www.altyfans.co.uk
General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: Mausoleum Alty on October 26, 2016, 01:41:30 PM
-
Personally I'd say no. I've no idea who is but the current board have made too many irreversible errors and alienated the fans too many times now to continue.
-
However this nightmare of a season ends, for the club to move forward together it will need people at the top who are not tainted by the recent catastrophic misjudgements. So if they have the best interests of the club at heart, the current board should be actively looking for people to whom to hand over the running of the club.
-
Its more than Yes or No for me.
If they carry on isolating large groups of supporters and not making it clear how they intend to help pull us through this mess then they can go, and the sooner the better.
But I actually believe the best course of action is for them to start making a few changes and improving their accountability. It would be quicker, less painful and be a awful lot more valuable to the club if they did that than walk away and let someone else pick up the mess. They are watching all of their hard and amazing work off the pitch slide into irrelevance as each day passes and they rely on stubbornness to hold position and maintain its not their fault.
Time to man up basically
-
Until fairly recently I wouldn't even have asked the question. What is looking likely to be two consecutive relegations has completely changed my mind. There was some talk on the terraces last night of losing sponsorship deals should we go down. This would be intolerable and would reverse all the good work done for years.
-
The board has done an excellent job steering the ship over the years, it takes a lot of time and effort, they do not get paid or take a dividend.
I do believe though we need some new investment coming in. If it will happen not sure but i hope it does, the club has to evolve.
-
Also some of the community projects are funded by the Conference Trust and they will also end with relegation. Something which the Board must be concerned about.
-
Many people don't feel inspired to help the current board. That says all it needs to me.
There either needs to be public change in personal, or a public change in attitude.
-
The board has done an excellent job steering the ship over the years, it takes a lot of time and effort, they do not get paid or take a dividend.
I do believe though we need some new investment coming in. If it will happen not sure but i hope it does, the club has to evolve.
I assume that you're excluding 2016 ?
-
I voted No.
My reasons for that vote are .......,They gave Toulson the job when it was obvious that he had been part of the problem, then they did nothing to try and stave off relegation, then we had the NLP fiasco followed by the Chairman stating he was sorry to see NY leave the club when everyone else was hoping he would go, this was all topped off by a meet the board meeting where Mr Shaw gave me the impression he thought that half of us were stupid and I got the impression he treated some of the audience like we were something he discovered on the sole of his shoe..
Sadly their is a Chasm between most the fans and the board..
-
New ownership, new leadership and a new vision for the Club. All desperately needed. Each one can't be achieved without the other two.
A strong bond between supporters and the Club is also required now, as we potentially face a situation where attendances and income will plummet, but the overheads of course, won't.
It looks like there will be a new share issue at AFC Telford, the aim is to raise £0.5 million - we need something radical here too.
-
i Dont blame the board or the previous one for our problems,just the opposite in fact.Our troubles started in the Burman era i think it was,when the club was almost broke.Thank god for GG and the GR for at least giving us the chance of a club still being here.What we do need is cash coming in that can bring in better players and not just bringing in someone quickly just because they are available and crap,at least Jim is not rushing into things.I thing we have to put this season to bed and settle for a mid table place and then push on next year from there.I have been watching Alty since 1963 and cannot remember such a bad squad as we have now.Why is Cyrus playing instead of Heathcote and the youg lad who came on at Torquay last season Saville where has he gone? he looked a tidy player.
-
How can you blame Gerry Berman for our current problems? Yes he left us in a mess financially but he never forgot that first and foremost we are a football club. We are also a million miles away from finishing mid table. Take off your rose tinted spectacles - we are in a mess and to blame a man who was last involved 14 years ago is laughable
-
I'm wary of being too critical to a group of people I do get along with, or at least have done. Neither do I want to be two faced in that regard. However, I support the football club, not whoever happens to be in charge at the time. And believe it or not, a few who appear overly personal about it (Jamie for one) are actually on the level about it too.
I'd say that for a variety of reasons over the past 18 months which are now actually too many to list and it doesn't feel like it does any good listing them anyway that from a footballing, community (as in understanding and relating to fans, not the local community), financial and long term planning viewpoint I have little or no confidence that our current board are capable of leading us forward effectively.
And even taking away that you can't rewrite history or undo decisions etc I don't even see any honesty, accountability , apologies or understanding that could ease some of these fears, just a closing of ranks and a dismissive attitude - which I should say is in many respects an understandable natural reaction - for all that I'm typing here I couldn't promise you I'd be a big enough man to react as I've suggested if I was to get the flak Grahame Rowley has.
Re the above - the one bit I do acknowledge is the board not using the Anthony Griffith farce as an excuse, that was good.
But Grahame's response last year that the way ahead was to get more volunteers and looking back wistfully at when we did have lots, showed me that the time has come to move forward, times do change even though lots of good work has been done and I hope our board individually and collectively are honest enough to evaluate whether they should be part of taking the club forward.
It feels like I've been putting money in buckets for 15 years (75% of my adult life) and there needs to be coherent reasons for that.
-
How can you blame Gerry Berman for our current problems? Yes he left us in a mess financially but he never forgot that first and foremost we are a football club. We are also a million miles away from finishing mid table. Take off your rose tinted spectacles - we are in a mess and to blame a man who was last involved 14 years ago is laughable
Would you say the success of the football team is more important that the financial stability of the club? (I suppose they go hand in hand to an extent)
Personally I can't fault the board for the way they've steered us into financial safety, they grow the club within its means and give the manager as much as possible to build a squad. I also don't understand how some can completely blame them for our failures on the pitch.
Firstly Tolson thought he could keep the team up, we don't know who might have been available at the time but if he comes to the board and says I can give this my best then fine. (It's a gamble no one can guarantee safety) if we'd gone for a completely new manager and he'd failed we might have been having a go at the board for committing to someone and giving them a big contract.
With hindsight the board got it wrong but I don't believe for a second that they just said "oh it's fine give Neil the job, that way we don't need to do anything more"
The big mistake was Neil Young, admittedly I'd guess it was another long process and again we don't know who the other candidates were but when a manager comes in and wants to get rid of a majority of the squad, bring in a lot youth players and heavily use the loan market then it rings alarm bells in my opinion. Many here thought it was a good appointment and agreed with the board so it just goes to show how difficult it can be to make the correct decision.
This is not me defending the board, there is a lot they need to work on I think but I'm just trying to get into their mindset and see how they might view things in this regard. I'd also say to some be careful what you wish for, there were calls on here for Lee Sinnott to go after our first playoff defeat a few years ago. Change doesn't always equal success.
What a difference 5 points can make eh?
-
How can you blame Gerry Berman for our current problems? Yes he left us in a mess financially but he never forgot that first and foremost we are a football club. We are also a million miles away from finishing mid table. Take off your rose tinted spectacles - we are in a mess and to blame a man who was last involved 14 years ago is laughable
Would you say the success of the football team is more important that the financial stability of the club? (I suppose they go hand in hand to an extent)
Personally I can't fault the board for the way they've steered us into financial safety, they grow the club within its means and give the manager as much as possible to build a squad. I also don't understand how some can completely blame them for our failures on the pitch.
Firstly Tolson thought he could keep the team up, we don't know who might have been available at the time but if he comes to the board and says I can give this my best then fine. (It's a gamble no one can guarantee safety) if we'd gone for a completely new manager and he'd failed we might have been having a go at the board for committing to someone and giving them a big contract.
With hindsight the board got it wrong but I don't believe for a second that they just said "oh it's fine give Neil the job, that way we don't need to do anything more"
The big mistake was Neil Young, admittedly I'd guess it was another long process and again we don't know who the other candidates were but when a manager comes in and wants to get rid of a majority of the squad, bring in a lot youth players and heavily use the loan market then it rings alarm bells in my opinion. Many here thought it was a good appointment and agreed with the board so it just goes to show how difficult it can be to make the correct decision.
This is not me defending the board, there is a lot they need to work on I think but I'm just trying to get into their mindset and see how they might view things in this regard. I'd also say to some be careful what you wish for, there were calls on here for Lee Sinnott to go after our first playoff defeat a few years ago. Change doesn't always equal success.
What a difference 5 points can make eh?
Excellent post, GolfRoader.
-
How can you blame Gerry Berman for our current problems? Yes he left us in a mess financially but he never forgot that first and foremost we are a football club. We are also a million miles away from finishing mid table. Take off your rose tinted spectacles - we are in a mess and to blame a man who was last involved 14 years ago is laughable
Would you say the success of the football team is more important that the financial stability of the club? (I suppose they go hand in hand to an extent)
Personally I can't fault the board for the way they've steered us into financial safety, they grow the club within its means and give the manager as much as possible to build a squad. I also don't understand how some can completely blame them for our failures on the pitch.
Firstly Tolson thought he could keep the team up, we don't know who might have been available at the time but if he comes to the board and says I can give this my best then fine. (It's a gamble no one can guarantee safety) if we'd gone for a completely new manager and he'd failed we might have been having a go at the board for committing to someone and giving them a big contract.
