Print

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

Yes

28 (39.4%)

No

43 (60.6%)

Total Members Voted: 40

Voting closed: November 02, 2016, 12:41:30 PM

[Brian Flynn]

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.

[brinners]

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.

[taxi Phil]

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.

[RockyRobin]

EN8

Zone 7

[Jimmy Hill]

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.

[im not really here]

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.

[taxi Phil]

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.

[Sarf London Alty]

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.

[bumble]

Be nice if we dropped the woe is me, chip on the shoulder routine.

[Mausoleum Alty]

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

[Jezza]

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...

[bumble]

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?

[Jezza]

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 

[Jezza]

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?

[GB Alty]

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 

hence a closed a shop