Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter - RedPassion.co.uk

northwalian dragon · 5th June 2020, 11.41:07

In the interest of addressing the email I've sent the following response.

*Rob or other admins, please feel free to merge or organise the posts how you wish, maybe break them done into individual threads like they were broken down last time?

_______________

Dear Lindsay Jones and Peter Jones,

Thank you for your response to the open letter.

I must stress that from the very start of your response I feel that there is an oversight, whether intended or not, about the "frustrations" that supporters of Wrexham AFC feel. The "frustrations" are not merely due to the poor performances this season. Everyone on both boards knows this full well. It even states some of the grievances in the open letter. Some might say that by not even addressing the listed grievances is yet another example of the WST not holding itself and the football club board to account. There needs to be accountability. Yes, we are a football club but pretending that it is just the football that has angered many supporters is problematic when the club is trying to unite the fanbase and is asking for renewed support.

Secondly, I must stress that this response reflects my own views and not those of the 550+ who have signed the open letter. I do feel that not acknowledging the 500+ signatories attained in one week is odd.

As for your response to the changes that the 550+ supporters would like to see, you state that the open letter falls outside of the constitution "as a whole". It does not. Please allow me to elaborate:

Dean Keates - Your response is comparable to the "appeal to ridicule" argumentative technique which I find baffling. No one has suggested that the next football manager be decided by an "X Factor type poll". Why did you feel the need to dismiss the concerns and protests brought about by Dean Keates' re-employment in this way? For clarity though many Wrexham AFC supporters feel that the re-appointment of Dean Keates was a source of great embarrassment to the fans and the club. Wrexham AFC fans are a proud bunch, it is the belief of many that the way Keates left the club meant it was not tolerable for him to return and removes a lot of pride and self-respect that Wrexham AFC should have for itself.
The board were fully aware that huge numbers of the fanbase did not want Keates to return to the club before he was appointed. They are still fully aware that many still do not want him here now. I won't go into too much detail as to the reasons why many have been boycotting but if the two respective boards are not aware of the massive amounts of supporters that won't put money into the club whilst Keates is employed here I will happily explain further. However, let's not pretend that the club board don't know about the ill-feeling and the cost of the loss of support. The open letter calls for the board to consider whether having huge amounts of supporters alienated and divided, a lack of passion for the club and many unwilling to put huge amounts of income into the club is worth retaining Dean Keates' services. Based on his poor managerial record and his statistics, including that he has the worst win percentage of any Wrexham AFC manager since we were relegated into non-league in 2008 I'd argue that his position is untenable. The club has confirmed that they place breakout clauses in contracts, any such clauses would have surely not been met given Keates' and the team's performances this season. As for the next manager should he be removed from his position, equating the disliking of Keates to the need to have a vote on the next appointment of a manager is belittling. Both boards know full well the reasons why many won't support the current management team, those reasons are not transferable to a new manager. The cost of retaining Dean Keates will cut the budget severely. Removing the management team does not fall outside of the constitution.

Advertising for new board members - You've failed to even address this point. Perhaps it was accidentally overlooked as I can't see any logical reason not to support this. I am fully aware that the WST invite board members to run for election however, there is a vast difference between inviting and advertising for potential candidates. I believe that 550+ people asking for the WST to make a consistent and prominent effort to advertise for new board members means it should be acted upon. This also does not fall outside of the constitution. Can I assume that this will be enacted upon?

Removal of Board Members - You may feel that naming individuals to be removed is "intimidatory" however, I would argue that given the many allegations against John Mills that were not sufficiently investigated it is justifiable. I also find that there is an irony in your term of "intimidatory" when I myself have been on the receiving end of what I would define as 'intimation' from a prominent WST board member since writing the open letter. I do agree that the public manner of the open letter isn't quintessential but I had submitted over 80 questions for the Q&A and not received a direct answer in 6 months at the time of writing. Even when pursuing answers on several occasions during those six months I have not received a single answer to a single question and as such have lost confidence with private communication with the WST and club boards.
The decisions may be made as a collective however, the roles of directors at Wrexham AFC are high profile and come with scrutiny attached by default. Spencer Harris is more forthcoming in presenting ideas and decisions and with that comes with more praise and scrutiny for himself as an individual regardless of the role he played in group decisions. There are many stating that they won't put money into the club if Spencer Harris remains a board member, this is very problematic for the club. I am certainly not suggesting that the constitution be abandoned. That is another example of the "appeal to ridicule" argumentative technique. The open letter is addressed and sent to all board members including Spencer Harris. He may decide to resign, just as John Mills has decided to, given the weight of the support behind the open letter. The WST Chairman may also ask for Spencer Harris' resignation. Neither of these actions goes against the constitution.

