and you know this how?rasta wrote:Will be interesting tomorrow as most Trust members do not use this site.
Is this blackmail
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
A bit late and not exactly what was in the program last night. PR and spin at work
It would have been useful if this had been revealed a week ago instead of people banging on ( yes that includes me)
In response to Ralphs question to Rasta there are apparenlty 200 members of the trust .
From the statistics at the bottom there are not 200 posters and even if there was some or probably most are not trust members
It would have been useful if this had been revealed a week ago instead of people banging on ( yes that includes me)
In response to Ralphs question to Rasta there are apparenlty 200 members of the trust .
From the statistics at the bottom there are not 200 posters and even if there was some or probably most are not trust members
-
Reliant Robin
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 21:10
Having read the Echo, OS & comments on this thread, I don't believe this is blackmail. I don't deny that I have long admired Paul Baker for what he has done for this Club & it is absolutely clear to me that the decisions and recommendations he has always made have been with the Club's best interest at heart. it is not Paul Baker's fault that the Townsfolk did not back the project (supplemented by the Board) of getting CTFC in the Football League in sufficient numbers & to keep us there ...
The issue here is what the Trust feel best represents Bryan's wishes:
Would Bryan have wanted to punish the Board of Directors for some mistakes that they have readily admitted were made?
Would he have wanted the Trust to consider taking over the running of the Club, with the associated risk of lack of expertise?
Would he have wanted some of the money held back that would mean risking the future of the Club?
Given the choice of backing the Board or sacking the Board based on his say-so - what would Bryan have decided?
If you believe Bryan had the best interests of Cheltenham Town FC at heart, then I think the Trust Members should surely know which way to vote. The future of the Club is therefore already in the Trust's hands. Vote wisely.
The issue here is what the Trust feel best represents Bryan's wishes:
Would Bryan have wanted to punish the Board of Directors for some mistakes that they have readily admitted were made?
Would he have wanted the Trust to consider taking over the running of the Club, with the associated risk of lack of expertise?
Would he have wanted some of the money held back that would mean risking the future of the Club?
Given the choice of backing the Board or sacking the Board based on his say-so - what would Bryan have decided?
If you believe Bryan had the best interests of Cheltenham Town FC at heart, then I think the Trust Members should surely know which way to vote. The future of the Club is therefore already in the Trust's hands. Vote wisely.
Reliant Robin wrote:Having read the Echo, OS & comments on this thread, I don't believe this is blackmail. I don't deny that I have long admired Paul Baker for what he has done for this Club & it is absolutely clear to me that the decisions and recommendations he has always made have been with the Club's best interest at heart. it is not Paul Baker's fault that the Townsfolk did not back the project (supplemented by the Board) of getting CTFC in the Football League in sufficient numbers & to keep us there ...
The issue here is what the Trust feel best represents Bryan's wishes:
Would Bryan have wanted to punish the Board of Directors for some mistakes that they have readily admitted were made?
Would he have wanted the Trust to consider taking over the running of the Club, with the associated risk of lack of expertise?
Would he have wanted some of the money held back that would mean risking the future of the Club?
Given the choice of backing the Board or sacking the Board based on his say-so - what would Bryan have decided?
If you believe Bryan had the best interests of Cheltenham Town FC at heart, then I think the Trust Members should surely know which way to vote. The future of the Club is therefore already in the Trust's hands. Vote wisely.
It is not about punishing the board.It is about making sure the money is not vanishing into a black hole etc.No body wants to see the club going down the tubes,but we need to be care full here with Bryans hard earned.
I'll join the emerging consensus that this isn't blackmail from Paul Baker, just some realpolitik. i think he is right in saying that without the investment being made, the club faces some more serious challenges than with it, especially if we were to be relegated.
I don't think he is correct when he says the issue is in effect a vote of confidence in the Board (him, in reality). Rather, a 'No' vote would be a statement that the Trust membership wants to see a better deal for the investment; greater representation in the running of the club, some transparency about it's ownership and finances, and a greater say in the future of our club. That is more an indictment on the Trust Board as it would be on Paul and the Ltd Company Board, which I think is unfair.
