Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[robininstockport]

It lays the right objectives, but not enough specifics on how to reach them.

[distancetraveller]

The key paragraph is number 6.
If the board don't take it forward then nothing will change... I still feel that there needs to be at changes at board level and new blood brought in.

Another key thing out of all these proposals is down to one thing... The necessity for a new/right management team  to be in place and the right players need to be sourced.  We do not want players on contracts who just go through the motions and the club being unable to afford to get rid of them.
Fitness being another vital pre-requisite prior to the start of the next campaign. Without this we will continue to struggle whichever league we are in.

[Bob]

I dont think it should be for this report to offer specific solutions. They have highlighted the different issues - there is a lot of strong criticism in there - and its up to the board to respond. They should have the answers, not the two guys who compiled the report.

As others have said, Sunday is what really matters.

[Teasierbeaver]

A few worrying things in there:

The board perceive themselves as weak and divided. Where's the division exactly? How long has that been and why has nothing significant changed?

Five year plan? They don't work, why bind yourself to targets across the whole unit on such a timeline? Seems a poor recommendation to me.

Seems there's more review that strategy. Very high level points made on how to move forward, no real depth to the analysis. Hopefully that's just because it's a summary.

There seems to me to be some alarming misunderstanding of some of the inputs. I don't think people are asking for a single shareholder or being bankrolled. I'm not sure anyone is against the ownership structure. It's the silent partners involved and a shareholding that includes many people that don't represent the level of inclusion the average fan has for the club.

The people who love the club the most are likely to be most vocal and angry at our current plight and they're singled out as opposition as ballers said, but also an angry minority. That's a very poor representation of the clubs most loyal support if you ask me, and I don't count myself as one of them.

Like others have said I'm keen to know what is intended as follow up actions and how they are implemented. In my experience it's very easy to deliver this kind of analysis and very rare it's acted upon accordingly.

To the board: surprise me please.

[GB Alty]

As expected a total white wash written by a Rowley family friend to keep Rowley and family in power

Who expected anything else?

[Sale Holmfield]

As expected a total white wash written by a Rowley family friend to keep Rowley and family in power

Who expected anything else?

That's a bit harsh, as the report does call for the board to refresh itself, although that word "opponents" does nag away at me. It obviously depends in the first instance how the board react and re-establish trust with the "stakeholders", and if any open, inclusive and meritocratic (interestingly, there is no mention of it being democratic) process is put into place.

Maybe I am either a cynic or easily satisfied, but it was less of a whitewash than I was expecting.

[taxi Phil]

 before you know it we will be playing Nantwich
 

Since Nantwich are looking good for the glue league playoffs, they may be out of our orbit next season.

[Ashley Alty]

Just read it.  I hope very much to be able to go to the meeting on Sunday but as I have major treatment this Thursday, there is a very large chance that I simply will not be well enough.  So I will try to write questions for others to ask on my behalf but I really want to hear what is said and what others ask.

Will there be any recording at all?

Thank you

[Jezza]

I found it a very well written concise summary of the blindingly obvious.

It does put our current situation and reasons for it into black and white.

Im surprised while it calls in small part for new investment it doesnt make more of the fact that the numerous major shareholders we have are completely apathetic toward the plight of the club.

Surprised also the word thriving wasnt mentioned...

[wayno]

I found it a very well written concise summary of the blindingly obvious.

It does put our current situation and reasons for it into black and white.

Im surprised while it calls in small part for new investment it doesnt make more of the fact that the numerous major shareholders we have are completely apathetic toward the plight of the club.

Surprised also the word thriving wasnt mentioned...

teaser

[Ballers]

Slightly disingenuous in its reference point starting as 2011-12, i.e. Wages have doubled since then. As this was Lee Sinnott's first season and the budget had been severely cut due to paying off GH. I won't comment on whatever amount it was but the point is that it wasn't a normal season budget wise.

Also, inaccurate to say the CSH wasn't done without recourse to club funds. The club loaned it £25k (which became £46k). It may well have been paid back in full (?) and with appropriate interest (??). I'm not decrying per se but surprised at that inaccuracy.

I think how we can funnel more of the CSH profits (which have to be spent as it's not for profit) to the club as costs is a key issue going forward, I'd like to see a target set.

Also, I'm not bothered about a clique, real or perceived, as long as the club is run properly.

[cheshire cat]

Good point about 2011 - 12 not being a true baseline. It is trying to show the last five years though and the conclusions (from the graphs) are still the same if you look at the last four years.

Lee Sinnott did OK with the money that was made available to him in 11 -12 though. We didn't visit the glue league 

[Malty G]

 I get the impression that some statements have been lifted directly from Club releases with no eye to their veracity.( It's not as if Peter Foster doesn't know what monies the club loaned to the CSH is it?) And a thorough report would have cited its sources. As for the meaningless "contributing circa £60K per annum directly to Club funds through increased bar and event takings" that was misleading the first time the club said it and is has not become any clearer in the meantime. The notion of the report being "independent" is ludicrous.

[Graham Bennetts Perm]

Thanks for the efforts involved in putting this together, but it does really suffer from not being independent. I sincerely hope there is a strategic thinker on the Board, or that one can be found rapidly. otherwise it looks like we are heading for managed decline.
I'd also like to see an analysis of the root cause of a) Lee Sinnott's detachment and subsequent departure and, b) the failure of the process for managerial appointments, and some specific actions to deal with the root causes of both.

[Ian J]

For me, this doesn’t cover anything that hasn’t been mentioned on the forum previously. It’s a useful document for putting all the issues/feedback in one place and I guess you could argue it adds some colour to certain situations, but not much.

Personally I was expecting much more from a review that has taken so long.

It simply seems a useful starting point to begin discussions at the Review Meeting, which is probably no bad thing, but I hope the meeting will provide some clearer answers than this paper has.