|
Post by rcb on Jun 5, 2018 10:03:46 GMT
Just a few questions. Was it Calvin Hughes who, recently, was adamant that Chester had to continue as a full-time club? Is he still involved in the football working group? Have Jonno and Bernie pointed out that the only option is to go part-time, in which case there can be no future for Calvin Hughes at the club? Why? What was it somebody posted above about a witch hunt? Seriously? You must be having a laugh. The finances for full-time didn’t add up and only by scraping the bottom of the barrel could players have been obtained. The man is a clueless narcissist who has a polarised view to that of the new management team, and many of the fans too. Too many fans defending useless people over the years got us to last January’s situation. Witch hunt my arse. We got dragged down and almost drowned, and the causes need publicising and future potential for a repeat eliminating. If anyone wants to play God by all means buy their own church and spend their own money.
|
|
|
Post by Lobster on Jun 5, 2018 10:08:04 GMT
The whole part-time/full-time thing was a pretty silly episode I thought. Just the sort of public squabble we didn't need. I don't know why we couldn't just take advice on from people like Neil Young who have been there and done it before.
That said, I would not say a difference of opinion means someone can't have a role at the club. Calvin seems to be highly regarded by people within the board and I don't doubt he does a lot of good work. Sadly, I don't think he speaks or listens very well, and that's about all you can really judge him on as an outsider.
I'm trying to judge the current board on their own actions, as it's not their fault that they're picking up the pieces from Mark Maguire's disastrous reign and what I see as a pretty petulant and unhelpful resignation from Simon Olorenshaw. The full-time argument and the way Bignot was sacked are things they've got wrong so far, but other matters like the managerial appointment (including not caving in to Redfearn) and handling the investment have been conducted encouragingly well.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Jun 5, 2018 10:52:41 GMT
Why? What was it somebody posted above about a witch hunt? Seriously? You must be having a laugh. The finances for full-time didn’t add up and only by scraping the bottom of the barrel could players have been obtained. The man is a clueless narcissist who has a polarised view to that of the new management team, and many of the fans too. Too many fans defending useless people over the years got us to last January’s situation. Witch hunt my arse. We got dragged down and almost drowned, and the causes need publicising and future potential for a repeat eliminating. If anyone wants to play God by all means buy their own church and spend their own money. You obviously have an agenda against someone who served as our club secretary voluntarily for four years - was he useless then? For some reason some fingers have pointed directly at one member of a 10-strong board, and who was nowhere near the club at the time, for all of our problems and it's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Jun 5, 2018 11:18:09 GMT
Just a few questions. Was it Calvin Hughes who, recently, was adamant that Chester had to continue as a full-time club? Is he still involved in the football working group? Have Jonno and Bernie pointed out that the only option is to go part-time, in which case there can be no future for Calvin Hughes at the club? And just for balance Marcus Bignot was ALSO adamant that we remain full time next season what with the transition for a full time scholarship programme and to ensure that these lads were going into a full time coaching setup when they made the step up. Obviously that was before all the business of him being given the boot.
But hey, it's another opportunity for RCB to stick the boot in without giving the full story.
|
|
|
Post by Hannibal on Jun 5, 2018 11:19:49 GMT
Seriously? You must be having a laugh. The finances for full-time didn’t add up and only by scraping the bottom of the barrel could players have been obtained. The man is a clueless narcissist who has a polarised view to that of the new management team, and many of the fans too. Too many fans defending useless people over the years got us to last January’s situation. Witch hunt my arse. We got dragged down and almost drowned, and the causes need publicising and future potential for a repeat eliminating. If anyone wants to play God by all means buy their own church and spend their own money. You obviously have an agenda against someone who served as our club secretary voluntarily for four years - was he useless then? For some reason some fingers have pointed directly at one member of a 10-strong board, and who was nowhere near the club at the time, for all of our problems and it's wrong. Now that we're a part-time club again, do we really need to be paying a salary to Tony Allen. If that is where CH's skill set is, why don't we invite him to resume that position and thus supplement other areas where cash is short.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Jun 5, 2018 11:31:53 GMT
May recollection from CFU meetings attended, and I might be wrong, was that it was the Boards stated collective view that we should go/remain full time and as a member and spokesman for the FWG Calvin worked to get that end. I feel that the biggest influences on this thinking have been Burr/McCarthy/Maguire and most vociferously Bignot, i.e. the so called football clubs professional managers. The recruitment process allowed the selection panel and board to question candidates about which was the best model going forward full/hybrid/parttime. Indeed this may have come across as a weakness from the club not knowing or understanding what it wanted and impact on some candidates desire to work here. At the end of the day the selection panel came to what most of us think was the right answer and appointed no nonsense, plain speaking guys rather than inward looking people with their own agenda and egos. Interesting that Bignot is now a co manager at a part time club, exactly the opposite of what he was,trying to promote here, so glad he has gone. So yes Calvin Hughes has come across badly at times, and didn't do things always in the right way, but he was part of the decision making to get rid of Bignot and appoint the new management team and to go part time.
|
|
|
Post by rcb on Jun 5, 2018 14:54:32 GMT
Just a few questions. Was it Calvin Hughes who, recently, was adamant that Chester had to continue as a full-time club? Is he still involved in the football working group? Have Jonno and Bernie pointed out that the only option is to go part-time, in which case there can be no future for Calvin Hughes at the club? And just for balance Marcus Bignot was ALSO adamant that we remain full time next season what with the transition for a full time scholarship programme and to ensure that these lads were going into a full time coaching setup when they made the step up. Obviously that was before all the business of him being given the boot.
