I keep on saying it - none of those culpable for the string of disastrous decisions last year should have any role our future running, be it on the board, on this totally untrustworthy FWG or both.
But who else is there?
I think it’s a bit of an extreme reaction to say none of them at all should have anything to do with the club’s running. Collectively they didn’t do enough but there’s only so much one person can do.
No one has been given a chance, even help is shut down from the word go, even ignored.
I keep on saying it - none of those culpable for the string of disastrous decisions last year should have any role our future running, be it on the board, on this totally untrustworthy FWG or both.
But who else is there?
I think it’s a bit of an extreme reaction to say none of them at all should have anything to do with the club’s running. Collectively they didn’t do enough but there’s only so much one person can do.
Olorenshaw, young, Bignot, paul baker. All have offered support, but been ignored by Calvin "my way" Hughes.
I think it’s a bit of an extreme reaction to say none of them at all should have anything to do with the club’s running. Collectively they didn’t do enough but there’s only so much one person can do.
Olorenshaw, young, Bignot, paul baker. All have offered support, but been ignored by Calvin "my way" Hughes.
I wouldn't disagree that Calvin is pushing his luck, I'm just not sure that completely decimating the board is the answer.
Olorenshaw, young, Bignot, paul baker. All have offered support, but been ignored by Calvin "my way" Hughes.
I wouldn't disagree that Calvin is pushing his luck, I'm just not sure that completely decimating the board is the answer.
Of course it isn't the answer.
Who is going to step up? Last time we had Neil Bellis, David O'Toole and co step up onto the board, and it's likely that's the type of people we would have step up again.
Decimating the board is not the answer. If the board need extra bodies following from the resignations of Olerenshaw and Howell then they should advertise 2 positions for co-option from now until the AGM. If changes need to be made then wait until the AGM in September/October and see who and what sort of calibre of person decides to step up for election.
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Apr 24, 2018 11:07:57 GMT
Would be good to see all of these people so passionately telling us of the problem to offer up a potential solution by making public their intention to stand for election later this year. They can only have the same busy lives and other commitments as the past and present board members have...
Would be good to see all of these people so passionately telling us of the problem to offer up a potential solution by making public their intention to stand for election later this year. They can only have the same busy lives and other commitments as the past and present board members have...
So no one can have an opinion about how Chester is being run on a Chester forum unless they stand for election? Righty ho...nurse...
Would be good to see all of these people so passionately telling us of the problem to offer up a potential solution by making public their intention to stand for election later this year. They can only have the same busy lives and other commitments as the past and present board members have...
So no one can have an opinion about how Chester is being run on a Chester forum unless they stand for election? Righty ho...nurse...
Doesn't say that does he..
He's made a perfectly valid point. Those calling on heads to roll on the board also need to come up with a viable solution not just the same old - sack the board - line without actually thinking of the consequences of that.
It's all too easy to sling mud, and abuse at volunteer board members. But when they stand down, who steps up? Will you step up EB? What about Paulie and the other guy who liked that post of yours?
So no one can have an opinion about how Chester is being run on a Chester forum unless they stand for election? Righty ho...nurse...
Doesn't say that does he..
He's made a perfectly valid point. Those calling on heads to roll on the board also need to come up with a viable solution not just the same old - sack the board - line without actually thinking of the consequences of that.
It's all too easy to sling mud, and abuse at volunteer board members. But when they stand down, who steps up? Will you step up EB? What about Paulie and the other guy who liked that post of yours?
I won't, no. Running 2 kids football teams, a full time job and a family keeps me nice and busy thanks. Still won't stop me offering an opinion. Would like you to show me a post where I have called for someones head in recent weeks though.
I think the point most are trying to make is not pointing the finger at ‘the Board’ but pointing out glaring deficiencies in the process. Although the Board approved the co-option of three members it must be assumed that all three had a personal proposer as per the AGM elections. Who were they? Out of the three one has resigned, one has split the fanbase down the middle and the third is trying desperately hard to pick up all the pieces. Since we were reformed many people have come out of nowhere to be co-opted on to the Board but as fans this often comes out of the Blue and most of us never really get to know them. I would regard that I am in a good position in getting to know many of those running the club but to this day (and not a dig at him personally) but apparently Mr Dee 103 was on our now defunct Ops Board but I still have no clue who he is! My point is that I personally think there are serious flaws in our co-option process and it needs to be made more transparent to the wider fanbase.