With hindsight the board got it wrong but I don't believe for a second that they just said "oh it's fine give Neil the job, that way we don't need to do anything more"
The big mistake was Neil Young, admittedly I'd guess it was another long process and again we don't know who the other candidates were but when a manager comes in and wants to get rid of a majority of the squad, bring in a lot youth players and heavily use the loan market then it rings alarm bells in my opinion. Many here thought it was a good appointment and agreed with the board so it just goes to show how difficult it can be to make the correct decision.
This is not me defending the board, there is a lot they need to work on I think but I'm just trying to get into their mindset and see how they might view things in this regard. I'd also say to some be careful what you wish for, there were calls on here for Lee Sinnott to go after our first playoff defeat a few years ago. Change doesn't always equal success.
What a difference 5 points can make eh?
The biggest issue is that the board have shown themselves to be not very good at choosing managers. Which, when it comes to the football side of things, is the most important decision they have to make. If they cock that one up then all the hard work bringing about financial stability doesn't really matter anymore. That is, unless your benchmark for success is Altrincham Football Club to continue to exist. Which I think for some it might be...
It doesn't really matter that many on here thought Young was a good appointment. I thought he seemed decent. However, if I'm being honest I must have given it about five minutes thought. The board will have gone through hundreds of applications and they picked a dud.
It's the equivalent of me telling my girlfriend that I'm going to be in charge of buying a new car, I then go and look at hundreds of models and choose one. I show it to her for 5 minutes and she agrees it seems ok. If the car is a load of crap I don't think it would go down very well me saying "oh well, you seemed to think it was fine."
-
I'm wary of being too critical to a group of people I do get along with, or at least have done. Neither do I want to be two faced in that regard. However, I support the football club, not whoever happens to be in charge at the time. And believe it or not, a few who appear overly personal about it (Jamie for one) are actually on the level about it too.
I'd say that for a variety of reasons over the past 18 months which are now actually too many to list and it doesn't feel like it does any good listing them anyway that from a footballing, community (as in understanding and relating to fans, not the local community), financial and long term planning viewpoint I have little or no confidence that our current board are capable of leading us forward effectively.
And even taking away that you can't rewrite history or undo decisions etc I don't even see any honesty, accountability , apologies or understanding that could ease some of these fears, just a closing of ranks and a dismissive attitude - which I should say is in many respects an understandable natural reaction - for all that I'm typing here I couldn't promise you I'd be a big enough man to react as I've suggested if I was to get the flak Grahame Rowley has.
Re the above - the one bit I do acknowledge is the board not using the Anthony Griffith farce as an excuse, that was good.
But Grahame's response last year that the way ahead was to get more volunteers and looking back wistfully at when we did have lots, showed me that the time has come to move forward, times do change even though lots of good work has been done and I hope our board individually and collectively are honest enough to evaluate whether they should be part of taking the club forward.
It feels like I've been putting money in buckets for 15 years (75% of my adult life) and there needs to be coherent reasons for that.
I've got to agree with everything here.
I like my spare time to not include politics and personal comments and judgments. However it has got to a tipping point I'm afraid.
Football is a business and it would be great if the fans who choose not to get involved can be insulated from it however it has seeped through to all of us now.
I can't believe I would ever be saying I'm not coming again, in the past I have moved mountains to watch Alty even to the detriment of my marriage.
I can't continue with this, even up against the odds in the past with a 1% chance of a draw I would still go, this just feels more than that.
-
How can you blame Gerry Berman for our current problems? Yes he left us in a mess financially but he never forgot that first and foremost we are a football club. We are also a million miles away from finishing mid table. Take off your rose tinted spectacles - we are in a mess and to blame a man who was last involved 14 years ago is laughable
Firstly Tolson thought he could keep the team up, we don't know who might have been available at the time but if he comes to the board and says I can give this my best then fine. (It's a gamble no one can guarantee safety) if we'd gone for a completely new manager and he'd failed we might have been having a go at the board for committing to someone and giving them a big contract.
With hindsight the board got it wrong but I don't believe for a second that they just said "oh it's fine give Neil the job, that way we don't need to do anything more"
I have to take issue with the above.
The calamitous decision to go with Neil Tolson was taken for personal reasons rather than on professional grounds.
A fatal error, I'm afraid.
And there's no "with hindsight" about it.
Plenty of us knew that we were effectively doomed to relegation the moment that Neil Tolson announced on Radio Manchester that he had been gifted the job.
-
How can you blame Gerry Berman for our current problems? Yes he left us in a mess financially but he never forgot that first and foremost we are a football club. We are also a million miles away from finishing mid table. Take off your rose tinted spectacles - we are in a mess and to blame a man who was last involved 14 years ago is laughable
Firstly Tolson thought he could keep the team up, we don't know who might have been available at the time but if he comes to the board and says I can give this my best then fine. (It's a gamble no one can guarantee safety) if we'd gone for a completely new manager and he'd failed we might have been having a go at the board for committing to someone and giving them a big contract.
With hindsight the board got it wrong but I don't believe for a second that they just said "oh it's fine give Neil the job, that way we don't need to do anything more"
I have to take issue with the above.
The calamitous decision to go with Neil Tolson was taken for personal reasons rather than on professional grounds.
A fatal error, I'm afraid.
And there's no "with hindsight" about it.
Plenty of us knew that we were effectively doomed to relegation the moment that Neil Tolson announced on Radio Manchester that he had been gifted the job.
Exactly cult . The tolson debacle against the advice from all sides of the ground was a joke . Just watch back the "there's not much wrong here " interview with Alty tv if you have forgot
-
I have voted no, and it pained me to do so. The appointment of Young was an appalling of error of judgment the consequences of which may be felt for five or six years to come. It is for that reason alone I now feel some sword falling should take place.
-
I have voted no, and it pained me to do so. The appointment of Young was an appalling of error of judgment the consequences of which may be felt for five or six years to come. It is for that reason alone I now feel some sword falling should take place.
As many people know, I was critical about the appointment of Young from the outset and predicted what would happen to the playing squad. This knowledge I gained from the Chester and Stockport forums so it was obvious it would happen here, as that was how the loser worked. Surely the Board should have been aware of this and never gone near him with a barge pole. Consequently the buck stops with them for this decision (along with the Tolson one).
-
The board doesn't so much need replacing, it needs opening out and expanding to different views, objectives and the ability for people to invest in the club if they so wish without being eyed with suspicion. Simple as that.
-
I think the board deserves a lot of credit on two counts.
Firstly, the financial side of things is stable. Given the crisis meetings and winding up orders of the past, this shouldnt be overlooked. Nor should the long term future we now have at our ground.
Secondly, people sneer at the CSH and the community stuff but I back it fully. It wasnt long ago when we bemoaned a lack of support from and connection with the town, and saw how much better the social facilities were at the other clubs we visited. Things have improved a lot in that regard and the board among others should be praised for it.
I'm afraid though that the Tolson appointment and the lame reasons behind it did a lot of damage among the fans. That article in the NLP after Young went was a PR disaster too. A lot of goodwill was lost in my view after those two things, a shame given the good stuff that has happened.
There seems to be a real chasm between boardroom and terraces right now, and I cannot see how we can progress until that is resolved.
-
i Dont blame the board or the previous one for our problems,just the opposite in fact.Our troubles started in the Burman era i think it was,when the club was almost broke.Thank god for GG and the GR for at least giving us the chance of a club still being here.What we do need is cash coming in that can bring in better players and not just bringing in someone quickly just because they are available and crap,at least Jim is not rushing into things.I thing we have to put this season to bed and settle for a mid table place and then push on next year from there.I have been watching Alty since 1963 and cannot remember such a bad squad as we have now.Why is Cyrus playing instead of Heathcote and the youg lad who came on at Torquay last season Saville where has he gone? he looked a tidy player.
Adam Savill looked a really good prospect, Harold, but was offered & has taken up a Football Scholarship in the USA.
-
For most football supporters, what happens on the pitch is the be all and end all, because we are a non league club with no cash cow then we do tend to get more involved in the politics than at better resourced clubs. The club is debt free and has been I believe since Geoff Goodwin left in 2009 or 2010, so what i find mos difficulty with is how the board or more likely the Chairman has continued to p*** fans off, made grave errors of judgement, slagged off supporters, appointed 2 poor managers, publicly backed those managers despite being in the minority, not apologised for mistakes caused and shown contempt to supporters in 2 public meetings.
It shouldn't be that difficult, for all the good work on the finance and community side the board should be basking in glory for the work they have done, but instead longstanding supporters are boycotting the games, people are deterred from volunteering, large swathes of supporters are angry and and the club, on the pitch at least is sinking without a trace. I can't see how things can change, with the current board in situ, unless they acknowledge that a change of approach is needed. The Chairman is standing at the AGM to be elected for another 3 years, I am looking forward to hearing his plans for the future and why he should get my vote.
Incidentally as a curious thought, am i right in thinking that the Supporters Trust is still a legal entity?
-
Plenty of us knew that we were effectively doomed to relegation the moment that Neil Tolson announced on Radio Manchester that he had been gifted the job.
