The Robins Trust, the FED and representing fans' views

[Robins Trust Chair]

Hi all,

We are acutely aware of the strong feelings of supporters regarding the events of recent times, and both the Trust - and especially our FED Dave Beesley - wanted to try and explain what we, and he, have been doing.

It's neither right - or necessarily legal - for either of us to give a running commentary on things, but we are trying to communicate as often - and as candidly - as we can.

So in that spirit, please have a look at this: https://www.robinstrust.org/posts/state ... e-beesley/

[andgarod]

sorry am I missing something

The statement does not tell me anything about what the trust or the FED has been doing recently
It does tell me why and how the process works but no content
I assume reading between the lines its about the SLO but it could be the sacking of the manager or something else completely different

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

sorry am I missing something

The statement does not tell me anything about what the trust or the FED has been doing recently
It does tell me why and how the process works but no content
I assume reading between the lines its about the SLO but it could be the sacking of the manager or something else completely different

It says the FED has been involved in all the Board level discussions, meetings, votes etc to put forward the view of Trust members - but for obvious reasons these can’t be disclosed in detail.

This was a one-off FED statement. If you want the regular updates on what the Trust as a whole has been doing, why not join the Trust and receive the newsletter?

[Ihearye]

Are you able to tells us how you voted on agenda items? What of your / our suggestions have been voted down Irrespective of the final outcome?
This is dangerous ground because whatever your views, they can be / could be seen as negative and questioning effort. However, a previous response highlighted the board taking on our suggestions on Pride, Women in football and the food outlets. These would appear to me (and me alone), to be 'soft' actions to be agreed to. Yes they are important, but hardly ground breaking items for the 'fans' to be given support on.
This is my personal perspective and a perspective only. It has often been said that the club survives via the money that comes through the turnstiles and as such the information that filters out of the boardroom is minimal and vague at its best. It may be I am not reading the correct publications or attending the right forums. This week has been a fine example, we learn more and in advance from the Echo than we did from the club. The issue here is, some may say it was obvious, but I don't expect to read the decision in the local rag, a couple of days before the axe falls. What way is that to be handling your employees? Where is the duty of care?

I have said before Dave, yours is a thankless task and you will get your reward in heaven!

[Ihearye]

sorry am I missing something

The statement does not tell me anything about what the trust or the FED has been doing recently
It does tell me why and how the process works but no content
I assume reading between the lines its about the SLO but it could be the sacking of the manager or something else completely different

It says the FED has been involved in all the Board level discussions, meetings, votes etc to put forward the view of Trust members - but for obvious reasons these can’t be disclosed in detail.

This was a one-off FED statement. If you want the regular updates on what the Trust as a whole has been doing, why not join the Trust and receive the newsletter?

As a source for information, what does / would one learn from the Trust newsletter? If collective responsibility is the mantra - then is much detail revealed ?

[Robins Trust Chair]

Thanks for clarifying RCS.

Andgarod, if not clear, let me try to be absolutely to the point.

Was the FED part of the decision-making process in the last week. YES.
Can he, or the Trust, comment on that process. NO.
Is the FED a full member of the CTFC board, with the same voting rights as any other member of the board. YES.
Can the FED provide a running commentary on CTFC board matters. NO.

-----

On a side note, we are trying really hard to up our game in communications. It's something that was the results of a survey we conducted last season along with the player of the year vote.

We have taken steps to address that. And want to increase our outgoing comms. Not only will the communication be sent monthly to members, we will post it - about a week later normally - on our website.

In fact, the wonderful HookyRobin (good lad, him) has updated our site with the previous communications this week, so all can be seen.

[Si Robin]

James - thanks for the updates. One quick question - why is he not allowed to say how he voted on certain things, such as Wade's sacking (sorry - leaving by mutual consent)?

That's not asking for a running commentary, or asking for votes made by other members on the board, but if he's voting on decisions on behalf of Trust members then why can't Trust members know how he voted?

[Ihearye]

James - thanks for the updates. One quick question - why is he not allowed to say how he voted on certain things, such as Wade's sacking (sorry - leaving by mutual consent)?