So I have voted 'yes'. Its what Bryan Jacob would, I think, have wanted. We can - via the elected Director - work on getting the trust greater representation from within, rather than just protesting from without. i think the Trust needs to look into how it does some of its work, and look to membership engagement at an earlier stage on matters like this. But that's for another day. Please, Trust Board take this as the constructive criticism that it is intended to be, and not a dig at all your efforts and hard work in getting us this far.
I'm reading into Paul's notes and follow-on interview in the Echo that he sees the Trust as not representative of the whole fan base, which is a fair challenge (and a factually accurate one, at that). Rather, the I think the Trust is a fan-collective, a group of supporters who want to see a greater involvement in their club to secure its long-term future, a group who feel that its not just the individually wealthy that should be able to determine how their football club is run. It is not - in my view - a body that claims to represent all the fan-base (a pretty nebulous thing, and therefore nigh on impossible to represent, I think). Ditching 'FED' in favour of a 'TED' would help clarify that point.
But the Trust - as a fan collective - now wants to invest a significant sum in the club and just like any investor has some conditions to that investment - a Director elected by the membership being one. The terms of that investment is my only issue, not Paul Baker's competence or motives (although I think there have been some weasily words and shifts of positions on the £100K / Board position).
I don't think he is correct when he says the issue is in effect a vote of confidence in the Board (him, in reality). Rather, a 'No' vote would be a statement that the Trust membership wants to see a better deal for the investment; greater representation in the running of the club, some transparency about it's ownership and finances, and a greater say in the future of our club. That is more an indictment on the Trust Board as it would be on Paul and the Ltd Company Board, which I think is unfair.
So I have voted 'yes'. Its what Bryan Jacob would, I think, have wanted. We can - via the elected Director - work on getting the trust greater representation from within, rather than just protesting from without. i think the Trust needs to look into how it does some of its work, and look to membership engagement at an earlier stage on matters like this. But that's for another day. Please, Trust Board take this as the constructive criticism that it is intended to be, and not a dig at all your efforts and hard work in getting us this far.
I'm reading into Paul's notes and follow-on interview in the Echo that he sees the Trust as not representative of the whole fan base, which is a fair challenge (and a factually accurate one, at that). Rather, the I think the Trust is a fan-collective, a group of supporters who want to see a greater involvement in their club to secure its long-term future, a group who feel that its not just the individually wealthy that should be able to determine how their football club is run. It is not - in my view - a body that claims to represent all the fan-base (a pretty nebulous thing, and therefore nigh on impossible to represent, I think). Ditching 'FED' in favour of a 'TED' would help clarify that point.
But the Trust - as a fan collective - now wants to invest a significant sum in the club and just like any investor has some conditions to that investment - a Director elected by the membership being one. The terms of that investment is my only issue, not Paul Baker's competence or motives (although I think there have been some weasily words and shifts of positions on the £100K / Board position).
-
London Exile
- Posts: 3250
- Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 15:48
The club have made a plea for the Trust money to be invested and they've said that it won't be wasted.
Having now said that the club is debt free (apart from the loans to PB and another Director) and with the last of the £500k investment covering any shortfall up to this season, I do feel easier about Bryan's money going to the club and being utilised rather than covering more debt.
I think Trust members were absolutely right to ask questions of the clubs finances and the board to ensure that Bryan's legacy will be used and not squandered.
I hope that irrespective of where we finish, that we've learnt valuable lessons from this season and with the FED and greater supporter interaction, we can develop and thrive as a Football Club.
I am also intrigued and excited that the revenue stream that the board have identified doesn't involve the Trust money. Could this possibly be Cakebridge Place?
Having now said that the club is debt free (apart from the loans to PB and another Director) and with the last of the £500k investment covering any shortfall up to this season, I do feel easier about Bryan's money going to the club and being utilised rather than covering more debt.
I think Trust members were absolutely right to ask questions of the clubs finances and the board to ensure that Bryan's legacy will be used and not squandered.
I hope that irrespective of where we finish, that we've learnt valuable lessons from this season and with the FED and greater supporter interaction, we can develop and thrive as a Football Club.
I am also intrigued and excited that the revenue stream that the board have identified doesn't involve the Trust money. Could this possibly be Cakebridge Place?