I think we were doomed when from February onwards we failed to beat Chester, Southport and Guiseley at home and also got nothing away at Torquay and Halifax - playing with weakened teams due to injury, players in makeshift roles and nothing to speak of on the bench to change a game.
We failed to realise the impact that the lack of Densmore, Clee and Cavanagh had on our results and it was then left too late before anything was done about it
-
One thing I've realised reading all these posts on this thread, which by the way are all in some way valid and excellent posts, is that the club seems to have forgotten that it's a football club. It's not primarily a business or a community club, it's primarily a football club and what the fans want first and foremost is a successful FOOTBALL club.
We don't sing songs about being debt free, good in the community, worlds best hireable Pilates facility, we sing about the football club, our football history, our football rivalries and our favourite football players.
I get the impression that as a football club we've decided to concentrate on almost everything but the first team. Everything we do should be about maximising the potential of the first team of this football club. And now of all times I couldn't care less about anything else to do with the club. There won't be many Barwell supporters enjoying our community club spirit and facilities next season if we go down and there'll be significantly less Alty fans too.
It's time for action and accountability from the board.
-
For most football supporters, what happens on the pitch is the be all and end all, because we are a non league club with no cash cow then we do tend to get more involved in the politics than at better resourced clubs. The club is debt free and has been I believe since Geoff Goodwin left in 2009 or 2010, so what i find mos difficulty with is how the board or more likely the Chairman has continued to p*** fans off, made grave errors of judgement, slagged off supporters, appointed 2 poor managers, publicly backed those managers despite being in the minority, not apologised for mistakes caused and shown contempt to supporters in 2 public meetings.
It shouldn't be that difficult, for all the good work on the finance and community side the board should be basking in glory for the work they have done, but instead longstanding supporters are boycotting the games, people are deterred from volunteering, large swathes of supporters are angry and and the club, on the pitch at least is sinking without a trace. I can't see how things can change, with the current board in situ, unless they acknowledge that a change of approach is needed. The Chairman is standing at the AGM to be elected for another 3 years, I am looking forward to hearing his plans for the future and why he should get my vote.
Incidentally as a curious thought, am i right in thinking that the Supporters Trust is still a legal entity?
I am not 100% sure, but I believe that it is. If I remember correctly, we did look into dissolving the Supporters Trust (STAR), before setting up TASC, but that it was not a straightforward process.
-
The Supporters Trust (STAR) was deregistered by the Financial Conduct Authority for non filing of it's financial return around 6 or so years ago. Therefore no longer exists.
-
Thanks both. What would have happened to the shares in that case? With the settled nature of the Board and its relationship with the supporters at the time, i guess it became irrelevant, strange how things change in a few years?
An effective and influential mouthpiece challenging the Board and even taking a seat on it with a supporters representative is what is needed now. Something i think the Board are well aware of, there is no organised challenge on decisions they make, therefore they can do what they want.
-
The board aren't perfect, but I think we've gone downhill since Geoff Goodwin quit. We need another Geoff to come and put time and money in.....it's a big ask.
-
One thing I've realised reading all these posts on this thread, which by the way are all in some way valid and excellent posts, is that the club seems to have forgotten that it's a football club. It's not primarily a business or a community club, it's primarily a football club and what the fans want first and foremost is a successful FOOTBALL club.
We don't sing songs about being debt free, good in the community, worlds best hireable Pilates facility, we sing about the football club, our football history, our football rivalries and our favourite football players.
I get the impression that as a football club we've decided to concentrate on almost everything but the first team. Everything we do should be about maximising the potential of the first team of this football club. And now of all times I couldn't care less about anything else to do with the club. There won't be many Barwell supporters enjoying our community club spirit and facilities next season if we go down and there'll be significantly less Alty fans too.
It's time for action and accountability from the board.
Excellent post
-
I voted no and I'd like to elaborate why.
This isn't an anti Rowley, Shaw Diane or whatever Nigel's surname is. A board should be effective as a unit. I get the impression they're in as big of a rut at Jake Moult.
Take Grahame away from the public eye as chairman, and let him do what's best for this club. Let him worry less about stuff. Let him concentrate on none footballing matters. Let him enjoy being part of this club again. Let him build the community facility so it rivals football league clubs.
Each board member probably isn't the issue. I think it's as a collective they've lost the energy and enthusiasm to do what they need to do. It's like heathxofe or Sinnott. Both did great things for the club, but eventually they become devoid of ideas.
Perhaps it's time for a re-assembly of the current board in different look.
Let's reignite the passion of those that remain with fresh blood and ideas. Let's also let those on the board do what they're best at and bring in where we lack skills such as public leadership.
But let's not chuck people out when we can use them more effectively to achieve our ambition.
The current board member that remain could act as a safety valve for 1 or 2 new board members that come on board.
Where do these new board members come from? Well let's ask who wants to join the party. As they say, you don't ask, you don't get.
-
To be effective, the Board need to establish a vision for the football Club- of what they want it to look like. They then need to design a plan, ideally in short-term stages of 3-5 years to allow them to achieve that vision. By doing that, it will allow them to focus on what needs to be done to allow that plan to be achieved: which staff in place etc. And, perhaps more importantly, when they conduct interviews for a managerial role (which hopefully won’t be for a few years to come), they can ensure the prospective candidate has a vision that matches theirs.
That way, all senior members of the Club can pull in the same direction. And from there down, each senior member can put a plan in place to allow them to achieve their individual goals. Jim might have a goal of reaching the football league but unless he has a plan in place, and the FULL support of the Board, that goal is never going to be realised.
But one thing that must be done, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, is that the supporters of the Club, without whom the Club would not exist, must have a voice on the Board. The Board need to connect more with the supporters, share their vision, and try and restore harmony.
By doing that and allowing ALL parts of the Club to work as one and work towards the same vision, the Club should start to move in the right direction.
-
There isnt a queue of rich local folk desperate for the unpaid position of board member who fortuitously have the backing of the shareholders who have the unwanted task of actually doing something in return for the priveledge/millstone of having some ownership of this club by way of appointing board members..
Just thought id point out the lethargy that has resulted from de maunderisation....
Hard to believe ownership of this club was once fiercely contested in court...
Hard to believe either the board have not appointed a tasc rep onto the board in return for the 10k the supporters raise and invest every year..it is a disgrace and indicative of how certain members of the board view fans as an ignorant interference that this has not happened to reward the clubs biggest long term investors by a country mile...
We do of course have a few genuine fans on the board....
-
There isnt a queue of rich local folk desperate for the unpaid position of board member who fortuitously have the backing of the shareholders who have the unwanted task of actually doing something in return for the priveledge/millstone of having some ownership of this club by way of appointing board members..
Just thought id point out the lethargy that has resulted from de maunderisation....
Hard to believe ownership of this club was once fiercely contested in court...
Hard to believe either the board have not appointed a tasc rep onto the board in return for the 10k the supporters raise and invest every year..it is a disgrace and indicative of how certain members of the board view fans as an ignorant interference that this has not happened to reward the clubs biggest long term investors by a country mile...
We do of course have a few genuine fans on the board....
I bet loads of people would like to manager of Altrincham FC but until the job is vacant we probably don't get as many CV as when someone is in there.
-
Spot on factorlink, that's how England rugby won the world cup, that's how the British Olympic team have improved so much in such a relatively short time, well said.
-
The Supporters Trust (STAR) was deregistered by the Financial Conduct Authority for non filing of it's financial return around 6 or so years ago. Therefore no longer exists.
Thanks for confirming that, Jacqui. I do seem to remember now, that to continue, STAR would have needed to file annual accounts. I guess that we must have decided to allow that process to take its course, rather than going down the dissolution route.
-
Thanks both. What would have happened to the shares in that case? With the settled nature of the Board and its relationship with the supporters at the time, i guess it became irrelevant, strange how things change in a few years?
An effective and influential mouthpiece challenging the Board and even taking a seat on it with a supporters representative is what is needed now. Something i think the Board are well aware of, there is no organised challenge on decisions they make, therefore they can do what they want.
STAR had one share in Altrincham Football Club, I have no idea what would have happened to that. I guess that it may no longer exist.
-
Actually star amassed a few thousand shares
Many of those were sold with proceeds going to the club....as the the then board saw a mass body of fans holding shares as a nuisance and a threat and couldnt understand why the supporters as a body would possibly want more than one share in their beloved football club.
This was sad as the board never saw the advantage of motivated fans feeling part of the club....shares are held by more worthy folk than supporters...these worthy folk dont even turn up for games and probably dont even know our predicament currently...
I did hear that the majority shareholding is now held by the boardroom so de demaunderisation could happen....but why on earth should anyone have a say or gain a shareholding in return for investment?? :'(
-
So this group has done great things in the past but now things are going badly wrong and so we need shot of the lot of them, even if we don't know who will replace them they must be an improvement on what we've had to put up with recently.
This seemed to be the consensus at the back end of last season with respect to the team, we got our way and that didn't go very well (!)