That's not asking for a running commentary, or asking for votes made by other members on the board, but if he's voting on decisions on behalf of Trust members then why can't Trust members know how he voted?

A very pertinent point I would have thought. I am taking it the views of the trust members was sought?

[asl]

Just to throw my 2.5p in: the recent Trust SLO comms it was said that Dave couldn't comment on that due to being on the board (I forget the actual wording). I didn't understand the reason why not and felt that was exactly the sort of thing a FAN-ELECTED director *should* be feeding back on. Capitalised to make the link to the SLO obvious. Nobody's asking for transcripts and meeting minutes, just some clarity. I agree with ihearye: I wouldn't want the job and I'm not criticising anyone involved, doing a role I know I couldn't (also why I never criticise radio commentators). It's just that I didn't see why it was blindingly obvious the FED could not comment on what happened with the SLO.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

James - thanks for the updates. One quick question - why is he not allowed to say how he voted on certain things, such as Wade's sacking (sorry - leaving by mutual consent)?

That's not asking for a running commentary, or asking for votes made by other members on the board, but if he's voting on decisions on behalf of Trust members then why can't Trust members know how he voted?

It’s to do with collective responsibility. Once the Board votes, the whole Board then stand behind the collective decision and the individual votes are never disclosed publicly.

It is important fans remember this, not just with the FED but other directors. E.g. Clive may vote against overspending as finance director but if the majority want to overspend then we overspend. Fans would be wrong to blame the finance director.

I always assumed this is why Wilcox was removed, i.e if he was doing stuff the Board had voted against or without having votes.

I do wonder if the Trust can get round this without breaching any collective responsibility agreements.

For example, the Trust could say “our members want X to happen, and we have recommended to the FED he tables the suggestion at Board meetings”.

That wouldn’t reveal a) if it was a ever voted on or b) who voted for against.

It's just that I didn't see why it was blindingly obvious the FED could not comment on what happened with the SLO.

I assumed it would be because it would be a conflict.

He couldn’t support the Trust/SLO statement because he would be criticising himself and the Board and due to collective responsibility he couldn’t criticise the Board.

Equally he couldn’t defend the Board as it would look like he then wasn’t representing the fans/ Trust/ SLO.

And ultimately, I guess any statement from the Board on the SLO would be approved by the Board as a collective and published under Bloxham’s name.

[Si Robin]

The collective responsibility thing actually makes sense and I hadn't considered it. Thanks RCS.

[andgarod]

Thank you Chair and FED for the posting

I fully understand that there is collective responsibility and commercial sensitivity. ( I have been a trustee and secretary of several charities/business so know where thing need to be done properly

I think the point is made by others, what items are taken to the board and what was the outcome ?
I fully accept that the FED cannot come out and say the board is about to sack the manager

The trust represents me as I have been a member since early days but I believe it suffers from those that know someone gets to hear while others are in complete darkness. Please note RCS I already receive the trust news letters

If there is collective responsibility in the boardroom who briefed the Echo or was it a good guess?
I dont want to hear news from a podcast when the trust or the board can put out facts not speculation

I have read the posts and see that trust nor the FED can comment on the process in the last week
Where I have asked for an explanation of the process is now and how it goes forward ie will there be an interview short list following on from applications?
How has the board reacted to the SLO stepping down and what are they doing about it
Has the trust proposed away forward and has it been raised by the FED

Interesting in you say neither the trust or the FED comment on the process in the last week
quote Can he, or the Trust, comment on that process. NO. end quote
If I was being cynical this means the trust knew that process

Clear and timely communications always help

THank you for all the work and effort the trust and FED do it does help

[Ihearye]

James - thanks for the updates. One quick question - why is he not allowed to say how he voted on certain things, such as Wade's sacking (sorry - leaving by mutual consent)?

That's not asking for a running commentary, or asking for votes made by other members on the board, but if he's voting on decisions on behalf of Trust members then why can't Trust members know how he voted?