But hey, it's another opportunity for RCB to stick the boot in without giving the full story.
Interesting that you come across as supporting a system, full-time model in this case, which the new management team have fully explained as not viable. Does that mean that you too, like CH know more than the new management? By all accounts CH was a good secretary, and no criticism from me there. Brian Kidd was a great assistant at United, as was Mike Phelan, but not at the next level. Have a read of The Peter Principle. Please read my statement again and you will see I only asked questions, none as yet answered. Bignot? Conference North manager at best. Always knew our destiny as soon as he was appointed.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Jun 5, 2018 17:54:35 GMT
And just for balance Marcus Bignot was ALSO adamant that we remain full time next season what with the transition for a full time scholarship programme and to ensure that these lads were going into a full time coaching setup when they made the step up. Obviously that was before all the business of him being given the boot.
But hey, it's another opportunity for RCB to stick the boot in without giving the full story.
Interesting that you come across as supporting a system, full-time model in this case, which the new management team have fully explained as not viable. Does that mean that you too, like CH know more than the new management? By all accounts CH was a good secretary, and no criticism from me there. Brian Kidd was a great assistant at United, as was Mike Phelan, but not at the next level. Have a read of The Peter Principle. Please read my statement again and you will see I only asked questions, none as yet answered. Bignot? Conference North manager at best. Always knew our destiny as soon as he was appointed. I didn't give an opinion on whether I felt full time, part time or hybrid were the best models I stated a fact that the well paid professional manager - at the time - begged for the club to remain full time next season. Do the board and working group ignore that advice at the time?
|
|
|
Post by rcb on Jun 5, 2018 18:34:03 GMT
Interesting that you come across as supporting a system, full-time model in this case, which the new management team have fully explained as not viable. Does that mean that you too, like CH know more than the new management? By all accounts CH was a good secretary, and no criticism from me there. Brian Kidd was a great assistant at United, as was Mike Phelan, but not at the next level. Have a read of The Peter Principle. Please read my statement again and you will see I only asked questions, none as yet answered. Bignot? Conference North manager at best. Always knew our destiny as soon as he was appointed. I didn't give an opinion on whether I felt full time, part time or hybrid were the best models I stated a fact that the well paid professional manager - at the time - begged for the club to remain full time next season. Do the board and working group ignore that advice at the time? Happy to answer your question. The board have an obligation to ensure the well being of the football club. They have no obligation to support a deluded manager who is striving for a financially ruinous model. Such a ridiculous desire to remain full-time rendered his position untenable and the inevitable happened.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Jun 6, 2018 6:08:28 GMT
The board have always said the decision on FT-PT status will be taken based on the opinions of the management team.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lime on Jun 6, 2018 8:16:21 GMT
The board have always said the decision on FT-PT status will be taken based on the opinions of the management team. That maybe where part of the problem lies. We, as a club, should always take advice from the right people. However, the decision on whether to be full time or part time is a fundamental one. It changes the whole ethos of the club. The DNA. Remember that? Employees will tend to say what will keep them in a job, or make the job easier. Managers will say what gives them the best chance of winning games or looking good. We should decide on full time / part time and employ the best appropriate people that fit that DNA. That includes bringing through youth players, style of play etc etc. It was a no brainer to go part time this season. Given we need 12+ players for about £125k. Marcus was saying what suited him. Calvin as head of football working group was probably supporting his manager.
|
|
|
Post by rjshbdhmtrm on Jun 6, 2018 8:35:48 GMT
. . . so what exactly came out of Richard’s report at last might’s meeting?
|
|
|
Post by alancfc on Jun 6, 2018 8:53:35 GMT
Can someone post the report here on DC if anyone has a copy, not all of us can make it to the CFU meetings. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by dmcnally on Jun 6, 2018 8:58:55 GMT
Can someone post the report here on DC if anyone has a copy, not all of us can make it to the CFU meetings. Thanks Believe you can email Marion Needham quoting your name and CFU membership number to request a copy.
|
|
mike
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by mike on Jun 6, 2018 9:20:18 GMT
Can someone post the report here on DC if anyone has a copy, not all of us can make it to the CFU meetings. Thanks A copy of the report is available to current CFU members, on request to secretary Marion Needham email : marion.needham@chesterfc.com It's not to be posted on public forums.
|
|
|
Post by flanno7hi on Jun 6, 2018 9:56:29 GMT
Report last night said next to nothing that we didn't already know. To me, it glossed over the increase on playing budget as it didn't state who decided or approved it.
I've asked for my copy so I'll have a read and see if I just missed that bit.