So this group has done great things in the past but now things are going badly wrong and so we need shot of the lot of them, even if we don't know who will replace them they must be an improvement on what we've had to put up with recently.
This is now the majority view of those voting in this poll with respect to the board and you expect it to go better this time?
We all want results to change and that is making us all angry and are lashing out at anything to do with the club - take for example the outrage on here when GR asked for any info on who threw the flare - at no point in that article did he mention or even imply that it was thrown by an Alty fan but according to some on here he had once again dragged the good name of Alty fans through the mud and asked us to rat on one of our own.
There are some indisputable facts about changes in our club over recent years. We have a major new facility that is the biggest ground improvement for many years and a source of increased income and we have pretty much (if not entirely) paid for it in a very short period. We have bigger home crowds and that cannot be due to on pitch performances. The credit for the first and in reasonable part the second (a combination of excellent social media work and the greater community involvement) must surely go to the board. This is their main day job and they do it very well.
They have a very important job to do in selecting the manager and they balls'd this up good and proper a couple of times but I believe that they have now rectified this and hopefully will not have to do that again for many years. I know they have also committed some PR disasters but frankly if viewed by a neutral rather than a (justifiably) hurting and angry Alty fan the written ones aren't as bad as most feel. I can't speak to the verbal behaviour / comments as I wasn't there.
We all accept that Coburn played for us and not a league team because he was only good as some aspects of his role, why can we not accept this same courtesy to the board? They have done some fantastic things for this club and that should not be overshadowed by recent mistakes, the biggest of which has now been rectified by appointing JH and publicly stating he has been given funds when players are available.
If you want to propose an alternative to the current board please feel free, but frankly several people on here at the moment sound like a toddler having a tantrum demanding to be allowed to play with a matches without really knowing what they want to do with them or giving any thought to the implications of what they are asking for.
-
So this group has done great things in the past but now things are going badly wrong and so we need shot of the lot of them, even if we don't know who will replace them they must be an improvement on what we've had to put up with recently.
This seemed to be the consensus at the back end of last season with respect to the team, we got our way and that didn't go very well (!)
So this group has done great things in the past but now things are going badly wrong and so we need shot of the lot of them, even if we don't know who will replace them they must be an improvement on what we've had to put up with recently.
This is now the majority view of those voting in this poll with respect to the board and you expect it to go better this time?
We all want results to change and that is making us all angry and are lashing out at anything to do with the club - take for example the outrage on here when GR asked for any info on who threw the flare - at no point in that article did he mention or even imply that it was thrown by an Alty fan but according to some on here he had once again dragged the good name of Alty fans through the mud and asked us to rat on one of our own.
There are some indisputable facts about changes in our club over recent years. We have a major new facility that is the biggest ground improvement for many years and a source of increased income and we have pretty much (if not entirely) paid for it in a very short period. We have bigger home crowds and that cannot be due to on pitch performances. The credit for the first and in reasonable part the second (a combination of excellent social media work and the greater community involvement) must surely go to the board. This is their main day job and they do it very well.
They have a very important job to do in selecting the manager and they balls'd this up good and proper a couple of times but I believe that they have now rectified this and hopefully will not have to do that again for many years. I know they have also committed some PR disasters but frankly if viewed by a neutral rather than a (justifiably) hurting and angry Alty fan the written ones aren't as bad as most feel. I can't speak to the verbal behaviour / comments as I wasn't there.
We all accept that Coburn played for us and not a league team because he was only good as some aspects of his role, why can we not accept this same courtesy to the board? They have done some fantastic things for this club and that should not be overshadowed by recent mistakes, the biggest of which has now been rectified by appointing JH and publicly stating he has been given funds when players are available.
If you want to propose an alternative to the current board please feel free, but frankly several people on here at the moment sound like a toddler having a tantrum demanding to be allowed to play with a matches without really knowing what they want to do with them or giving any thought to the implications of what they are asking for.
Remarkably good post.
-
Some people are afraid of change, I sort of get that. But as things stand, Altrincham FC are heading down to the Evostick. That is simply intolerable for a club like ours. I know there is a great deal of good will towards the present board and with good reason. It just isn't working.
-
Stuart Coburn was a shop stopper... That's what a goalkeeper is meant to do.
The board of a football club should be focuses on that surely?
I applaud the community efforts, but the community should be a bonus.
I wish we'd stopped with the attitude that we need to know whose going to replace someone before we replace them. Why not ask the question? Whose going to manage us if Jim Harvey leaves? I don't know but I'd assume like most roles we'd advertise it...
-
Much good sense written by Bath Alty.
One thing which might be worth a bit of research - I have a feeling that if those with access to the relevant information did a 'postcode survey' of (a) season ticket holders & (b) TASC members (I don't think there's a way of broadening the sample out to cover other regular supporters) it might be that a high proportion of one or both categories do not have WA14 or WA15 addresses. It might even be a majority. If that IS the case, it would imply that a sizeable proportion of those attending matches probably don't 'connect' with the community aspect which the club is so apparently anxious to promote because they are only likely to visit the ground on match days. Those in high places might need to recognise that for those people (among whom I count myself - with an OL2 postcode I'm probably rather atypical, though) the club is above all else its senior football team and therefore they will expect the primary concern of the club to be the well-being of that team. All else they will see, quite reasonably, as secondary.
-
Actually star amassed a few thousand shares
Many of those were sold with proceeds going to the club....as the the then board saw a mass body of fans holding shares as a nuisance and a threat and couldnt understand why the supporters as a body would possibly want more than one share in their beloved football club.
This was sad as the board never saw the advantage of motivated fans feeling part of the club....shares are held by more worthy folk than supporters...these worthy folk dont even turn up for games and probably dont even know our predicament currently...
I did hear that the majority shareholding is now held by the boardroom so de demaunderisation could happen....but why on earth should anyone have a say or gain a shareholding in return for investment?? :'(
I think that you may be right, sir. although I am struggling to remember.I will ask the Forstermeister.
-
Now, that is a really good post roytonmike. I've never lived in Altrincham in my life. I attend most matches at home and quite a few away, but I don't connect to the community aspect at all. I just love the club and want it to do well.
-
Much good sense written by Bath Alty.
One thing which might be worth a bit of research - I have a feeling that if those with access to the relevant information did a 'postcode survey' of (a) season ticket holders & (b) TASC members (I don't think there's a way of broadening the sample out to cover other regular supporters) it might be that a high proportion of one or both categories do not have WA14 or WA15 addresses. It might even be a majority. If that IS the case, it would imply that a sizeable proportion of those attending matches probably don't 'connect' with the community aspect which the club is so apparently anxious to promote because they are only likely to visit the ground on match days. Those in high places might need to recognise that for those people (among whom I count myself - with an OL2 postcode I'm probably rather atypical, though) the club is above all else its senior football team and therefore they will expect the primary concern of the club to be the well-being of that team. All else they will see, quite reasonably, as secondary.
I'm in WA15 but totally get what Mike is saying here. I'm not against the CSH in any way, but the primary responsibility for community provision should rest with the local council, not the football club.
-
EN8
Zone 7
-
They have a very important job to do in selecting the manager and they balls'd this up good and proper a couple of times but I believe that they have now rectified this and hopefully will not have to do that again for many years. I know they have also committed some PR disasters but frankly if viewed by a neutral rather than a (justifiably) hurting and angry Alty fan the written ones aren't as bad as most feel. I can't speak to the verbal behaviour / comments as I wasn't there.
I completely agree that our sudden change in playing staff has not been helpful, and if we kept the bulk of that squad we'd probably be bobbing around mid-table right now.
However, you give the board too much of a pass for two disastrous managerial decisions. The Tolson decision being particularly egregious given every man and his dog knew it was a decision based on loyalty to a friend rather than the good of the club (which should be the primary interest of the board).
Their most important job is to choose a manager. The board chose a manager that was happy to release most of the squad. If continuity at one level constantly brings discord at another, you can't look at the discord and say that this is a good argument to stick with the continuity that caused it.
You might be right that they have finally made a good managerial decision, meaning that they shouldn't be able to cock it up for a while. However, the jury is still out.
-
Much good sense written by Bath Alty.
One thing which might be worth a bit of research - I have a feeling that if those with access to the relevant information did a 'postcode survey' of (a) season ticket holders & (b) TASC members (I don't think there's a way of broadening the sample out to cover other regular supporters) it might be that a high proportion of one or both categories do not have WA14 or WA15 addresses. It might even be a majority. If that IS the case, it would imply that a sizeable proportion of those attending matches probably don't 'connect' with the community aspect which the club is so apparently anxious to promote because they are only likely to visit the ground on match days. Those in high places might need to recognise that for those people (among whom I count myself - with an OL2 postcode I'm probably rather atypical, though) the club is above all else its senior football team and therefore they will expect the primary concern of the club to be the well-being of that team. All else they will see, quite reasonably, as secondary.
The Club should absolutely be involved in the Community, you must have heard of the very successful Football in the Community programme
I'm in WA15 but totally get what Mike is saying here. I'm not against the CSH in any way, but the primary responsibility for community provision should rest with the local council, not the football club.