It’s to do with collective responsibility. Once the Board votes, the whole Board then stand behind the collective decision and the individual votes are never disclosed publicly.

It is important fans remember this, not just with the FED but other directors. E.g. Clive may vote against overspending as finance director but if the majority want to overspend then we overspend. Fans would be wrong to blame the finance director.

I always assumed this is why Wilcox was removed, i.e if he was doing stuff the Board had voted against or without having votes.

I do wonder if the Trust can get round this without breaching any collective responsibility agreements.

For example, the Trust could say “our members want X to happen, and we have recommended to the FED he tables the suggestion at Board meetings”.

That wouldn’t reveal a) if it was a ever voted on or b) who voted for against.

It's just that I didn't see why it was blindingly obvious the FED could not comment on what happened with the SLO.

I assumed it would be because it would be a conflict.

He couldn’t support the Trust/SLO statement because he would be criticising himself and the Board and due to collective responsibility he couldn’t criticise the Board.

Equally he couldn’t defend the Board as it would look like he then wasn’t representing the fans/ Trust/ SLO.

And ultimately, I guess any statement from the Board on the SLO would be approved by the Board as a collective and published under Bloxham’s name.

That is all true and valid for most boards, yet not always water tight.
It was this that led me to wonder a week or two back as to what the FED is actually able to achieve, what the trust got for their 200k. Seems they can't feed back to trust members on how successful or not any motions were that they put forward. They can't answer questions on any disquiet among the fan base, that may have been addressed in the board meeting.
I am just unsure how a FED, there to represent the fans, can actually function on the board when he can't truly represent them. This is a totally different equation to other board members, who we quite rightly can't run an eye over their every move, on your example the finance. Even though it has often been said in the past, oh we asked but he wouldn't let is have the money, or similar. They are their either by being shareholders or have been invited on so are answerable to nobody, so collective silence is nothing for them

I may be wrong and as it stands we will never know. I get the impression there is a power block on the board and while yes, everyone has one vote, the groupings do not line up that way.
It also appears people in the trust can't ask, what have we achieved having an FED as that again is covered by the omerta. I am waiting for the board to tell 'us' to look after the cross bar challenge.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

James - thanks for the updates. One quick question - why is he not allowed to say how he voted on certain things, such as Wade's sacking (sorry - leaving by mutual consent)?

That's not asking for a running commentary, or asking for votes made by other members on the board, but if he's voting on decisions on behalf of Trust members then why can't Trust members know how he voted?

It’s to do with collective responsibility. Once the Board votes, the whole Board then stand behind the collective decision and the individual votes are never disclosed publicly.

It is important fans remember this, not just with the FED but other directors. E.g. Clive may vote against overspending as finance director but if the majority want to overspend then we overspend. Fans would be wrong to blame the finance director.

I always assumed this is why Wilcox was removed, i.e if he was doing stuff the Board had voted against or without having votes.

I do wonder if the Trust can get round this without breaching any collective responsibility agreements.

For example, the Trust could say “our members want X to happen, and we have recommended to the FED he tables the suggestion at Board meetings”.

That wouldn’t reveal a) if it was a ever voted on or b) who voted for against.

It's just that I didn't see why it was blindingly obvious the FED could not comment on what happened with the SLO.

I assumed it would be because it would be a conflict.

He couldn’t support the Trust/SLO statement because he would be criticising himself and the Board and due to collective responsibility he couldn’t criticise the Board.

Equally he couldn’t defend the Board as it would look like he then wasn’t representing the fans/ Trust/ SLO.

And ultimately, I guess any statement from the Board on the SLO would be approved by the Board as a collective and published under Bloxham’s name.