Totally agree LE, I had several doubts on how to vote, then I read Mark Halliwel's blog and realised Brian started the trust to get a board member and this is the time to do it. Had the board refused to admit their mistakes and tried to brazen it out I would see things differently, but they held their hands up and said sorry. They have done us proud over the years so let's give them the ammunition to carry this fight forward whatever league we are in.
-
theidlerich
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: 03 Dec 2009, 09:22
- Location: Cotswolds
... I would be extremely concerned at the way 'The Board' are continually "moving the goal posts". If every Board member had to put up a certain sum [whether £50K or £100K] it would at lest be consistent. Q - Have they? If The trust was told some time ago £50 K the they should agree to that. Further they should be up front with the time that person would 'stay on Board' so to speak. Does each and every Board member put up £50K or so per annum, or is it a potential condition just for The Trust? I have a lot of time for PB, he has maintained and carried the club for an exceptionally long time and it is sad to see such potentially 'threatening' comments from him at this time. Perhaps desperation or a sign of the times. I believe the Trust should be absolutely clear on a number of fronts before committing any sum of money to CTFC.
I would also wish to see the Corporation/company/person from The Cayman Islands identified too - see article yesterday in the Guardian [we made headlines along with Man Utd!] - are we happy going along with 'tax avoidance' schemes?
Too many imponderables I believe and also think the Trust may be being a little hasty in its deliberations.
[ ... as an aside I know Mike Collins, but not Clive Gowling. Mike would be an excellent Board member, regardless, and bring a 'lot to the table'].
As said before [ a long past thread] I am not a Trust member; but beginning to have a conscience whether I should be as their aims are very laudable.
I would also wish to see the Corporation/company/person from The Cayman Islands identified too - see article yesterday in the Guardian [we made headlines along with Man Utd!] - are we happy going along with 'tax avoidance' schemes?
Too many imponderables I believe and also think the Trust may be being a little hasty in its deliberations.
[ ... as an aside I know Mike Collins, but not Clive Gowling. Mike would be an excellent Board member, regardless, and bring a 'lot to the table'].
As said before [ a long past thread] I am not a Trust member; but beginning to have a conscience whether I should be as their aims are very laudable.
-
Lonely goat-herd
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 19:04
I've got a lot of sympathy with your viewpoint, idlerich, although I have voted in favour now. I recently rejoined the Trust, having been a member a few years back. Credit to those who have stuck with it and brought it to this point. I would urge people to join if they can afford the £12, and let's try to make the club more accountable and more democratic!theidlerich wrote:... I would be extremely concerned at the way 'The Board' are continually "moving the goal posts". If every Board member had to put up a certain sum [whether £50K or £100K] it would at lest be consistent. Q - Have they? If The trust was told some time ago £50 K the they should agree to that. Further they should be up front with the time that person would 'stay on Board' so to speak. Does each and every Board member put up £50K or so per annum, or is it a potential condition just for The Trust? I have a lot of time for PB, he has maintained and carried the club for an exceptionally long time and it is sad to see such potentially 'threatening' comments from him at this time. Perhaps desperation or a sign of the times. I believe the Trust should be absolutely clear on a number of fronts before committing any sum of money to CTFC.
I would also wish to see the Corporation/company/person from The Cayman Islands identified too - see article yesterday in the Guardian [we made headlines along with Man Utd!] - are we happy going along with 'tax avoidance' schemes?
Too many imponderables I believe and also think the Trust may be being a little hasty in its deliberations.
[ ... as an aside I know Mike Collins, but not Clive Gowling. Mike would be an excellent Board member, regardless, and bring a 'lot to the table'].
As said before [ a long past thread] I am not a Trust member; but beginning to have a conscience whether I should be as their aims are very laudable.
-
Lonely goat-herd
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 19:04
Oh dear. So much for transparency in financial affairs.Ralph wrote:Why should the investor in the Caymans be named? Its no ones business who it is except the boards. Its certainly not the business of fans of the club. They don't need to know. He/she/they might want to remain anonymous and that has to be respected.