The Club should absolutely be involved in the Community, you must have heard of the very successful Football in the Community programme that Football Leagues clubs ran in conjunction with the PFA over many years, however there is no reason why a football team cannot also be successful.
-
The key word in my post is "primary". Sure we should be involved.....but our FIRST priority has to be success on the pitch. And regardless of how well the ladies, youths, and kids are doing, a first XI with our present lack of success does the whole shooting match absolutely no favours.
-
They have a very important job to do in selecting the manager and they balls'd this up good and proper a couple of times but I believe that they have now rectified this and hopefully will not have to do that again for many years. I know they have also committed some PR disasters but frankly if viewed by a neutral rather than a (justifiably) hurting and angry Alty fan the written ones aren't as bad as most feel. I can't speak to the verbal behaviour / comments as I wasn't there.
I completely agree that our sudden change in playing staff has not been helpful, and if we kept the bulk of that squad we'd probably be bobbing around mid-table right now.
However, you give the board too much of a pass for two disastrous managerial decisions. The Tolson decision being particularly egregious given every man and his dog knew it was a decision based on loyalty to a friend rather than the good of the club (which should be the primary interest of the board).
Their most important job is to choose a manager. The board choose a manager that was happy to release most of the squad. If continuity at one level constantly brings discord at another, you can't look at the discord and say that this is a good argument to stick with the continuity that caused it.
You might be right that they have finally made a good managerial decision, meaning that they shouldn't be able to cock it up for a while. However, the jury is still out.
Absolutely this. We are looking odds on for two successive relegations and playing at a level we have effectively never played at in our history before. The implications are plummeting home support, minimal away support, reduced sponsorship, little media exposure, having to have a large cut in the gate prices, the list is endless for Evostik football. At this point you have to stop looking at who the current manager is and look at the strategic direction the club is heading in and the decisions that have been made to get us to this point.
-
Be nice if we dropped the woe is me, chip on the shoulder routine.
-
The key word in my post is "primary". Sure we should be involved.....but our FIRST priority has to be success on the pitch. And regardless of how well the ladies, youths, and kids are doing, a first XI with our present lack of success does the whole shooting match absolutely no favours.
This
-
Actually star amassed a few thousand shares
Many of those were sold with proceeds going to the club....as the the then board saw a mass body of fans holding shares as a nuisance and a threat and couldnt understand why the supporters as a body would possibly want more than one share in their beloved football club.
This was sad as the board never saw the advantage of motivated fans feeling part of the club....shares are held by more worthy folk than supporters...these worthy folk dont even turn up for games and probably dont even know our predicament currently...
I did hear that the majority shareholding is now held by the boardroom so de demaunderisation could happen....but why on earth should anyone have a say or gain a shareholding in return for investment?? :'(
I think that you may be right, sir. although I am struggling to remember.I will ask the Forstermeister.
At last published accounts atrincham supporters club ltd held 3752 shares brian.....geoff goodwin didnt understand why we wanted more than one share...he is still listed as owning double the fans holding...
-
Actually star amassed a few thousand shares
Many of those were sold with proceeds going to the club....as the the then board saw a mass body of fans holding shares as a nuisance and a threat and couldnt understand why the supporters as a body would possibly want more than one share in their beloved football club.
This was sad as the board never saw the advantage of motivated fans feeling part of the club....shares are held by more worthy folk than supporters...these worthy folk dont even turn up for games and probably dont even know our predicament currently...
I did hear that the majority shareholding is now held by the boardroom so de demaunderisation could happen....but why on earth should anyone have a say or gain a shareholding in return for investment?? :'(
I think that you may be right, sir. although I am struggling to remember.I will ask the Forstermeister.
At last published accounts atrincham supporters club ltd held 3752 shares brian.....geoff goodwin didnt understand why we wanted more than one share...he is still listed as owning double the fans holding...
Is that the same as TASC?
Where does that put TASC in the clubs hierarchy of shareholders?
-
There are 115k voting shares....
Google altrincham football club shareholders and youll get the full list.
It is the shareholders who sack the board as requested....two of our bigger shareholders are the current chair and vice chair so good luck ;D
-
And i dont think tasc as an entity are altrincham supporters club ltd...
Ive no idea who these shares belong to or how tasc or anyone else could get their hands on them....
Perhaps jacqui could enlighten us?
-
There are 115k voting shares....
Google altrincham football club shareholders and youll get the full list.
It is the shareholders who sack the board as requested....two of our bigger shareholders are the current chair and vice chair so good luck ;D
hence a closed a shop
-
As it would be if a vegan billionairre pumped millions into us and got a controlling interest.
It is normal at most clubs that major shareholders are on the board ...
-
Hi
As I recall, at the SGM held on the evening of the lost FA appeal against the 18 point deduction in 2006, there was a motion put forward by a Club director that STAR should give all of it's shares to the football club. Under the then IPS legislation (since the snappily titled, 2014 Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act, 2014), now CBS legislation, this was actually an illegal motion as SGMs are called to discuss only the agenda items set out on the Notice calling the meeting but it was rather an emotional meeting and I remember being on my feet for 2 hours answering questions. the meeting was called to discuss the future of STAR and the large amount of money raised at the Birmingham 20 event which we had just successfully held as a supporters trust which we wanted to target for particular items to help the Club but the club wanted us to hand over without any "strings". The motion was carried, probably at least a very large majority, we gave up counting, and the shares were therefore given to the Club. I understand that some of those shares wee subsequently given to Ricky Ponting, the Australian cricketer. I and the other two remaining directors of STAR resigned from the STAR board and I had nothing further to do with the supporters trust at Altrincham. The FCA register is here; https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=29532&Suffix=R
I hold shares personally in AFC, as does my husband and we will attend the AGM. I attend as many matches as I can but won't be making the trips to either Worcester nor Lincoln.
I am still involved with many clubs and am establishing a "Foundation" to get more women at sports events, particularly footie but have to say, I don't think AFC is at all bad at having women fans on our terraces and in our stands, in fact I think we are pretty well represented at Moss Lane :)
I am happy to answer any questions about supporters trusts, mutual societies and supporter owned clubs but note that I am currently off work from SD on long term sick leave due to my terminal cancer.
My postcode is WA15
-
Hi
As I recall, at the SGM held on the evening of the lost FA appeal against the 18 point deduction in 2006, there was a motion put forward by a Club director that STAR should give all of it's shares to the football club. Under the then IPS legislation (since the snappily titled, 2014 Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act, 2014), now CBS legislation, this was actually an illegal motion as SGMs are called to discuss only the agenda items set out on the Notice calling the meeting but it was rather an emotional meeting and I remember being on my feet for 2 hours answering questions. the meeting was called to discuss the future of STAR and the large amount of money raised at the Birmingham 20 event which we had just successfully held as a supporters trust which we wanted to target for particular items to help the Club but the club wanted us to hand over without any "strings". The motion was carried, probably at least a very large majority, we gave up counting, and the shares were therefore given to the Club. I understand that some of those shares wee subsequently given to Ricky Ponting, the Australian cricketer. I and the other two remaining directors of STAR resigned from the STAR board and I had nothing further to do with the supporters trust at Altrincham. The FCA register is here; https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=29532&Suffix=R
I hold shares personally in AFC, as does my husband and we will attend the AGM. I attend as many matches as I can but won't be making the trips to either Worcester nor Lincoln.
I am still involved with many clubs and am establishing a "Foundation" to get more women at sports events, particularly footie but have to say, I don't think AFC is at all bad at having women fans on our terraces and in our stands, in fact I think we are pretty well represented at Moss Lane :)
I am happy to answer any questions about supporters trusts, mutual societies and supporter owned clubs but note that I am currently off work from SD on long term sick leave due to my terminal cancer.
My postcode is WA15
If it is illegal, what does that actually mean?
-
The law stated that only business listed in the Notice could be dealt with at the meeting. Therefore no new business could be legally dealt with. Another meeting should have been called to deal with the issue proposed, however, the mood of the room wasn't such that that would have been a good idea, so the proposal was voted on there and then, which of course, excluded all those STAR members who were not in attendance at the meeting who had had no notice of that proposal and were effectively disenfranchised despite having paid their subs to be a member, which is why that requirement for only the business stated in the Notice is to be transacted is there.
-
The law stated that only business listed in the Notice could be dealt with at the meeting. Therefore no new business could be legally dealt with. Another meeting should have been called to deal with the issue proposed, however, the mood of the room wasn't such that that would have been a good idea, so the proposal was voted on there and then, which of course, excluded all those STAR members who were not in attendance at the meeting who had had no notice of that proposal and were effectively disenfranchised despite having paid their subs to be a member, which is why that requirement for only the business stated in the Notice is to be transacted is there.
So, really, the vote which took place should have been declared null and void and the process restarted in the correct manner?