Groves Training Ground - I am delighted that there will be a vote on the "new" training ground. I assume that plans will be released before any vote is put to the membership. I feel it is also important to present plans for the football strategy going forward. As these directly correlate to the requirements that a new training ground would have. For example, the current training ground is not able to house the youth teams, Wrexham AFC Women, Wrexham in the Community work, a possible reserve team and as such moving to a smaller piece of land at the Groves site must mean there is also no room to house these teams or any of the other requirements that supporters may feel that a new training ground should have. We need to ascertain what footballing aspects will be prioritised and implemented in order to know whether the plans are suitable. There is also no room for future expansion should we play at higher levels. I and many others feel that the proposed training ground does not match the ambition that the club should have. If you wish to discuss this in more detail, I'd be more than happy to do so. I would have thought the club would have consulted supporters about both the footballing strategy going forward and the proposed training ground before anything was agreed upon. Perhaps now is an ideal time to do that? This also does not go against the constitution.

Gateway Process - This proposal does go against the constitution I agree with you. However, at the time of writing the open letter, there was no scheduled AGM and no clarity as to how the coronavirus pandemic would unfold. Investment may have been needed to keep the club from bankruptcy but that is clearly not the case now. Automatic and outright refusal of any investment could have been problematic for the football club. Of course, if changes to the Gateway process are still desirable, I'm sure they'll be put forward at the upcoming AGM.

I thank you for taking the time to respond to the open letter. Despite some claims, it was written with the intent of uniting the fanbase. The club cannot continue divided. I would most certainly be open to hearing any suggestions you may have about how to attain renewed support from alienated, angry and disinterested supporters. I'd also like to hear the WST's ideas about how trust can be restored in the membership as since the time of writing several large loans have come to light that the membership was not informed of. Please do share your thoughts on these issues.

I look forward to your response.

Kind Regards,

Phils-an-alki · 5th June 2020, 12.08:35

Excellent reply to their selective response.

They still haven't answered the 80 plus questions submitted which speaks volumes as well as avoiding certain things in the open letter.

Lindsay is about as far away from being independent as it gets and should be nowhere near the role given how narrow minded and brain washed he is.

GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo · 5th June 2020, 12.26:47

Keep it up, I'm glad the intimidation tactics haven't worked. It's cultural within the upper levels of the WST.

sparky · 5th June 2020, 12.28:56

Great work nwd.

I suppose it's asking too much for them to stop playing silly buggers.

jacthelad · 5th June 2020, 12.34:27

Great reply that. Couldn't bring myself to read the clubs feply. Id be dizzy from all the spin. But i think the fact that they have just brushed off a good chunk of fans concerns has made my mind up that i wont be putting another penny in until something has changed
Posted via mobile theme

jacthelad · 5th June 2020, 12.35:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacthelad

Great reply that. Couldn't bring myself to read the clubs feply. Id be dizzy from all the spin. But i think the fact that they have just brushed off a good chunk of fans concerns has made my mind up that i wont be putting another penny in until something has changed
Posted via mobile theme

Edit.
Yes i will. Ill be putting £12 in for membership to vote against everyone qho ia up for re election
Posted via mobile theme

FieldtownRed · 5th June 2020, 12.36:34

Great professional response. Stick at it.

René Higuita · 5th June 2020, 12.37:45

Great response. The petition talked of possible ways to unite the fan base. Lindsey's ignorant and rude reply (rant) will do nothing but alienate fans further. This shows that he has not understood a large part of the petitions aims.

northwalian dragon · 5th June 2020, 12.38:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacthelad

Edit.
Yes i will. Ill be putting £12 in for membership to vote against everyone qho ia up for re election
Posted via mobile theme

If you weren't recently a member renewing your membership now will not allow you to vote at the upcoming AGM