That is all true and valid for most boards, yet not always water tight.
It was this that led me to wonder a week or two back as to what the FED is actually able to achieve, what the trust got for their 200k. Seems they can't feed back to trust members on how successful or not any motions were that they put forward. They can't answer questions on any disquiet among the fan base, that may have been addressed in the board meeting.
I am just unsure how a FED, there to represent the fans, can actually function on the board when he can't truly represent them. This is a totally different equation to other board members, who we quite rightly can't run an eye over their every move, on your example the finance. Even though it has often been said in the past, oh we asked but he wouldn't let is have the money, or similar. They are their either by being shareholders or have been invited on so are answerable to nobody, so collective silence is nothing for them

I may be wrong and as it stands we will never know. I get the impression there is a power block on the board and while yes, everyone has one vote, the groupings do not line up that way.
It also appears people in the trust can't ask, what have we achieved having an FED as that again is covered by the omerta. I am waiting for the board to tell 'us' to look after the cross bar challenge.

Someone from the Trust Board posted in a different thread that the Fan Led Review chose not to recommend clubs have an FED after hearing our experience. Presumably due to the challenges discussed.

Speaking of the Fan Led Review. We should be proud the Trust have been so influential at a national level, which obviously consumed time and energy. Now it’s done that time and energy can be focused closer to home, whilst we should all benefit when the review proposals are implemented.

I personally think the FED was the start, not the end. The more members the Trust has, and the more it invests in the Club, the more clout it has in its own right.

Imagine the Trust has 3,000 members and tens or hundreds of thousands earned each year.

Then, when the FED tables a proposition - or speaks against a different proposition - they can add “by the way, the Trust is deciding what to do with £50,000 surplus from this year’s membership.”

That may influence how other Board members vote…..

[Ihearye]

It’s to do with collective responsibility. Once the Board votes, the whole Board then stand behind the collective decision and the individual votes are never disclosed publicly.

It is important fans remember this, not just with the FED but other directors. E.g. Clive may vote against overspending as finance director but if the majority want to overspend then we overspend. Fans would be wrong to blame the finance director.

I always assumed this is why Wilcox was removed, i.e if he was doing stuff the Board had voted against or without having votes.

I do wonder if the Trust can get round this without breaching any collective responsibility agreements.

For example, the Trust could say “our members want X to happen, and we have recommended to the FED he tables the suggestion at Board meetings”.

That wouldn’t reveal a) if it was a ever voted on or b) who voted for against.



I assumed it would be because it would be a conflict.

He couldn’t support the Trust/SLO statement because he would be criticising himself and the Board and due to collective responsibility he couldn’t criticise the Board.

Equally he couldn’t defend the Board as it would look like he then wasn’t representing the fans/ Trust/ SLO.

And ultimately, I guess any statement from the Board on the SLO would be approved by the Board as a collective and published under Bloxham’s name.

That is all true and valid for most boards, yet not always water tight.
It was this that led me to wonder a week or two back as to what the FED is actually able to achieve, what the trust got for their 200k. Seems they can't feed back to trust members on how successful or not any motions were that they put forward. They can't answer questions on any disquiet among the fan base, that may have been addressed in the board meeting.
I am just unsure how a FED, there to represent the fans, can actually function on the board when he can't truly represent them. This is a totally different equation to other board members, who we quite rightly can't run an eye over their every move, on your example the finance. Even though it has often been said in the past, oh we asked but he wouldn't let is have the money, or similar. They are their either by being shareholders or have been invited on so are answerable to nobody, so collective silence is nothing for them

I may be wrong and as it stands we will never know. I get the impression there is a power block on the board and while yes, everyone has one vote, the groupings do not line up that way.
It also appears people in the trust can't ask, what have we achieved having an FED as that again is covered by the omerta. I am waiting for the board to tell 'us' to look after the cross bar challenge.

Someone from the Trust Board posted in a different thread that the Fan Led Review chose not to recommend clubs have an FED after hearing our experience. Presumably due to the challenges discussed.

Speaking of the Fan Led Review. We should be proud the Trust have been so influential at a national level, which obviously consumed time and energy. Now it’s done that time and energy can be focused closer to home, whilst we should all benefit when the review proposals are implemented.

I personally think the FED was the start, not the end. The more members the Trust has, and the more it invests in the Club, the more clout it has in its own right.

Imagine the Trust has 3,000 members and tens or hundreds of thousands earned each year.