I too am happy to see many of the questions answered
I feel that the program notes were written in haste and had to be toned down / modified
I still feel that the goal posts have been moved, and I also think that knowing which league we are in makes a difference to the forward plans
I was always in favour of the money being given but as in all negotiations you get the most for your buck and not done in haste
I am also of the belief that the trust/club need to do something to mark Bryans generosity
Its not my money its the trust as custodians for the club
Why should I mind if more money is wasted on loanees and managers ( bad decisions )
Its not my money so I will have my vote and when the moneys gone well I am sure someone will come along
If the chairman is under so much stress perhaps he needs to give something up - business politics or football
I feel that the program notes were written in haste and had to be toned down / modified
I still feel that the goal posts have been moved, and I also think that knowing which league we are in makes a difference to the forward plans
I was always in favour of the money being given but as in all negotiations you get the most for your buck and not done in haste
I am also of the belief that the trust/club need to do something to mark Bryans generosity
Its not my money its the trust as custodians for the club
Why should I mind if more money is wasted on loanees and managers ( bad decisions )
Its not my money so I will have my vote and when the moneys gone well I am sure someone will come along
If the chairman is under so much stress perhaps he needs to give something up - business politics or football
-
Lonely goat-herd
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 19:04
Personally I'd like him to spend more time with his family.51/84 wrote: If the chairman is under so much stress perhaps he needs to give something up - business politics or football
If the trust have a Director then is absolutely right that the Trust membership know the name of a fellow shareholder and potentially controlling interest holder. However, how then do you keep that out of the public domain when so many know? This is one of the reasons that I think Paul Baker has been anti elected Directors. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.Ralph wrote:Why should the investor in the Caymans be named? Its no ones business who it is except the boards. Its certainly not the business of fans of the club. They don't need to know. He/she/they might want to remain anonymous and that has to be respected.
The only way i can see round it is if the way the club is owned and run is changed. I.e. not through a limited company but via some kind of mutual society. It ain't going to happen though as it precludes one of ways investment is obtained - from benefactors who wish to remain nameless.
Lonely goat-herd wrote:Oh dear. So much for transparency in financial affairs.Ralph wrote:Why should the investor in the Caymans be named? Its no ones business who it is except the boards. Its certainly not the business of fans of the club. They don't need to know. He/she/they might want to remain anonymous and that has to be respected.
Absolutely! sometimes thats just the way it is in life and business..
-
Hubert Parry
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 09:09
After the way Simon Keswick was treated, if I were to give a substantial sum to the club either through the purchase of shares or a loan, I would certainly make my anonymity a condition.
But, I'd argue, not football. As a supporter of CTFC, I am a stakeholder. What happens to my football club is important to me. I want to know who could screw over my club. At the moment, all I know is that someone, nameless could. Whilst assurances have been given that all the major shareholders have the club's best interests at heart, as in life and business, those assurances can be worth jack all.....Ralph wrote:Lonely goat-herd wrote:Oh dear. So much for transparency in financial affairs.Ralph wrote:Why should the investor in the Caymans be named? Its no ones business who it is except the boards. Its certainly not the business of fans of the club. They don't need to know. He/she/they might want to remain anonymous and that has to be respected.
Absolutely! sometimes thats just the way it is in life and business..
-
Lonely goat-herd
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 19:04
I couldn't agree more.Artemis wrote:But, I'd argue, not football. As a supporter of CTFC, I am a stakeholder. What happens to my football club is important to me. I want to know who could screw over my club. At the moment, all I know is that someone, nameless does, and they have given me assurances that they have the club's best interests at heart. But as in life and business, those assurances can be worth jack all.....
Simon Keswick. if you believe what you read on the internet backed off investing when fans started telling him on here that because he was worth some money, he should investing it in the club. If true, that don't go down well some times. I have no idea of the truth of that but as a business owner that sponsors a very small sports team here in my State in the US, i could quite understand if he just didn't want the hassle
-
London Exile
- Posts: 3250
- Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 15:48
I share HP's thoughts in that if I was to ever donate I'd rather remain anonymous.
Whoever donates to Cheltenham Town I am extremely grateful to them and no matter what my criticisms of the board in the past may be, they have put a sizeble share of their money into the club which is more than I can afford to do.
Therefore I'll be voting Yes tonight
Whoever donates to Cheltenham Town I am extremely grateful to them and no matter what my criticisms of the board in the past may be, they have put a sizeble share of their money into the club which is more than I can afford to do.
Therefore I'll be voting Yes tonight