-
It could have been but at the time, it can't be reversed now, 10 years later! the shares were properly transferred under the Companies Act requirements, so they are gone. Only a legal entity can hold shares, that includes an individual person or a legally incorporated organisation such as another company or a mutual society. The meeting that night clearly wanted the transfer of the shares from the supporters society to the club to happen, probably in an act of defiance of the society board as much alcoholic beverage had been consumed at the time, it was a pretty awful day as the Appeal to the FA against the 18 point deduction had failed which relegated the club at the time - we were saved by the financial collapse of other clubs in the months that followed before the 2007/8 season but we didn't know that at the time of the SGM.
-
It could have been but at the time, it can't be reversed now, 10 years later! the shares were properly transferred under the Companies Act requirements, so they are gone. Only a legal entity can hold shares, that includes an individual person or a legally incorporated organisation such as another company or a mutual society. The meeting that night clearly wanted the transfer of the shares from the supporters society to the club to happen, probably in an act of defiance of the society board as much alcoholic beverage had been consumed at the time, it was a pretty awful day as the Appeal to the FA against the 18 point deduction had failed which relegated the club at the time - we were saved by the financial collapse of other clubs in the months that followed before the 2007/8 season but we didn't know that at the time of the SGM.
Sorry, Jacqui. Just to be clear, I wasn't criticising anyone, I was just saying that, in theory, it should have been revisited in the correct manner. It was very naughty what went on by the sound of it.
-
It could have been but at the time, it can't be reversed now, 10 years later! the shares were properly transferred under the Companies Act requirements, so they are gone. Only a legal entity can hold shares, that includes an individual person or a legally incorporated organisation such as another company or a mutual society. The meeting that night clearly wanted the transfer of the shares from the supporters society to the club to happen, probably in an act of defiance of the society board as much alcoholic beverage had been consumed at the time, it was a pretty awful day as the Appeal to the FA against the 18 point deduction had failed which relegated the club at the time - we were saved by the financial collapse of other clubs in the months that followed before the 2007/8 season but we didn't know that at the time of the SGM.
why were shares taken off the supporters trust and then given to an Australian cricketer?
-
Understood Paul Cain's Chip Pan, it was a pretty awful night for me I can tell you. My uncle came over from Liverpool and walked out before the votes and went home, he was disgusted and resigned his membership of the trust, having been an Alty fan for about 70 years at the time. My friend who also came to give me a bit of support abstained from voting and I was totally exhausted by the end and had to go to the King George for a glass of wine afterwards! I resigned immediately, of course, as I was obviously not wanted. I have been an Alty fan, however for 49 years and a season ticket holder, including during my 20 years living in Oxfordshire for over 25 years and a Vice President for about 20 years, so it hasn't put me off being a fan.
It was naughty, you are right, emotions were high, we'd just been, effectively relegated by the FA sand it seemed to the trust members that the organisation they belonged to wasn't giving money to the Club but the aims of a supporters trust were not to just give money to the club without any targeted purpose. Jenny desperately needed a dishwasher in the bar at the time and we'd done research and asked her what would help her and she was frustrated by the half time rush and lack of clean glasses. Also, Ian had said that a T shirt printing machine for replica kits in the shop would be a great help to him and we'd found a supplier of second hand machines at a reasonable price. The money raised and saved from these two projects would have gone straight to the club, it was trust expenditure for club revenue but no-one wanted to listen to that on the night and long term projects were not wanted by the club at the time just a short term cash donation. So the whole purpose of a supporters trust, what they are and what they do was rejected by Altrincham fans and as an employee of Supporters Direct, it was always quite an embarrassment for me at work but it was a members organisation and if the members did not want it, then it shouldn't exist. Now it doesn't.
Sausages, that is a question you should put to the club directors of that time. The shares that STAR owned went back to the football club. Whether they were the actual STAR shares were given to him isn't definite as the Club may have had some unallocated shares or another shareholder may have transferred some of their shares owned prior to the STAR transfer to the cricketer. But there was a transfer of some shares to that person sometime shortly after that SGM. I resigned from the trust board, so the trust's shares were transferred to the club by whoever was the Secretary of the trust with the assistance, presumably of the secretary of the club.
I saw recently that there was a new share offer and that some were unallocated, so there may still be some available for people to buy?
-
Didnt know you were so poorly jacqui...wish you lots of love :-*
-
Actually star amassed a few thousand shares
Many of those were sold with proceeds going to the club....as the the then board saw a mass body of fans holding shares as a nuisance and a threat and couldnt understand why the supporters as a body would possibly want more than one share in their beloved football club.
This was sad as the board never saw the advantage of motivated fans feeling part of the club....shares are held by more worthy folk than supporters...these worthy folk dont even turn up for games and probably dont even know our predicament currently...
I did hear that the majority shareholding is now held by the boardroom so de demaunderisation could happen....but why on earth should anyone have a say or gain a shareholding in return for investment?? :'(
I think that you may be right, sir. although I am struggling to remember.I will ask the Forstermeister.
At last published accounts atrincham supporters club ltd held 3752 shares brian.....geoff goodwin didnt understand why we wanted more than one share...he is still listed as owning double the fans holding...
Thanks for that, Mark, not only did I not know that the supporters owned that number of shares, but I didn't know that there was an entity called Altrincham Supporters Club Ltd.
-
Thank you Mark, I have survived 2 years so far but currently have just months left which is why I sponsored last Saturday's match. I promise never to sponsor another match after that dreadful performance >:(
Brian, the trust's legal name was Altrincham Supporters Limited because the word "trust" could not be used in the legal name as it has as different legal meaning and the word "Limited" had to be used as the liability was limited to £1 per member irrespective of any additional donation
-
Understood Paul Cain's Chip Pan, it was a pretty awful night for me I can tell you. My uncle came over from Liverpool and walked out before the votes and went home, he was disgusted and resigned his membership of the trust, having been an Alty fan for about 70 years at the time. My friend who also came to give me a bit of support abstained from voting and I was totally exhausted by the end and had to go to the King George for a glass of wine afterwards! I resigned immediately, of course, as I was obviously not wanted. I have been an Alty fan, however for 49 years and a season ticket holder, including during my 20 years living in Oxfordshire for over 25 years and a Vice President for about 20 years, so it hasn't put me off being a fan.
It was naughty, you are right, emotions were high, we'd just been, effectively relegated by the FA sand it seemed to the trust members that the organisation they belonged to wasn't giving money to the Club but the aims of a supporters trust were not to just give money to the club without any targeted purpose. Jenny desperately needed a dishwasher in the bar at the time and we'd done research and asked her what would help her and she was frustrated by the half time rush and lack of clean glasses. Also, Ian had said that a T shirt printing machine for replica kits in the shop would be a great help to him and we'd found a supplier of second hand machines at a reasonable price. The money raised and saved from these two projects would have gone straight to the club, it was trust expenditure for club revenue but no-one wanted to listen to that on the night and long term projects were not wanted by the club at the time just a short term cash donation. So the whole purpose of a supporters trust, what they are and what they do was rejected by Altrincham fans and as an employee of Supporters Direct, it was always quite an embarrassment for me at work but it was a members organisation and if the members did not want it, then it shouldn't exist. Now it doesn't.
Sausages, that is a question you should put to the club directors of that time. The shares that STAR owned went back to the football club. Whether they were the actual STAR shares were given to him isn't definite as the Club may have had some unallocated shares or another shareholder may have transferred some of their shares owned prior to the STAR transfer to the cricketer. But there was a transfer of some shares to that person sometime shortly after that SGM. I resigned from the trust board, so the trust's shares were transferred to the club by whoever was the Secretary of the trust with the assistance, presumably of the secretary of the club.
I saw recently that there was a new share offer and that some were unallocated, so there may still be some available for people to buy?
I recollect this as being a truly horrendous evening.
Didn't Geoff Goodwin leave the meeting at one point in order to be interviewed live on radio in relation to the James Robinson/18-points deduction fiasco?
In my view, certain board members capitalised on emotions running high in order to achieve their desired aim to eviscerate STAR.
-
Totally agreed, Cult
-
Thank you Mark, I have survived 2 years so far but currently have just months left which is why I sponsored last Saturday's match. I promise never to sponsor another match after that dreadful performance >:(
Brian, the trust's legal name was Altrincham Supporters Limited because the word "trust" could not be used in the legal name as it has as different legal meaning and the word "Limited" had to be used as the liability was limited to £1 per member irrespective of any additional donation
Thanks Jacqui for clarifying that.
-
They have a very important job to do in selecting the manager and they balls'd this up good and proper a couple of times but I believe that they have now rectified this and hopefully will not have to do that again for many years. I know they have also committed some PR disasters but frankly if viewed by a neutral rather than a (justifiably) hurting and angry Alty fan the written ones aren't as bad as most feel. I can't speak to the verbal behaviour / comments as I wasn't there.
I completely agree that our sudden change in playing staff has not been helpful, and if we kept the bulk of that squad we'd probably be bobbing around mid-table right now.
However, you give the board too much of a pass for two disastrous managerial decisions. The Tolson decision being particularly egregious given every man and his dog knew it was a decision based on loyalty to a friend rather than the good of the club (which should be the primary interest of the board).