I think the point most are trying to make is not pointing the finger at ‘the Board’ but pointing out glaring deficiencies in the process. Although the Board approved the co-option of three members it must be assumed that all three had a personal proposer as per the AGM elections. Who were they? Out of the three one has resigned, one has split the fanbase down the middle and the third is trying desperately hard to pick up all the pieces. Since we were reformed many people have come out of nowhere to be co-opted on to the Board but as fans this often comes out of the Blue and most of us never really get to know them. I would regard that I am in a good position in getting to know many of those running the club but to this day (and not a dig at him personally) but apparently Mr Dee 103 was on our now defunct Ops Board but I still have no clue who he is! My point is that I personally think there are seriousflawsinourco-optionprocess and it needs to be made more transparent to the wider fanbase.
Agree with that.
It appears that co-opted members are mates of the existing Board, and proposed by them. That could mean we don't get a good cross section of views. You tend to invite people who agree with your own view. Although that doesn't seem to be the case with Calvin Hughes!
Mind you, the election process to the Board is hardly fault free. We try to elect people based on a paragraph of blurb about their support for the club. Re-electing Board members isn't much better. After two years, we still know what they've achieved, or how they voted on any single motion. That simply isn't good enough.
Another issue is the remit given to head of football working group, or Maguire, or 1st team manager. There doesn't seem to be lines of management or responsibility in place. They seem to do what they want, rather than what the club has set out, without any controls. Club DNA was a big buzz word under Grenville. But what is it?
Last Edit: Apr 25, 2018 17:14:38 GMT by Harry Lime
I think the point most are trying to make is not pointing the finger at ‘the Board’ but pointing out glaring deficiencies in the process. Although the Board approved the co-option of three members it must be assumed that all three had a personal proposer as per the AGM elections. Who were they? Out of the three one has resigned, one has split the fanbase down the middle and the third is trying desperately hard to pick up all the pieces. Since we were reformed many people have come out of nowhere to be co-opted on to the Board but as fans this often comes out of the Blue and most of us never really get to know them. I would regard that I am in a good position in getting to know many of those running the club but to this day (and not a dig at him personally) but apparently Mr Dee 103 was on our now defunct Ops Board but I still have no clue who he is! My point is that I personally think there are serious flaws in our co-option process and it needs to be made more transparent to the wider fanbase.
good post, it seems to be friends of friends that are co- opted which lets be honest isnt fair. 1600 plus cfu members, and no appeal from the club for volunteers to be considered for co-option says it all
He's made a perfectly valid point. Those calling on heads to roll on the board also need to come up with a viable solution not just the same old - sack the board - line without actually thinking of the consequences of that.
It's all too easy to sling mud, and abuse at volunteer board members. But when they stand down, who steps up? Will you step up EB? What about Paulie and the other guy who liked that post of yours?
I won't, no. Running 2 kids football teams, a full time job and a family keeps me nice and busy thanks. Still won't stop me offering an opinion. Would like you to show me a post where I have called for someones head in recent weeks though.
You haven't but Bambi has constantly called for all board members to resign with no obvious consideration of the implications of it.
James... In towards Iwelumo... Oh and they've missed him at the back post! BEN HENEGHAN, has won it for Chester!! With the very last kick of the game!!
All too often I have read about the fan owned model, with certain members claiming to be “owners”, in a somewhat superior manner, and in particular how they control the football club through their ability to vote representatives onto or off the board, as if it was a simple process. For £12 you don’t get much nowadays, that’s for sure. What was intended as a strength of a fan owned model is currently a weakness that is unfortunately being exploited by some. Too many “owners”, none of whom have any individual power whatsoever, and a voting system which relies on an ever diminishing pool of volunteers, leaves the club vulnerable as a consequence of allowing board members to be co-opted and thus avoid the very process of democratic election that was intended. Presently I read about considerable concern towards what appears to be a personal agenda adopted by Calvin Hughes. He wasn’t elected and yet seems to have the power to do what he wants, mostly against the wishes of the many. If he wasn’t voted on then how can he have such power? At least Vaughan put his own money in before becoming the controlling dictator. Over 80 applicants for the manager’s job and yet only a shortlist of 4? I can’t believe 76 can be simply rejected as a consequence of a paper exercise, and with the suspicion that shortlisting lacked professional competence anyway. Surely a long-list of at least 8 should have been possible prior to arriving at a shortlist of 4. I’m sure that some of those 76 rejected could have legal grounds to challenge their rejection, when comparing their CV’s/applications against those who were successfully shortlisted. I haven’t read anyone suggesting “all” board members resign, but this is the exaggeration that crops up when one or more board members receive criticism. Worrying times.
