welsh Kiwi

I get that thanks, but please can you define more clearly why we actually need two boards?

What I mean is. why can't it be done effectively with one board ?

If you start to define the detail I might be able to understand more clearly the reasoning,

Adequate being ?

And in line with governance? - Do you mean according to and as set by a constitution, that could actually be changed ?

Why are we needing to hold the club board to account ?

Is it not possible to run a board effectively without having another board holding it to account?

The second board would be the check providing the checks and balances to the system. They are the gatekeepers who would for example oversee if the membership needed to be informed about a loan from a fan?

Governance. Yes of course the WST rules are there to govern what can and cannot be done. But also Legal and financial matters need to by adhered to.

Why are we needing to hold the club board to account? In asking that question i think you are picturing a board similar to one we would have had years prior under private ownership. In that scenario the directors are generally the majority shareholders of the business and making decision on what is the majority their money (granted there were some minority shareholders also). In our situation that is not the case. Directors are not controlling their own money, they are controlling the memberships money and therefore it is good practice and necessary to hold them to account.
The current system is inadequate at holding them to account which is why we have ended up with the current situation we find the club in.

Is it not possible to run a board effectively without having another board holding it to account? - I am not sure it is. Although i would be open to a suggestion of an alternative proposal of how to structure things if you have one?

[ruthinred]

Originally Posted by Wreck Sam

And their is the problem...the current leadership need it to be complicated as that makes it easier for them to cling on to power.

This is all a bigger mess than I first thought

Just to change this 2 board nonsense would take a huge effort by the sounds of it

Its all so slow and convoluted,, Fans Ownership is a disaster

[jacthelad]

Ideally id like to see this 2 board system. Nobody sits on both boards. Football board should be hungry for success. Not just hungry for fan ownership at all costs. And wst board can organise raffles or whatever else they do.

But tbh if they put a motion up today to sell the club id vote for it
Posted via mobile theme

[Wreck Sam]

400 signed now... does anyone know if the press and bbc have been aware of this ?

[Prodigal Dragon]

Originally Posted by Haruki

The second board would be the check providing the checks and balances to the system. They are the gatekeepers who would for example oversee if the membership needed to be informed about a loan from a fan?

Governance. Yes of course the WST rules are there to govern what can and cannot be done. But also Legal and financial matters need to by adhered to.

Why are we needing to hold the club board to account? In asking that question i think you are picturing a board similar to one we would have had years prior under private ownership. In that scenario the directors are generally the majority shareholders of the business and making decision on what is the majority their money (granted there were some minority shareholders also). In our situation that is not the case. Directors are not controlling their own money, they are controlling the memberships money and therefore it is good practice and necessary to hold them to account.
The current system is inadequate at holding them to account which is why we have ended up with the current situation we find the club in.

Is it not possible to run a board effectively without having another board holding it to account? - I am not sure it is. Although i would be open to a suggestion of an alternative proposal of how to structure things if you have one?

I agree that there is currently no effective accountability of the Wrexham AFC Board by the WST Chairman and WST committee. However, I disagree that we need 2 boards to run and supervise the club.

Fundamentally, a football club is about football. Everything else is a means to that end. The WST Chairman should head the WAFC Board (which becomes the executive body), be directly elected by the WST members, and be accountable to those members. The Board members are responsible to the Chairman for the running of the club.

The lesser -- but important -- roles undertaken by the WST should report to the WAFC Board, and those posts used as a springboard for the more capable individuals to eventually join the executive.

Currently, we supposedly have the tail wagging the dog whereas, in reality, a small cadre of individuals are effectively running the show whilst the WST Chairman plays no meaningful role, other than chair WST meetings which provide poorly written minutes.

[waxcrayon]

Originally Posted by Wreck Sam

400 signed now... does anyone know if the press and bbc have been aware of this ?

Yeh think bn=this 400 will be massive news considering everything that's going on

[3pmsaturday]

Originally Posted by Wreck Sam

The whole financial stability argument has been busted has it not ?

Are we financially stable?