Their most important job is to choose a manager. The board choose a manager that was happy to release most of the squad. If continuity at one level constantly brings discord at another, you can't look at the discord and say that this is a good argument to stick with the continuity that caused it.
You might be right that they have finally made a good managerial decision, meaning that they shouldn't be able to cock it up for a while. However, the jury is still out.
Absolutely this. We are looking odds on for two successive relegations and playing at a level we have effectively never played at in our history before. The implications are plummeting home support, minimal away support, reduced sponsorship, little media exposure, having to have a large cut in the gate prices, the list is endless for Evostik football. At this point you have to stop looking at who the current manager is and look at the strategic direction the club is heading in and the decisions that have been made to get us to this point.
This is my point really - the board's job is to appoint a manager to look after the football and then broadly leave him to get on with it and focus on generating support and funds, both of which they have done admirably.
What would a new board do differently between now and the end of the season? How would that help JH get results? The board is a long term view and long term they are doing fine, next time they need to appoint a manager they might ask for some help or do things differently but for now the job of the board is the aspects they are generally quite good at.
-
I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Obviously you want to let the manager manage but you should be on the ball.
For example, asking if waiting for a player to become available a la Cavanagh and Griffith really a sensible method?
Who signed off the Griffith signing with him not having played all year? (This a seperate issue to the trick he pulled once he signed)
Once Lee Sinnott spat his dummy out after the Barrow game and mentioned that he could resign then a plan b should immediately have been put in place, or a contingency plan in case of that event. We ended up seemingly taken aback by his departure to the extent we couldn't even word it properly never mind deal with it.
Should LS have been pushed to bring players in after the Chester/Barnsley games in anticipation of players workloads?
Could we have announced Neil Tolson's caretaker appointment more clearly and given him a set time while we invited applications including his? Would this have given him a better chance?
What criteria did we end up using that gave us Neil Young? Interviews are as much about questions as they are answers.
Did we use due diligence, check with people at Stockpory, other players, find out any gaps we weren't sure about?
It seems NY had complete control over budget spending, player signings, surely there was some control over this after the Griffith fiasco?
- I don't expect answers to all this. In some ways it's water under the bridge (which is pulling us down a creek without a paddle) but my point is these are medium to long term football management aspects that the board needs to be on top of (rather than just letting the manager get on with it) And to be fair, in previous years that has been there by and large. I'm not patronising anybody here, the board know this. But it's hard to escape the feeling that with the massive and vital project of the Community side of things, collectively the club leadership have taken their eye off the ball with massive consequences.
-
I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Obviously you want to let the manager manage but you should be on the ball.
For example, asking if waiting for a player to become available a la Cavanagh and Griffith really a sensible method?
Who signed off the Griffith signing with him not having played all year? (This a seperate issue to the trick he pulled once he signed)
Once Lee Sinnott spat his dummy out after the Barrow game and mentioned that he could resign then a plan b should immediately have been put in place, or a contingency plan in case of that event. We ended up seemingly taken aback by his departure to the extent we couldn't even word it properly never mind deal with it.
Should LS have been pushed to bring players in after the Chester/Barnsley games in anticipation of players workloads?
Could we have announced Neil Tolson's caretaker appointment more clearly and given him a set time while we invited applications including his? Would this have given him a better chance?
What criteria did we end up using that gave us Neil Young? Interviews are as much about questions as they are answers.
Did we use due diligence, check with people at Stockpory, other players, find out any gaps we weren't sure about?
It seems NY had complete control over budget spending, player signings, surely there was some control over this after the Griffith fiasco?
- I don't expect answers to all this. In some ways it's water under the bridge (which is pulling us down a creek without a paddle) but my point is these are medium to long term football management aspects that the board needs to be on top of (rather than just letting the manager get on with it) And to be fair, in previous years that has been there by and large. I'm not patronising anybody here, the board know this. But it's hard to escape the feeling that with the massive and vital project of the Community side of things, collectively the club leadership have taken their eye off the ball with massive consequences.
strong post. In terms of young Danny Higginbotham knew him well and is a friend of the club despite his short stay etc. However you only had to read stockports forum and the press release to make a judgment on that manager
-
I don't think it's quite as easy as that. Obviously you want to let the manager manage but you should be on the ball.
For example, asking if waiting for a player to become available a la Cavanagh and Griffith really a sensible method?
Who signed off the Griffith signing with him not having played all year? (This a seperate issue to the trick he pulled once he signed)
Once Lee Sinnott spat his dummy out after the Barrow game and mentioned that he could resign then a plan b should immediately have been put in place, or a contingency plan in case of that event. We ended up seemingly taken aback by his departure to the extent we couldn't even word it properly never mind deal with it.
Should LS have been pushed to bring players in after the Chester/Barnsley games in anticipation of players workloads?
Could we have announced Neil Tolson's caretaker appointment more clearly and given him a set time while we invited applications including his? Would this have given him a better chance?
What criteria did we end up using that gave us Neil Young? Interviews are as much about questions as they are answers.
Did we use due diligence, check with people at Stockpory, other players, find out any gaps we weren't sure about?
It seems NY had complete control over budget spending, player signings, surely there was some control over this after the Griffith fiasco?
- I don't expect answers to all this. In some ways it's water under the bridge (which is pulling us down a creek without a paddle) but my point is these are medium to long term football management aspects that the board needs to be on top of (rather than just letting the manager get on with it) And to be fair, in previous years that has been there by and large. I'm not patronising anybody here, the board know this. But it's hard to escape the feeling that with the massive and vital project of the Community side of things, collectively the club leadership have taken their eye off the ball with massive consequences.
the first post that has made a coherent case for me and certainly worth thinking about, however my main point remains that you can only seriously consider whether change is worth the risk if you have some idea what you are changing too and that remains a complete unknown and I still prefer what we've got to a complete punt on 'something else'
-
But actually things CAN get worse than this. Once a slide begins, it can rapidly snowball out of control.
Look at Stockport County if you doubt me. They dropped 4 divisions in a very short time. If WE replicate that it will drop us into North West Counties.
-
Great post Ballers. It points out the details of what's been said many times. The board need more experience in dealing with football matters. You can't just appoint a manager and leave them to it. Callum Charlton, the Portuguese lad we signed to a contract are two examples where the board are as culpable as the manager. The manager at the time made his apologies and left but the board kept hush on misgivings and blamed fans for the managers resignation.
Disasterous PR is also something that shouldn't exist in the modern football club when it has so many options in how to connect with its fans.
-
Great post Ballers. It points out the details of what's been said many times. The board need more experience in dealing with football matters. You can't just appoint a manager and leave them to it. Callum Charlton, the Portuguese lad we signed to a contract are two examples where the board are as culpable as the manager. The manager at the time made his apologies and left but the board kept hush on misgivings and blamed fans for the managers resignation.
Disasterous PR is also something that shouldn't exist in the modern football club when it has so many options in how to connect with its fans.
Totally agree with both you and Ballers.
-
Great post Ballers. It points out the details of what's been said many times. The board need more experience in dealing with football matters. You can't just appoint a manager and leave them to it. Callum Charlton, the Portuguese lad we signed to a contract are two examples where the board are as culpable as the manager. The manager at the time made his apologies and left but the board kept hush on misgivings and blamed fans for the managers resignation.
Disasterous PR is also something that shouldn't exist in the modern football club when it has so many options in how to connect with its fans.
The word "Clusterf**k" comes to mind in all this
-
I hold shares personally in AFC, as does my husband and we will attend the AGM. I attend as many matches as I can but won't be making the trips to either Worcester nor Lincoln.
I think everyone knows you go to as many as possible and are an example to us all. Pity I'm actually over for the Lincoln game (a birthday treat...lol), it's either going to be incredibly embarrassing on the pitch or we'll amaze everyone, but I fear it will be the former. Still a chance to meet up with people and have a few sherbets.
Take care.
-
Understood Paul Cain's Chip Pan, it was a pretty awful night for me I can tell you. My uncle came over from Liverpool and walked out before the votes and went home, he was disgusted and resigned his membership of the trust, having been an Alty fan for about 70 years at the time. My friend who also came to give me a bit of support abstained from voting and I was totally exhausted by the end and had to go to the King George for a glass of wine afterwards! I resigned immediately, of course, as I was obviously not wanted. I have been an Alty fan, however for 49 years and a season ticket holder, including during my 20 years living in Oxfordshire for over 25 years and a Vice President for about 20 years, so it hasn't put me off being a fan.
It was naughty, you are right, emotions were high, we'd just been, effectively relegated by the FA sand it seemed to the trust members that the organisation they belonged to wasn't giving money to the Club but the aims of a supporters trust were not to just give money to the club without any targeted purpose. Jenny desperately needed a dishwasher in the bar at the time and we'd done research and asked her what would help her and she was frustrated by the half time rush and lack of clean glasses. Also, Ian had said that a T shirt printing machine for replica kits in the shop would be a great help to him and we'd found a supplier of second hand machines at a reasonable price. The money raised and saved from these two projects would have gone straight to the club, it was trust expenditure for club revenue but no-one wanted to listen to that on the night and long term projects were not wanted by the club at the time just a short term cash donation. So the whole purpose of a supporters trust, what they are and what they do was rejected by Altrincham fans and as an employee of Supporters Direct, it was always quite an embarrassment for me at work but it was a members organisation and if the members did not want it, then it shouldn't exist. Now it doesn't.
