Print

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

[Ginrail]

Just read Chairmans community hall interview!

Now I understand

Surely we are a football club first

Having supported the club for nearly 40 years put £1,000's in and hours of time I think this chairman has lost the plot.

Surely the team on the pitch is all that matters

[Bath Alty]

Absolutely right - why is he doing anything other than coaching the players/ watching over the manager's shoulder / signing new players.  What is he thinking wasting his time setting up an asset for the club at a low cost to us that will generate years of direct revenue and attract new fans to the club?  As for giving an interview answering questions that fans have submitted, what can that possibly do to earn us more points which is all that matters because WE ARE A FOOTBALL CLUB!

FFS get a grip

[Ginrail]

Surely it is about managing a Football Club as Chairman that matters? The rest comes after a succesful club.

Noel White and others had football in thier blood the rest although important came 2nd

[Mausoleum Alty]

We SHOULD be a football club first and foremost and the rest should follow,unfortunately our chairman seems to have it the wrong way round.

[MarpleAlty]

Well said Bath Alty

The Community Hall has, and will be, a good asset to the club in the long term, and I think the Chairman is doing an admirable job in promoting it (exactly how he should do), just like he pulls the pints in there on matchdays.

What is up for debate is whether the initial cost prevented us from appointing a proper manager when Sinnott left; it certainly hasn't since, because I can't imagine signing (and releasing) 197 players this season would have come cheap.

That aside, it's done now and I can only see benefit going forward. And let's not do the main stand view thing again; the hall has got to go somewhere in the confined space we have.

[Teasierbeaver]

I think we are missing the point here, I honestly don't believe its merely down to finances that we are in this mess. Its purely down to recruitment.

Firstly we didnt recruit when Sinnott went, and then when we did recruit we brought in a turkey.

I think what the board are guilty of is taking their eye off the ball and not representing the fans real needs, most likely because they believed the CSH would compensate things some how, for example helping us compete in this bloody league. It hasn't though, because the board made bad decisions that allowed someone to invest the rewards of the CSH badly in a poor squad of players. Perhaps at the same time when searching for reasons they also had a few PR disasters which alienated some of the core support. Football should have had the full focus last season, thats what the fans wanted, and it didnt.

As a result Sinnott lost motivation and we left it until he walked when he probably should have been sacked a couple of games earlier at least. We were too community spirited in our approach to matters on the pitch lets say.

Some of the questions sent in were a bit cringe worthy in my opinion, leading questions about where the revenue goes and if we've robbed Peter to pay Paul with the 20k loan. Come on, theres no foul play here, just some bad decisions.

The board have the clubs interests at heart, lets not get carried away. Some bad decisions have been made and they now have an opportunity to rectify them, although that opportunity is fast fading away. I want to see more being done now to throw caution to the wind and get some names in until the end of the season.

I've heard good things that all available budget is going into the playing squad but realistically we need to take some risks financially because we still need one or two players that are a level above to galvanise the team.

The CSH is a great thing and its doing good things right now for the club. It wont however fix whats needed on the pitch. Give the board a chance to sort that out because we might get joy out of changing managers now but changing the board is guaranteed relegation, no question about it in my mind.

[bumble]

I think it's interesting a company putting in 100k in to csh budget. surely we should be looking for companies with a similar CSR budget looking to invest in the club because it's a community club...

[Ballers]

I think Bath Alty may be being a bit generous .

It's not unreasonable to ask whether the balance is right and whether the funding model is correctly structured.

an asset for the club at a low cost to us
 generate years of direct revenue
attract new fans to the club

These three points alone could be countered with the cost seeming pretty high at the minute, how much direct revenue and that the new fans may well be offset by a catastrophic fall in status.

I'm not saying what is right or wrong here but we probably need to have a clearer look at the funding model. I was pretty surprised on one hand to be told the CSH is fine but on the other hand we lent it an extra £21k for staff wages, albeit now repaid.

And there's a credibility and accountability issue here. We're currently proving that things are monumentally f**ked up despite/because of the CSH so even if it going well there are serious questions to be answered.

You know, what do we do if it can raise £150k a year but only needs £100k to run. How do we funnel that profit into the football side of things for example?

One thing I would have liked to have been improved on in that q&a is better figures though. I think we can all work out the bar is bigger than the NWS which is good but instead of being told to 'look at the accounts' a better example could be given. Surely the match day bar takings for both the NWS and CSH are accounted for. If not, they bloody should be as I'd say they're a KPI of how much of an improvement it is.