Then, when the FED tables a proposition - or speaks against a different proposition - they can add “by the way, the Trust is deciding what to do with £50,000 surplus from this year’s membership.”

That may influence how other Board members vote…..

Exactly and that is why lazy ejits like me need to know what the end game is. Quite happy to throw some money that way, if I knew what I was throwing it at

[Robins Trust Chair]

Interesting chat re aims and ambitions.

It is something we are working on as a Trust board at the moment. Creating a list of achievable goals and then ambitious targets.

Without giving too much away, the long-term target will be to try and achieve community ownership of our club.

Only going to take a few million quid, so easy enough.


And re the Fan Led Review - lots of time and effort, as you say - perhaps the best thing I've ever had the pleasure of being involved in - even though it did involve meeting Nadine Dorries!!

But it's only the start and nowhere near complete. Plenty to do still.

[Robin]

One question for the RT Chair, why do you feel community ownership is the desirable end state?

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Interesting chat re aims and ambitions.

It is something we are working on as a Trust board at the moment. Creating a list of achievable goals and then ambitious targets.

Without giving too much away, the long-term target will be to try and achieve community ownership of our club.

Only going to take a few million quid, so easy enough.


And re the Fan Led Review - lots of time and effort, as you say - perhaps the best thing I've ever had the pleasure of being involved in - even though it did involve meeting Nadine Dorries!!

But it's only the start and nowhere near complete. Plenty to do still.

Meeting with Nadine Dorries must have made the CTFC Facebook group seem like a Mensa forum.

[Ihearye]

Interesting chat re aims and ambitions.

It is something we are working on as a Trust board at the moment. Creating a list of achievable goals and then ambitious targets.

Without giving too much away, the long-term target will be to try and achieve community ownership of our club.

Only going to take a few million quid, so easy enough.


And re the Fan Led Review - lots of time and effort, as you say - perhaps the best thing I've ever had the pleasure of being involved in - even though it did involve meeting Nadine Dorries!!

But it's only the start and nowhere near complete. Plenty to do still.

Meeting with Nadine Dorries must have made the CTFC Facebook group seem like a Mensa forum.

Now now, any more personal attacks and we won't let you mention 'Mission' again

[Ihearye]

One question for the RT Chair, why do you feel community ownership is the desirable end state?

Also, what are the 39 steps?

[Robins Trust Chair]

Ultimately, it is the most sustainable and secure ownership model.

If the community that supports the club owns it, or holds a majority stake, you are never beholden to one person, benevolent or otherwise.

Every club that has ever been threatened with liquidation is almost always down to being promised the earth by one person, and then receiving a grain of sand instead.

[plymrob]

Some interesting discussions. Especially as to why community ownership is the panacea.

For now, on this thread, I just want to know why or how we are talking about (2.5p) - a sixpenth worth? It's surely 1/2d or 1d (one penny's worth) - and even with inflation, a sixpence (a silver one) is what you you should only now see in a Christms Pudding. Maybe a good analagy for this season though

There is surely no decimal equivalent...?

[leohoenig]

One question for the RT Chair, why do you feel community ownership is the desirable end state?

Also, what are the 39 steps?

The 39 steps is the first of a series of five books by John Buchan, featuring Richard Hannay as the hero

[leohoenig]

Ultimately, it is the most sustainable and secure ownership model.

If the community that supports the club owns it, or holds a majority stake, you are never beholden to one person, benevolent or otherwise.

Every club that has ever been threatened with liquidation is almost always down to being promised the earth by one person, and then receiving a grain of sand instead.

What follows it a personal note - it should not be taken as a Trust view, but that of one member of the Trust

In the current climate though, not every club has stayed in community ownership. Some trusts have relinquished some or all of their control to allow an investor to have control of the club.

Our chair is stating principals, (which I personally agree with) that we would like to be the long term targets of the trust. The trust is one person, one vote at the AGM, (sometime in November). Any member can propose different targets for the trust and we can debate them fully at the AGM. I would love there to be an AGM with a high proportion of the trust membership debating how the trust should operate.

I can understand those that are cynical about the trust on hear and other forums, but it is an open organisation. You can join and change things. Its up to you, not me.