Most interesting part of last night (besides hearing from the new managers) was the little information regarding the large donation. There's an NDA in place so we weren't told what the amount may be or what the strings attached are. Apparently they want input into exactly what the money is spent on. Are we are members going to get a say in whether we accept the money and any conditions? I'd rather be 3 divisions down with our fans owned model than have another dodgy money man in.
|
|
|
Post by bing on Jun 6, 2018 10:26:36 GMT
Report last night said next to nothing that we didn't already know. To me, it glossed over the increase on playing budget as it didn't state who decided or approved it. I've asked for my copy so I'll have a read and see if I just missed that bit. Most interesting part of last night (besides hearing from the new managers) was the little information regarding the large donation. There's an NDA in place so we weren't told what the amount may be or what the strings attached are. Apparently they want input into exactly what the money is spent on. Are we are members going to get a say in whether we accept the money and any conditions? I'd rather be 3 divisions down with our fans owned model than have another dodgy money man in. The money is earmarked for infrastructure projects. Judging by the sort of things Stuart Murphy spoke about, we must be looking at many hundreds of thousands of pounds, so it would only be right that he could have at least some input, perhaps by the power of veto.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Owen’s Paintbrush on Jun 6, 2018 10:44:26 GMT
Yes, although it's a donation to the club he's still a multi millionaire giving us a significant sum so it's fair for him to earmark and ringfence the funds for specific things.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Jun 6, 2018 11:17:33 GMT
Much of the report presented last night highlighted that the club has never since 2010 had a board of directors with the right combination of skills to manage our affairs properly and diligently. Our constitution apparently currently prevents "advertising" for individuals with specifics skills to encourage them to stand for election. The next AGM is in September and the closing date for people to put themselves forward for election was stated to be I think 18th June, less than 2 weeks away. This means the situation is likely to remain unchanged this time round. We need more fresh blood on the board but worryingly seem to again be heading to a situation where vacancies may exceed nominees, particularly if co-opted board members do not put themselves forward. We seem to have a number of really good people on the board now, but they are few in number and can't reasonably be expected to carry the burden alone. Perhaps the best way forward for now s more co-opted members, or more non voting executive directors with the rights skills.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Jun 6, 2018 11:56:21 GMT
Yes I would think quite rightly that there will be stipulations on how and when any monies can be spent. Because it's exactly the same thing I would do if I have the money as well.
If it was someone just chucking a load of money at the club and saying "there you go, do what you like with it" the likelihood is that, when the AGM comes around, the Board would change, the board would change leadership, and the money could be at risk of being pissed up the wall on an unsustainable playing budget.
It is quite right that any significant donation be ringfenced for infrastructure projects. That way, once we start to generate more income through Commercial, Hospitality, Sponsorship and Matchday revenues, we can invest that money back into the Football side sustainably.
That, in my opinion would be why we have had full legal due diligence as there would be stuff to iron out such as - how would the money be ringfenced, how do the club access the money just for infrastructure improvements (so that there are no black holes) for example.
This is really exciting stuff, and, if I'm being honest. This could be our "Duke of Westminster" moment, where it could change everything for us - for the better.
|
|
mike
Junior Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by mike on Jun 6, 2018 12:40:25 GMT
Much of the report presented last night highlighted that the club has never since 2010 had a board of directors with the right combination of skills to manage our affairs properly and diligently. Our constitution apparently currently prevents "advertising" for individuals with specifics skills to encourage them to stand for election. The next AGM is in September and the closing date for people to put themselves forward for election was stated to be I think 18th June, less than 2 weeks away. This means the situation is likely to remain unchanged this time round. We need more fresh blood on the board but worryingly seem to again be heading to a situation where vacancies may exceed nominees, particularly if co-opted board members do not put themselves forward. We seem to have a number of really good people on the board now, but they are few in number and can't reasonably be expected to carry the burden alone. Perhaps the best way forward for now s more co-opted members, or more non voting executive directors with the rights skills. 18th of June date is just the deadline for prospective candidates to secure CFU membership. ie. those standing for election must have been CFU members for three months before the election.
|
|
|
Post by superman on Jun 6, 2018 13:47:53 GMT
Much of the report presented last night highlighted that the club has never since 2010 had a board of directors with the right combination of skills to manage our affairs properly and diligently. Our constitution apparently currently prevents "advertising" for individuals with specifics skills to encourage them to stand for election. The next AGM is in September and the closing date for people to put themselves forward for election was stated to be I think 18th June, less than 2 weeks away. This means the situation is likely to remain unchanged this time round. We need more fresh blood on the board but worryingly seem to again be heading to a situation where vacancies may exceed nominees, particularly if co-opted board members do not put themselves forward. We seem to have a number of really good people on the board now, but they are few in number and can't reasonably be expected to carry the burden alone. Perhaps the best way forward for now s more co-opted members, or more non voting executive directors with the rights skills. 18th of June date is just the deadline for prospective candidates to secure CFU membership. ie. those standing for election must have been CFU members for three months before the election. Thanks for correction, makes a bit more sense now, although I still feel may have a shortfall in skills as any necessary changes to constitution will not be considered or come into effect soon. CFU/club needs publicising call for candidates now, they can surely identify skill shortage area without making this requirement for candidates.
|
|