Sausages, that is a question you should put to the club directors of that time. The shares that STAR owned went back to the football club. Whether they were the actual STAR shares were given to him isn't definite as the Club may have had some unallocated shares or another shareholder may have transferred some of their shares owned prior to the STAR transfer to the cricketer. But there was a transfer of some shares to that person sometime shortly after that SGM. I resigned from the trust board, so the trust's shares were transferred to the club by whoever was the Secretary of the trust with the assistance, presumably of the secretary of the club.
I saw recently that there was a new share offer and that some were unallocated, so there may still be some available for people to buy?
I recollect this as being a truly horrendous evening.
Didn't Geoff Goodwin leave the meeting at one point in order to be interviewed live on radio in relation to the James Robinson/18-points deduction fiasco?
In my view, certain board members capitalised on emotions running high in order to achieve their desired aim to eviscerate STAR.
I remember being out the of Country when the FA verdict was announced, hence why i don't remember this meeting. This explains the contempt the Board have for the Club's supporters and why it is clearly bizarre that Board members are involved with the current Supporters Club. The 2 most prominent members were also involved back then. I have no idea where the Club goes from here.
-
The question is does TASC need scrapping, re-forming in a more modern sense?
Fresh faces joining the old guard.
Re-form, Re-brand. Re-launch, Re-sults.
-
While i agree with the cult's perception that the board were determined to close star down....in fact i know this was the case.....it was felt at the time that the best way to build trust and get it into the clubs head that the fans and star were there to support and help, was to invite a board rep to our meetings.......
....that is probably tascs thinking as well....although my perception is that rather than entering into the spirit it is being used to make sure the supporters club keep in line.
-
It was useful having a club board member at star meetings as it helped communications and for star to understand the clubs reasoning on various issues....i rarely got the impression this understanding was reciprocated though...
If the club and fans want to be understood by each other there should be a 2 way communication and representation at each others meetings surely...
-
Rowley's lost interest clearly, and It wouldn't surprise me if he's already looking at his exit strategy. Something needs to happen and fast, as without drastic change, we'll be playing the likes of Witton and Nantwich next season.
-
At the AGM on Monday 7th Nov Grahame Rowley retires by rotation and he is eligible for re-election for another 3 years. Normally, when a retiring director expresses a wish to continue in that role for another 3 years, the vote from the floor is unanimous and he is re-elected.
It will be interesting to see if there are any abstentions or even votes against his continuing as a director this time round.
-
At the AGM on Monday 7th Nov Grahame Rowley retires by rotation and he is eligible for re-election for another 3 years. Normally, when a retiring director expresses a wish to continue in that role for another 3 years, the vote from the floor is unanimous and he is re-elected.
It will be interesting to see if there are any abstentions or even votes against his continuing as a director this time round.
It would be no surprise if he decided to step down.
-
Rowley's lost interest clearly, and It wouldn't surprise me if he's already looking at his exit strategy. Something needs to happen and fast, as without drastic change, we'll be playing the likes of Witton and Nantwich next season.
For a guy who has "lost interest" clearly he ain't half committing a lot of time and resources to the Club.
Just be very very careful what you wish for is all I will say
-
I'm not sure any of us wished for Evostick football to be fair.
-
Rowley's lost interest clearly, and It wouldn't surprise me if he's already looking at his exit strategy. Something needs to happen and fast, as without drastic change, we'll be playing the likes of Witton and Nantwich next season.
For a guy who has "lost interest" clearly he ain't half committing a lot of time and resources to the Club.
Just be very very careful what you wish for is all I will say
We're talking about the first team Phil not the ladies. In case you hadn't noticed we are on the verge of dropping lower down the pyramid than ever before,I certainly didn't wish for that!!
-
So am I Martin.
I made a comment in response to an assertion that Grahame Rowley (yes he does have a first name) had lost interest, which incidentally is rubbish.
I just don't get why all the woes of the world are suddenly the fault of the Board.
I have been working here for nearly forty years and believe me there have been much, much worse Boards, Boards who took resources out of the Club rather than giving up time and money to do the best they can for the Manager - That is the basis of me counselling caution when wishing for something.
-
So am I Martin.
I made a comment in response to an assertion that Grahame Rowley (yes he does have a first name) had lost interest, which incidentally is rubbish.
I just don't get why all the woes of the world are suddenly the fault of the Board.
I have been working here for nearly forty years and believe me there have been much, much worse Boards, Boards who took resources out of the Club rather than giving up time and money to do the best they can for the Manager - That is the basis of me counselling caution when wishing for something.
I know we've had worse boards Phil without a doubt and I'm certainly not blaming them for everything that's gone wrong. I just personally feel that too many mistakes have been made especially towards the fans in the media that has questioned my faith in them. Apologies for being so blunt in my previous post,I'm pulling my hair(what's left)out atm!!
-
Care to redo the poll after the failure to capture clee?
-
So am I Martin.
I made a comment in response to an assertion that Grahame Rowley (yes he does have a first name) had lost interest, which incidentally is rubbish.
I just don't get why all the woes of the world are suddenly the fault of the Board.
I have been working here for nearly forty years and believe me there have been much, much worse Boards, Boards who took resources out of the Club rather than giving up time and money to do the best they can for the Manager - That is the basis of me counselling caution when wishing for something.
They aren't suddenly, they have been for the past 12 months.
At what point has Graham put money in? Not saying he should but you seem to suggest he has
-
Who's fault are they then? What are they doing to turn us around?
-
I can only dare to dream that any shareholders with even smallest ounce of feeling towards this club to do the right thing at next weeks AGM and block another three years of Rowley.
We probably wouldn't have a club after another three years of this. Desperate times indeed
Anyone that puts their hand up in favour needs to get out of the club as well, because you will be desttoying it
The fans have spoken, 60% on a generally pro board internet forum. Listen and step down Mr Rowley, you can't recover from this. And take your sycophants with you
-
So we are publicising the fact that we couldn't re-sign after letting him go only a few months earlier???? LAUGHABLE
SACK THE BOARD
-
Can things get any more depressing ?
We don't have the finances to bring back a player who was told was not needed
One of the healthiest financial reports I have ever seen recently yet we can't compete
It's becoming a no win situation
We have to now punch above our weight to attract better players with the right money to stand any chance of a second successive deserved relegation
But it appears Clee was out of our pay bandings
Who does it leave us to go after then ??
-
Wayno,
Hence why people were urging us to strengthen last November.
It's far easier to stay above north ferriby than it is to overhaul Fylde or Salford.
I shudder to think how much money we will have spent by the next te we regain conference status.
-
This quote from Red Adair comes to mind a lot at the moment.
'If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.'
The amateur being Neil bloody Young.
-
I shudder to think how much money we will have spent by the next te we regain conference status.
It'll be one he'll of a lot. I'm resigned to this club not reaching that status in my lifetime.
-
I can only dare to dream that any shareholders with even smallest ounce of feeling towards this club to do the right thing at next weeks AGM and block another three years of Rowley.
We probably wouldn't have a club after another three years of this. Desperate times indeed
Anyone that puts their hand up in favour needs to get out of the club as well, because you will be desttoying it
The fans have spoken, 60% on a generally pro board internet forum. Listen and step down Mr Rowley, you can't recover from this. And take your sycophants with you
So that would in fact be 43, yes Forty Three people out of an average home supporter base in excess of eight hundred - Really Jamie this makes you look silly to be polite about it.
-
Rowley's lost interest clearly, and It wouldn't surprise me if he's already looking at his exit strategy. Something needs to happen and fast, as without drastic change, we'll be playing the likes of Witton and Nantwich next season.
For a guy who has "lost interest" clearly he ain't half committing a lot of time and resources to the Club.
Just be very very careful what you wish for is all I will say
I struggle to see what benefit the first team has had over the last year from this time and resources - please can you elaborate? Or perhaps this is a recent thing, trying to make up for the damage caused to the club by 2 lazy and ill-thought out managerial appointments?
-
I can only dare to dream that any shareholders with even smallest ounce of feeling towards this club to do the right thing at next weeks AGM and block another three years of Rowley.
We probably wouldn't have a club after another three years of this. Desperate times indeed
Anyone that puts their hand up in favour needs to get out of the club as well, because you will be desttoying it
The fans have spoken, 60% on a generally pro board internet forum. Listen and step down Mr Rowley, you can't recover from this. And take your sycophants with you
So that would in fact be 43, yes Forty Three people out of an average home supporter base in excess of eight hundred - Really Jamie this makes you look silly to be polite about it.
So does that mean only 28 people out of an average home supporter base in excess of 800 have faith in the current board?
-
No it just proves that 61 people in total voting is not in any way representative
-
No it just proves that 61 people in total voting is not in any way representative
Plus that maths is not your strong point.