You have to have been a member for 90 days before the event

5th June 2020, 11.41:07	#1-0 (permalink)
northwalian dragon Due a Testimonial Joined: Jan 2010 Racecourse Spot: Yale Stand Real Name: Twitter: @	Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter In the interest of addressing the email I've sent the following response. Rob or other admins, please feel free to merge or organise the posts how you wish, maybe break them done into individual threads like they were broken down last time? _______________ Dear Lindsay Jones and Peter Jones, Thank you for your response to the open letter. I must stress that from the very start of your response I feel that there is an oversight, whether intended or not, about the "frustrations" that supporters of Wrexham AFC feel. The "frustrations" are not merely due to the poor performances this season. Everyone on both boards knows this full well. It even states some of the grievances in the open letter. Some might say that by not even addressing the listed grievances is yet another example of the WST not holding itself and the football club board to account. There needs to be accountability. Yes, we are a football club but pretending that it is just the football that has angered many supporters is problematic when the club is trying to unite the fanbase and is asking for renewed support. Secondly, I must stress that this response reflects my own views and not those of the 550+ who have signed the open letter. I do feel that not acknowledging the 500+ signatories attained in one week is odd. As for your response to the changes that the 550+ supporters would like to see, you state that the open letter falls outside of the constitution "as a whole". It does not. Please allow me to elaborate: Dean Keates* - Your response is comparable to the "appeal to ridicule" argumentative technique which I find baffling. No one has suggested that the next football manager be decided by an "X Factor type poll". Why did you feel the need to dismiss the concerns and protests brought about by Dean Keates' re-employment in this way? For clarity though many Wrexham AFC supporters feel that the re-appointment of Dean Keates was a source of great embarrassment to the fans and the club. Wrexham AFC fans are a proud bunch, it is the belief of many that the way Keates left the club meant it was not tolerable for him to return and removes a lot of pride and self-respect that Wrexham AFC should have for itself. The board were fully aware that huge numbers of the fanbase did not want Keates to return to the club before he was appointed. They are still fully aware that many still do not want him here now. I won't go into too much detail as to the reasons why many have been boycotting but if the two respective boards are not aware of the massive amounts of supporters that won't put money into the club whilst Keates is employed here I will happily explain further. However, let's not pretend that the club board don't know about the ill-feeling and the cost of the loss of support. The open letter calls for the board to consider whether having huge amounts of supporters alienated and divided, a lack of passion for the club and many unwilling to put huge amounts of income into the club is worth retaining Dean Keates' services. Based on his poor managerial record and his statistics, including that he has the worst win percentage of any Wrexham AFC manager since we were relegated into non-league in 2008 I'd argue that his position is untenable. The club has confirmed that they place breakout clauses in contracts, any such clauses would have surely not been met given Keates' and the team's performances this season. As for the next manager should he be removed from his position, equating the disliking of Keates to the need to have a vote on the next appointment of a manager is belittling. Both boards know full well the reasons why many won't support the current management team, those reasons are not transferable to a new manager. The cost of retaining Dean Keates will cut the budget severely. Removing the management team does not fall outside of the constitution. Advertising for new board members - You've failed to even address this point. Perhaps it was accidentally overlooked as I can't see any logical reason not to support this. I am fully aware that the WST invite board members to run for election however, there is a vast difference between inviting and advertising for potential candidates. I believe that 550+ people asking for the WST to make a consistent and prominent effort to advertise for new board members means it should be acted upon. This also does not fall outside of the constitution. Can I assume that this will be enacted upon? Removal of Board Members - You may feel that naming individuals to be removed is "intimidatory" however, I would argue that given the many allegations against John Mills that were not sufficiently investigated it is justifiable. I also find that there is an irony in your term of "intimidatory" when I myself have been on the receiving end of what I would define as 'intimation' from a prominent WST board member since writing the open letter. I do agree that the public manner of the open letter isn't quintessential but I had submitted over 80 questions for the Q&A and not received a direct answer in 6 months at the time of writing. Even when pursuing answers on several occasions during those six months I have not received a single answer to a single question and as such have lost confidence with private communication with the WST and club boards. The decisions may be made as a collective however, the roles of directors at Wrexham AFC are high profile and come with scrutiny attached by default. Spencer Harris is more forthcoming in presenting ideas and decisions and with that comes with more praise and scrutiny for himself as an individual regardless of the role he played in group decisions. There are many stating that they won't put money into the club if Spencer Harris remains a board member, this is very problematic for the club. I am certainly not suggesting that the constitution be abandoned. That is another example of the "appeal to ridicule" argumentative technique. The open letter is addressed and sent to all board members including Spencer Harris. He may decide to resign, just as John Mills has decided to, given the weight of the support behind the open letter. The WST Chairman may also ask for Spencer Harris' resignation. Neither of these actions goes against the constitution. Groves Training Ground - I am delighted that there will be a vote on the "new" training ground. I assume that plans will be released before any vote is put to the membership. I feel it is also important to present plans for the football strategy going forward. As these directly correlate to the requirements that a new training ground would have. For example, the current training ground is not able to house the youth teams, Wrexham AFC Women, Wrexham in the Community work, a possible reserve team and as such moving to a smaller piece of land at the Groves site must mean there is also no room to house these teams or any of the other requirements that supporters may feel that a new training ground should have. We need to ascertain what footballing aspects will be prioritised and implemented in order to know whether the plans are suitable. There is also no room for future expansion should we play at higher levels. I and many others feel that the proposed training ground does not match the ambition that the club should have. If you wish to discuss this in more detail, I'd be more than happy to do so. I would have thought the club would have consulted supporters about both the footballing strategy going forward and the proposed training ground before anything was agreed upon. Perhaps now is an ideal time to do that? This also does not go against the constitution. Gateway Process - This proposal does go against the constitution I agree with you. However, at the time of writing the open letter, there was no scheduled AGM and no clarity as to how the coronavirus pandemic would unfold. Investment may have been needed to keep the club from bankruptcy but that is clearly not the case now. Automatic and outright refusal of any investment could have been problematic for the football club. Of course, if changes to the Gateway process are still desirable, I'm sure they'll be put forward at the upcoming AGM. I thank you for taking the time to respond to the open letter. Despite some claims, it was written with the intent of uniting the fanbase. The club cannot continue divided. I would most certainly be open to hearing any suggestions you may have about how to attain renewed support from alienated, angry and disinterested supporters. I'd also like to hear the WST's ideas about how trust can be restored in the membership as since the time of writing several large loans have come to light that the membership was not informed of. Please do share your thoughts on these issues. I look forward to your response. Kind Regards,