All too often I have read about the fan owned model, with certain members claiming to be “owners”, in a somewhat superior manner, and in particular how they control the football club through their ability to vote representatives onto or off the board, as if it was a simple process. For £12 you don’t get much nowadays, that’s for sure. What was intended as a strength of a fan owned model is currently a weakness that is unfortunately being exploited by some. Too many “owners”, none of whom have any individual power whatsoever, and a voting system which relies on an ever diminishing pool of volunteers, leaves the club vulnerable as a consequence of allowing board members to be co-opted and thus avoid the very process of democratic election that was intended. Presently I read about considerable concern towards what appears to be a personal agenda adopted by Calvin Hughes. He wasn’t elected and yet seems to have the power to do what he wants, mostly against the wishes of the many. If he wasn’t voted on then how can he have such power? At least Vaughan put his own money in before becoming the controlling dictator. Over 80 applicants for the manager’s job and yet only a shortlist of 4? I can’t believe 76 can be simply rejected as a consequence of a paper exercise, and with the suspicion that shortlisting lacked professional competence anyway. Surely a long-list of at least 8 should have been possible prior to arriving at a shortlist of 4. I’m sure that some of those 76 rejected could have legal grounds to challenge their rejection, when comparing their CV’s/applications against those who were successfully shortlisted. I haven’t read anyone suggesting “all” board members resign, but this is the exaggeration that crops up when one or more board members receive criticism. Worrying times.
I think your first paragraph there is excellent, but then I didn't really agree with anything else you went on to say.
Four seems a sensible number of applicants to interview to me. How do you know there wasn't a 'long-list'? Does the entire process of whittling down the applicants need to be made public? I'm pretty sure there are no legal grounds to challenge a job rejection unless you feel you have been discriminated against due to race, gender, disability, sexual orientation etc.
Bambi has repeatedly suggested that all board members who oversaw the problems we found ourselves in should step down, and has done so on this very thread. He's not the only one. He's entitled to that point of view and others are entitled to disagree, but it's not an exaggeration to say that there are people who want the entire board removed.
All too often I have read about the fan owned model, with certain members claiming to be “owners”, in a somewhat superior manner, and in particular how they control the football club through their ability to vote representatives onto or off the board, as if it was a simple process. For £12 you don’t get much nowadays, that’s for sure. What was intended as a strength of a fan owned model is currently a weakness that is unfortunately being exploited by some. Too many “owners”, none of whom have any individual power whatsoever, and a voting system which relies on an ever diminishing pool of volunteers, leaves the club vulnerable as a consequence of allowing board members to be co-opted and thus avoid the very process of democratic election that was intended. Presently I read about considerable concern towards what appears to be a personal agenda adopted by Calvin Hughes. He wasn’t elected and yet seems to have the power to do what he wants, mostly against the wishes of the many. If he wasn’t voted on then how can he have such power? At least Vaughan put his own money in before becoming the controlling dictator. Over 80 applicants for the manager’s job and yet only a shortlist of 4? I can’t believe 76 can be simply rejected as a consequence of a paper exercise, and with the suspicion that shortlisting lacked professional competence anyway. Surely a long-list of at least 8 should have been possible prior to arriving at a shortlist of 4. I’m sure that some of those 76 rejected could have legal grounds to challenge their rejection, when comparing their CV’s/applications against those who were successfully shortlisted. I haven’t read anyone suggesting “all” board members resign, but this is the exaggeration that crops up when one or more board members receive criticism. Worrying times.
