|
Post by tommytainant on Jan 26, 2018 14:30:33 GMT
It looks like you are in a pretty tough spot and the majority of u have every sympathy with you.
The root of your problem is pretty obvious.
I understand that you have one board that runs the club and the CFU. That is far too big a task for one group. I cant even begin to understand how that works. No matter how talented your board members are they will sink under the work load.
The other issue with it is that they are elected.That will never return the ideal mix of skills to run the business.
You need to restructure and create a club board separate, but accountable, to the CFU board.
You cant achieve professional outcomes with a pub league structure.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Duff on Jan 26, 2018 16:13:06 GMT
It looks like you are in a pretty tough spot and the majority of u have every sympathy with you. The root of your problem is pretty obvious. I understand that you have one board that runs the club and the CFU. That is far too big a task for one group. I cant even begin to understand how that works. No matter how talented your board members are they will sink under the work load. The other issue with it is that they are elected.That will never return the ideal mix of skills to run the business. You need to restructure and create a club board separate, but accountable, to the CFU board. You cant achieve professional outcomes with a pub league structure. Thanks Tommy, same one from the old Hereford forum when they were fighting off the east end gangster I assume? Anyway, this is not quite correct. That is how we used to do it and ironically that was the time that we were flying. Then it was decided to split things and to have a small operations board of employed professionals to run the club day to day, and they would be overseen and directed and held to account by the elected CFU board. That way the pressure would be taken off the elected and co-opted volunteers who had day jobs elsewhere. In theory it was a good idea, but the problem would appear to be that the current elected board have been far too detached (if not utterly clueless in a number of individual cases) and we are now where we are and in a situation that should have been communicated to us months ago. I honestly do not believe we would be in this mess with some of the previous elected board who were both competent and in touch with the fans, as it is most of us haven't got a clue who most of the current board are which says it all...
|
|
|
Post by tommytainant on Jan 26, 2018 18:51:43 GMT
Yes thats me.
Sounds a bit grim at the moment.So are the CFU board too close or too far way from the Ops board ?
Looking on the club site and it is not clear where the accountability lies. Who sets the budgets and who signs the contracts ?
The 2015 accounts report the club was debt free and meeting its obligations. Did the governance change at some point ?
From over here its not obvious why you are running out of cash because your season is probably at the lower end of what you might expect rather than off the scale.
On that basis it looks like gambles were taken when handing out contracts at the start of the season. Would these decisions be taken by the manager or the board or the two ?
That probably needs to be identified before progress can be made.
|
|
|
Post by soulseal on Jan 27, 2018 7:55:58 GMT
It seems to me that the professionals brought in to run the club have gambled the budget on a poor manager, 2 year contracts for national league experienced has been sand hood winkked the elected board with the ‘This is what’s needed to achieve at this level argument’.
The results didn’t materialise, the crowds dropped and the professionals will jump ship leaving the dumbfound elected board too embarrassed to let the fans know early enough of the overspend.
Two issues spring to mind here: the competence of the elected board and the reluctance of fans to get involved at this level, and the strength of the professional team charged to run the club which they have done to their own agendas. In oarticular allowing the manager from last season who should have been sacked to build the appalling squad for this year.
We need a stronger elected board and more honest professionals and better communication. Hope we survive to get the chance.
|
|
|
Post by thetheremin on Jan 27, 2018 8:17:51 GMT
Think the issue is quite simple.
We have a business model predicated on a 2,100 average gate to break even. Fluctuations in gates could be smoothed out over the season using operating capital (rainy day fund) as long as we hit the 2,100 average.
We will not hit the average. The very low gates have probabably led us to dip into the rainy day fund to smooth cash flow issues. We’ve nearly exhausted that supply of cash.
We gambled basically. Attendances had fallen away due to woeful home form last season. We gambled that we could turn things around this season, and that McCarthy could do it. We then gambled again by trying to go full-time.
It just shows how fragile the business model is.
|
|
|
Post by muffinthemule on Jan 27, 2018 8:52:56 GMT
We appear to have gone into freefall since the formation of the "ops board". is it a case of the lefthand not knowing what the righthand is doing? Do the communicate with each other? Knowing how bad communication is within the club there could be some doubt. Let's go back to our previous model of one board for one club and get back to basics.
|
|
|
Post by tommytainant on Jan 28, 2018 11:33:39 GMT
Think the issue is quite simple. We have a business model predicated on a 2,100 average gate to break even. Fluctuations in gates could be smoothed out over the season using operating capital (rainy day fund) as long as we hit the 2,100 average. We will not hit the average. The very low gates have probabably led us to dip into the rainy day fund to smooth cash flow issues. We’ve nearly exhausted that supply of cash. We gambled basically. Attendances had fallen away due to woeful home form last season. We gambled that we could turn things around this season, and that McCarthy could do it. We then gambled again by trying to go full-time. It just shows how fragile the business model is. On that basis it sounds like poor forecasting. Those that set the budgets should be held to account.