5th June 2020, 12.08:35	#2-0 (permalink)
Phils-an-alki - (info 1 & 2) (info) Joined: Apr 2005 Racecourse Spot: Real Name: Twitter: @	Re: Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter Excellent reply to their selective response. They still haven't answered the 80 plus questions submitted which speaks volumes as well as avoiding certain things in the open letter. Lindsay is about as far away from being independent as it gets and should be nowhere near the role given how narrow minded and brain washed he is.

5th June 2020, 12.26:47	#3-0 (permalink)
GiggityGiggityGiggityGoo Taking coaching badges Joined: Feb 2012 Racecourse Spot: none given Real Name: none given Twitter: @	Re: Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter Keep it up, I'm glad the intimidation tactics haven't worked. It's cultural within the upper levels of the WST.

5th June 2020, 12.28:56	#4-0 (permalink)
sparky Part Time ITV4 Pundit (info 1 & 2) (info) Joined: Oct 2004 Racecourse Spot: The one that's not been sponsored Real Name: It's not rocket science Twitter: @	Re: Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter Great work nwd. I suppose it's asking too much for them to stop playing silly buggers. __________________ There are no tools you can use out there. You've just got to go with what you have in your pants.

5th June 2020, 12.34:27	#5-0 (permalink)
jacthelad retired & running a pub Joined: Feb 2011 Racecourse Spot: Mold Road Stand Real Name: Jac Twitter: @	Re: Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter Great reply that. Couldn't bring myself to read the clubs feply. Id be dizzy from all the spin. But i think the fact that they have just brushed off a good chunk of fans concerns has made my mind up that i wont be putting another penny in until something has changed Posted via mobile theme

5th June 2020, 12.36:34	#7-0 (permalink)
FieldtownRed Due a Testimonial Joined: Feb 2005 Racecourse Spot: Mold Road Stand Real Name: Twitter: @	Re: Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter Great professional response. Stick at it.

5th June 2020, 12.37:45	#8-0 (permalink)
René Higuita Club Captain Joined: Apr 2018 Racecourse Spot: Mold Road Stand Real Name: none given Twitter: @	Re: Response to the Response to the Demand Change Open Letter Great response. The petition talked of possible ways to unite the fan base. Lindsey's ignorant and rude reply (rant) will do nothing but alienate fans further. This shows that he has not understood a large part of the petitions aims.