There's a really easy get out clause for GR to wow us with but again it's vague and general. I think people are really wanting some clarity here.

[JTH]

Some of the questions sent in were a bit cringe worthy in my opinion, leading questions about where the revenue goes and if we've robbed Peter to pay Paul with the 20k loan. Come on, theres no foul play here, just some bad decisions.

Well as both of those questions were mine allow me to explain why I asked them. First off, thanks to Grahame for giving me his answers.

On the first one, I don't think I was alone in never being exactly clear which events the football club benefited from the bar / food takings and which they didn't. The match days speak for themselves, but what about charitable evenings like the recent comedy night where all other monies raised have nothing to do with the club? It's now clear from Grahame's answer that profits from bar takings and food sales at ALL events, charitable or not, are due to the club. Maybe this was common knowledge, if so my mistake. This is a major step forward for the club I think we can all agree.

Given the Hall is not the club's property I also asked whether the cash went straight to them or was it held for a period by the CSH. I think that's reasonable as both are separate entities and cashflow is vital for both, particularly for the club at this time of year with likely postponements etc. Again I doubt any of us were aware of the arrangement and it certainly wasn't an accusation of foul play. I actually think Grahame's answer should act as an extra incentive for everyone to publicise the upcoming events as we know revenue will go straight into the club's coffers at a time when it'll probably need it most.

On the second one, as well as being a financial supporter of the CSH I'm also a football club shareholder and just wanted to know the arrangements for the repayment of the £20k as I was unable to attend the AGM. That it was an interest free loan over a period of 18 months to a sister organisation I'm more than happy with, as I'm positive the CSH is an excellent investment. I asked about the source of the cash used to repay the advance for info' only, it could've been a reasonable initial revenue splitting arrangement. It's the type of question shareholders are allowed to ask without being accused of sharpening their pitchforks.

In my experience it's better to have the detail of these type of transactions out in the open so everyone can understand them and get behind what is trying to be achieved. I think this is particularly relevant with our club as it relies on so many of its fundraising initiatives from within it's own relatively modest fan base.  If you're not as transparent as you can be people can get hold of the wrong end of sticks and misunderstandings can arise and cause all manner of problems. That's why any question is never a stupid one, however cringeworthy  

[Teasierbeaver]

Some of the questions sent in were a bit cringe worthy in my opinion, leading questions about where the revenue goes and if we've robbed Peter to pay Paul with the 20k loan. Come on, theres no foul play here, just some bad decisions.

Well as both of those questions were mine allow me to explain why I asked them. First off, thanks to Grahame for giving me his answers.

On the first one, I don't think I was alone in never being exactly clear which events the football club benefited from the bar / food takings and which they didn't. The match days speak for themselves, but what about charitable evenings like the recent comedy night where all other monies raised have nothing to do with the club? It's now clear from Grahame's answer that profits from bar takings and food sales at ALL events, charitable or not, are due to the club. Maybe this was common knowledge, if so my mistake. This is a major step forward for the club I think we can all agree.

Given the Hall is not the club's property I also asked whether the cash went straight to them or was it held for a period by the CSH. I think that's reasonable as both are separate entities and cashflow is vital for both, particularly for the club at this time of year with likely postponements etc. Again I doubt any of us were aware of the arrangement and it certainly wasn't an accusation of foul play. I actually think Grahame's answer should act as an extra incentive for everyone to publicise the upcoming events as we know revenue will go straight into the club's coffers at a time when it'll probably need it most.

On the second one, as well as being a financial supporter of the CSH I'm also a football club shareholder and just wanted to know the arrangements for the repayment of the £20k as I was unable to attend the AGM. That it was an interest free loan over a period of 18 months to a sister organisation I'm more than happy with, as I'm positive the CSH is an excellent investment. I asked about the source of the cash used to repay the advance for info' only, it could've been a reasonable initial revenue splitting arrangement. It's the type of question shareholders are allowed to ask without being accused of sharpening their pitchforks.

In my experience it's better to have the detail of these type of transactions out in the open so everyone can understand them and get behind what is trying to be achieved. I think this is particularly relevant with our club as it relies on so many of its fundraising initiatives from within it's own relatively modest fan base.  If you're not as transparent as you can be people can get hold of the wrong end of sticks and misunderstandings can arise and cause all manner of problems. That's why any question is never a stupid one, however cringeworthy 

Fair enough JTH, I agree the details help. Its just a shame that lack of detail is often misconstrued as an intentional rouse to fool the public.

Also, I wasnt referring to your first question, only your second question. I was referring to previous questions in the article as well.