[Ihearye]

One question for the RT Chair, why do you feel community ownership is the desirable end state?

Also, what are the 39 steps?

The 39 steps is the first of a series of five books by John Buchan, featuring Richard Hannay as the hero

Well the memory man says it is an international organisation intent on causing war

[Jerry St Clair]

The collective responsibility thing actually makes sense and I hadn't considered it. Thanks RCS.

It is.

But I guess the follow up question is "How does the FED assure themselves that they are voting in line with Trust member views?". When asked, should we sack Wade, what does the FED do before casting their vote? Take soundings from Trust members? Hold a vote? Go and have a look on the Nest?

I'm a Trust member. I don't necessarily want chapter and verse on everything. I guess the statement of long term goals mentioned by HookyRobin will provide that assurance. Short term decisions would need to align with those.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

The collective responsibility thing actually makes sense and I hadn't considered it. Thanks RCS.

It is.

But I guess the follow up question is "How does the FED assure themselves that they are voting in line with Trust member views?". When asked, should we sack Wade, what does the FED do before casting their vote? Take soundings from Trust members? Hold a vote? Go and have a look on the Nest?

I'm a Trust member. I don't necessarily want chapter and verse on everything. I guess the statement of long term goals mentioned by HookyRobin will provide that assurance. Short term decisions would need to align with those.

For me it’s a case of trust in the Trust. Members elect the FED because we believe they will represent the collective interest of fans and we have to let them get on with it.

On longer-term things - say if the club were deciding between to relocating or redeveloping - then I think Trust members should have a vote after which the Trust Chair makes a recommendation to the FED. The FED doesn’t have to follow the recommendation.

[Si Robin]

It's effectively like voting for your MP isn't it? You expect them to represent you in Parliament, but they don't come to you for your opinion on every decision.

[Ihearye]

It's effectively like voting for your MP isn't it? You expect them to represent you in Parliament, but they don't come to you for your opinion on every decision.

No it's not, you know how they vote, you hear the debate, you know if they vote in favour of items you disagree with. The cabinet goes with collective responsibility, but not silent collective responsibility

[Si Robin]

Again, a fair point. I meant that broadly in terms of voting for the FED (it is an elected role remember) that you're voting for someone to represent you.

As we know, voting in an MP doesn't necessarily mean they're going to vote the way you want them to.

[Robins Trust Chair]

The collective responsibility thing actually makes sense and I hadn't considered it. Thanks RCS.

It is.

But I guess the follow up question is "How does the FED assure themselves that they are voting in line with Trust member views?". When asked, should we sack Wade, what does the FED do before casting their vote? Take soundings from Trust members? Hold a vote? Go and have a look on the Nest?

I'm a Trust member. I don't necessarily want chapter and verse on everything. I guess the statement of long term goals mentioned by HookyRobin will provide that assurance. Short term decisions would need to align with those.

For me it’s a case of trust in the Trust. Members elect the FED because we believe they will represent the collective interest of fans and we have to let them get on with it.

On longer-term things - say if the club were deciding between to relocating or redeveloping - then I think Trust members should have a vote after which the Trust Chair makes a recommendation to the FED. The FED doesn’t have to follow the recommendation.

Trying to answer as many of these questions as I/we can.

On the point on the FED representing the membership. It's a skill in itself. Dave is not someone who is ever in the boardroom on a matchday, he's always around the ground trying to gauge views.

He's a participant in numerous text groups, has a Trust board from a wide section of the fan base who are in constant communications, and we all read the nest, the Facebook group (gulp!) and keep abreast of twitter/x.

Yes, what RCS is true, he is trusted to represent the views of the fans - but more than that. He actually has a written code that he has to abide by, one formalised by the FSA to ensure the FED is doing what they should.

On the point about longer term things, RCS is right if we were to have a major issue, we would call for a vote of membership. The decision to invest Bryan Jacob's legacy was a vote of the membership at a EGM.

And in that case the FED would have to follow the recommendation, as that is what is marked in the written code.