I agree to have a short-list of 4 when there were supposedly over 60 'genuine' applicants does seem a bit on the low side. Could there have been a predetermined choice of manager.? To have called in 8 for interview would would have made more sense IMO.
All too often I have read about the fan owned model, with certain members claiming to be “owners”, in a somewhat superior manner, and in particular how they control the football club through their ability to vote representatives onto or off the board, as if it was a simple process. For £12 you don’t get much nowadays, that’s for sure. What was intended as a strength of a fan owned model is currently a weakness that is unfortunately being exploited by some. Too many “owners”, none of whom have any individual power whatsoever, and a voting system which relies on an ever diminishing pool of volunteers, leaves the club vulnerable as a consequence of allowing board members to be co-opted and thus avoid the very process of democratic election that was intended. Presently I read about considerable concern towards what appears to be a personal agenda adopted by Calvin Hughes. He wasn’t elected and yet seems to have the power to do what he wants, mostly against the wishes of the many. If he wasn’t voted on then how can he have such power? At least Vaughan put his own money in before becoming the controlling dictator. Over 80 applicants for the manager’s job and yet only a shortlist of 4? I can’t believe 76 can be simply rejected as a consequence of a paper exercise, and with the suspicion that shortlisting lacked professional competence anyway. Surely a long-list of at least 8 should have been possible prior to arriving at a shortlist of 4. I’m sure that some of those 76 rejected could have legal grounds to challenge their rejection, when comparing their CV’s/applications against those who were successfully shortlisted. I haven’t read anyone suggesting “all” board members resign, but this is the exaggeration that crops up when one or more board members receive criticism. Worrying times.
Others have picked up on some of your paragraphs but I'd like to comment on your summary of Calvin Hughes' apparent power. There is a collective board of directors that ultimately have the final, collective, say on matters, and this has always been the case since 2010. Democratic board making democratic decisions unless a vote is tied in which case the Chairman has the final say.
I would, however, agree that the number of interviewed candidates is surprisingly low given the 62(?) genuine applications. Would've expected eight to ten to be interviewed but then, as pointed out above, we can't know for sure that the board decided to pick four out of 62 immediately without doing anything in-between.
All too often I have read about the fan owned model, with certain members claiming to be “owners”, in a somewhat superior manner, and in particular how they control the football club through their ability to vote representatives onto or off the board, as if it was a simple process. For £12 you don’t get much nowadays, that’s for sure. What was intended as a strength of a fan owned model is currently a weakness that is unfortunately being exploited by some. Too many “owners”, none of whom have any individual power whatsoever, and a voting system which relies on an ever diminishing pool of volunteers, leaves the club vulnerable as a consequence of allowing board members to be co-opted and thus avoid the very process of democratic election that was intended. Presently I read about considerable concern towards what appears to be a personal agenda adopted by Calvin Hughes. He wasn’t elected and yet seems to have the power to do what he wants, mostly against the wishes of the many. If he wasn’t voted on then how can he have such power? At least Vaughan put his own money in before becoming the controlling dictator. Over 80 applicants for the manager’s job and yet only a shortlist of 4? I can’t believe 76 can be simply rejected as a consequence of a paper exercise, and with the suspicion that shortlisting lacked professional competence anyway Surely a long-list of at least 8 should have been possible prior to arriving at a shortlist of 4. I’m sure that some of those 76 rejected could have legal grounds to challenge their rejection, when comparing their CV’s/applications against those who were successfully shortlisted. I haven’t read anyone suggesting “all” board members resign, but this is the exaggeration that crops up when one or more board members receive criticism. Worrying times.
There was a former manager involved in the consultation and one involved in the selection and interview process I believe?