|
|
|
Post by thetheremin on Jan 28, 2018 14:29:54 GMT
Think the issue is quite simple. We have a business model predicated on a 2,100 average gate to break even. Fluctuations in gates could be smoothed out over the season using operating capital (rainy day fund) as long as we hit the 2,100 average. We will not hit the average. The very low gates have probabably led us to dip into the rainy day fund to smooth cash flow issues. We’ve nearly exhausted that supply of cash. We gambled basically. Attendances had fallen away due to woeful home form last season. We gambled that we could turn things around this season, and that McCarthy could do it. We then gambled again by trying to go full-time. It just shows how fragile the business model is. On that basis it sounds like poor forecasting. Those that set the budgets should be held to account. I agree Tommy. But......the point where problems really started was repeatedly losing at home playing turgid football. It would have been hard to give tickets always to watch it. That is what has smashed the finance model to bits. Like I said fragile. In hindsight we should have sacked McCarthy much earlier. Many on here argued for it and they were correct to do so. People on here argued for MM to go as well. Correct call again. The role is probably needed but the gambled that have been taken on appointments, contracts, cash usage etc... are poor.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Jan 28, 2018 15:56:14 GMT
The course of our problems is Jon McCarthy's dealings in the summer. The responsibility lies with the board, who not only allowed him to stay, but allowed him a ludicrous budget based on 2100 through the gates.
We basically gambled the club's future on a play-off push this season, absolutely disgraceful. Even more laughable was that JON McCARTHY was the man they saw fit to mastermind a promotion push.
Every single one of us knows that unless we're in the top 10, we're going to get gates of 1500 from January onwards. We needed to cut our cloth accordingly and sign young, physically strong players with sell-on value. What we did was wrong in every way imaginable.
|
|
|
Post by rcb on Jan 28, 2018 17:16:08 GMT
The course of our problems is Jon McCarthy's dealings in the summer. The responsibility lies with the board, who not only allowed him to stay, but allowed him a ludicrous budget based on 2100 through the gates. We basically gambled the club's future on a play-off push this season, absolutely disgraceful. Even more laughable was that JON McCARTHY was the man they saw fit to mastermind a promotion push. Every single one of us knows that unless we're in the top 10, we're going to get gates of 1500 from January onwards. We needed to cut our cloth accordingly and sign young, physically strong players with sell-on value. What we did was wrong in every way imaginable. What you say is true, but I feel that all decisions in regard to McCarthy were tainted following his unnecessary contract extension in the January. A club like Chester has never, in the current incarnation, been in a position to justify two year contracts, let alone two year gambles! The cost of firing McCarthy in the summer overruled common sense for the board, and I hold the opinion that they were convinced by Maguire to allow an unrealistic push for promotion. After all, I’m of the opinion that Maguire was instrumental in convincing the board in regard to McCarthy’s contract.
|
|
|
Post by tommytainant on Feb 5, 2018 23:34:03 GMT
Its a fine line isnt it ? One or two wrong decisions can be fatal. We have made a few mistakes over the past few years but maybe our revenues give us a bit more wriggle room.
Anyway, I was pleased to see Mark Howell involved again. Despite his dodgy divvy background he really is a sound lad. I think you will be all right if you all pull together.
|
|
|
Post by boughtonblue on Feb 6, 2018 7:51:14 GMT
The course of our problems is Jon McCarthy's dealings in the summer. The responsibility lies with the board, who not only allowed him to stay, but allowed him a ludicrous budget based on 2100 through the gates. We basically gambled the club's future on a play-off push this season, absolutely disgraceful. Even more laughable was that JON McCARTHY was the man they saw fit to mastermind a promotion push. Every single one of us knows that unless we're in the top 10, we're going to get gates of 1500 from January onwards. We needed to cut our cloth accordingly and sign young, physically strong players with sell-on value. What we did was wrong in every way imaginable. What you say is true, but I feel that all decisions in regard to McCarthy were tainted following his unnecessary contract extension in the January. A club like Chester has never, in the current incarnation, been in a position to justify two year contracts, let alone two year gambles! The cost of firing McCarthy in the summer overruled common sense for the board, and I hold the opinion that they were convinced by Maguire to allow an unrealistic push for promotion. After all, I’m of the opinion that Maguire was instrumental in convincing the board in regard to McCarthy’s contract. I'm interested in your opinion that Maguire was instrumental in JM's two year contract? Do you have any inside info or is it just a hunch? I agree JM's contract and player recruitment has lead us to the point of insolvency. However, at the time of his contract offer we had showed above expected form for 6 months and it was though that we may have found a coach that would deliver us success on a budget and bought in to the fan owned model. Hindsight is a wonderful thing! If he had left us for a better offer a 14 months ago all hell would have broken loose! As pointed out in an earlier post it is a fine line! However, the offer of two year contracts and the 30 game trigger clauses was lunacy with our limited resources. It would be interesting to see who pushed these through (every member of the board must have known). In my humble opinion we need to establish a decent rainy day fund say over 250k, re-establish our community base and identity within the city of Chester and beyond and invest in youth. The club has to stand for something a bit more than results at all costs. Our best days recently were when we attracted families to regional football games (admittedly two leagues lower than where we are now). The our club, our community rang true then and it is heartening to see some of the people back at the club who where heavily involved in those days.
|
|