All too often I have read about the fan owned model, with certain members claiming to be “owners”, in a somewhat superior manner, and in particular how they control the football club through their ability to vote representatives onto or off the board, as if it was a simple process. For £12 you don’t get much nowadays, that’s for sure. What was intended as a strength of a fan owned model is currently a weakness that is unfortunately being exploited by some. Too many “owners”, none of whom have any individual power whatsoever, and a voting system which relies on an ever diminishing pool of volunteers, leaves the club vulnerable as a consequence of allowing board members to be co-opted and thus avoid the very process of democratic election that was intended. Presently I read about considerable concern towards what appears to be a personal agenda adopted by Calvin Hughes. He wasn’t elected and yet seems to have the power to do what he wants, mostly against the wishes of the many. If he wasn’t voted on then how can he have such power? At least Vaughan put his own money in before becoming the controlling dictator. Over 80 applicants for the manager’s job and yet only a shortlist of 4? I can’t believe 76 can be simply rejected as a consequence of a paper exercise, and with the suspicion that shortlisting lacked professional competence anyway. Surely a long-list of at least 8 should have been possible prior to arriving at a shortlist of 4. I’m sure that some of those 76 rejected could have legal grounds to challenge their rejection, when comparing their CV’s/applications against those who were successfully shortlisted. I haven’t read anyone suggesting “all” board members resign, but this is the exaggeration that crops up when one or more board members receive criticism. Worrying times.
Others have picked up on some of your paragraphs but I'd like to comment on your summary of Calvin Hughes' apparent power. There is a collective board of directors that ultimately have the final, collective, say on matters, and this has always been the case since 2010. Democratic board making democratic decisions unless a vote is tied in which case the Chairman has the final say.
I would, however, agree that the number of interviewed candidates is surprisingly low given the 62(?) genuine applications. Would've expected eight to ten to be interviewed but then, as pointed out above, we can't know for sure that the board decided to pick four out of 62 immediately without doing anything in-between.
That is clearly debatable while Mark Maguire was here.
I won't, no. Running 2 kids football teams, a full time job and a family keeps me nice and busy thanks. Still won't stop me offering an opinion. Would like you to show me a post where I have called for someones head in recent weeks though.
You haven't but Bambi has constantly called for all board members to resign with no obvious consideration of the implications of it.
Nope, I haven't asked for ALL current board members to go. You've read my posts and given no obvious consideration to what I actually said.
You haven't but Bambi has constantly called for all board members to resign with no obvious consideration of the implications of it.
Nope, I haven't asked for ALL current board members to go. You've read my posts and given no obvious consideration to what I actually said.
But you have said that every board member involved in leading us to the financial trouble should not be involved in our future running. That, I think, would only leave Jeff Banks and Calvin Hughes on the current board.
I won't, no. Running 2 kids football teams, a full time job and a family keeps me nice and busy thanks. Still won't stop me offering an opinion. Would like you to show me a post where I have called for someones head in recent weeks though.
You haven't but Bambi has constantly called for all board members to resign with no obvious consideration of the implications of it.
The people of Facebook and Twitter are constantly at it as well regards "getting rid of the lot of them". Too much emotion and not enough consideration for what a mass board walkout would actually mean regards the day to day operation of the club.
Nope, I haven't asked for ALL current board members to go. You've read my posts and given no obvious consideration to what I actually said.
But you have said that every board member involved in leading us to the financial trouble should not be involved in our future running. That, I think, would only leave Jeff Banks and Calvin Hughes on the current board.
Yep - and its not just the financial running I base that on either. I thought there were other fans who could take us forward waiting to step up - I was very disappointed when MH & SO walked away so soon.
In fact, its their departure that worries me most about whats happening behind the scenes.
If there is nobody else then I take it back and will resign myself to hoping all is well.
But you have said that every board member involved in leading us to the financial trouble should not be involved in our future running. That, I think, would only leave Jeff Banks and Calvin Hughes on the current board.
Yep - and its not just the financial running I base that on either. I thought there were other fans who could take us forward waiting to step up - I was very disappointed when MH & SO walked away so soon.
In fact, its their departure that worries me most about whats happening behind the scenes.
If there is nobody else then I take it back and will resign myself to hoping all is well.
I share the same concerns, there are current board members who oversaw the retention of McCarthy, the blowing of last seasons budget, ignoring the financial crisis, poor handling of Bignot's sacking etc etc and naturally you question whether they should be on the board as do most Chester fans, but is there anyone out there with the time, skills and will to take on the finance portfolio? Or be the Secretary? Because at the moment it doesn't look like there is and as much as I have concerns about the current arrangements, I think it would be greater cause for concern if those mentioned were forced out without obvious replacements.
James... In towards Iwelumo... Oh and they've missed him at the back post! BEN HENEGHAN, has won it for Chester!! With the very last kick of the game!!