[Mr Mercury]

alho, on 10 November 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

Whether we like it or not Dave Allen regularly bailing us out and filling the financial shortfalls is the only thing keeping the club afloat so we need to be very careful regarding protests etc, the consequences could be horrendous

There was a point last night were JC was making the point about how much money was coming into the club via DA these last few years and it has helped the club in so many ways. At this point I made comment that I didn't think he realised why the majority, if not all those present were there. Speaking for myself I'm in no way crtiscising DAs cash injection s over the years but asking WHY? Why the need to keep doing it on the back of record gates, success on the pitch, player sales etc. It's like Groundhog Day keep repeating it but we all want to know why we keep haemorrhaging money season, after season after season without any other rational plan to reduce the debt other than sell, sell sell.
Very worrying, like many have said let's hope last night is the start of genuine bridge building and a realisation that drastic action is needed regarding the day to day finances of the club.

[azul]

freelander2, on 10 November 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

I believe Moondog might issue all with an update later.

As I understand it, 16 questions were submitted to Ashley Carson prior to last night's meeting. All of those questions were finance related and the majority were based on present versus historical data.

We have received answers, some of which we are not overly happy with. We are in the process of asking Ashley Carson to relook at some of his answers before they are released on here.

With regards to last night's Q&A, there's about three and a half hours of audio to listen to and summarise. In reality, that's probably seven hours worth of work. Nick Johnson got lumbered with that and it was agreed that all parties would agree the content before it is released.

In terms of the meeting itself, I can only speak for myself, CHANGE IS REQUIRED AT OUR FOOTBALL CLUB. It is leaderless and those currently in charge of the business do not have the knowledge, understanding or qualifications to make it work. I'm not convinced they know what the problem is and I am 100% certain after last night they have no solution for it.

Given that Dave Allen supports what is going on, you really have to wonder where our club is going.

The orginal answers would be more interesting to see if they were that bad. Fair enough if they just need a bit of clarification but it shouldn't need the reworked

[clarevoyant.]

The justification for CT'S % on transfer fees (no figure was mentioned) was that ONCE an outgoing transfer was in the pipe line it was CT'S remit to get the best deal for the club thus the incentive. Which according to the director questioned (Chris Breeze)he had been very successful at and in the directors eyes had exceeded expectations with the fees he had negotiated. And bizarrely it was also mentioned that it was to enhance his salary which for this position was one of the lowest in the division. Make of that what you will.
I also agree it's about beating the blunts on sunday not the time for protests

[BlueRover52]

Mr Mercury, on 10 November 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

There was a point last night were JC was making the point about how much money was coming into the club via DA these last few years and it has helped the club in so many ways. At this point I made comment that I didn't think he realised why the majority, if not all those present were there. Speaking for myself I'm in no way crtiscising DAs cash injection s over the years but asking WHY? Why the need to keep doing it on the back of record gates, success on the pitch, player sales etc. It's like Groundhog Day keep repeating it but we all want to know why we keep haemorrhaging money season, after season after season without any other rational plan to reduce the debt other than sell, sell sell.
Very worrying, like many have said let's hope last night is the start of genuine bridge building and a realisation that drastic action is needed regarding the day to day finances of the club.

In their eyes it'll be "not enough fans coming through the gates".To us it will be a case of poor management by people who don't have a clue of how to run the club.

[alho]

Mr Mercury, on 10 November 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

There was a point last night were JC was making the point about how much money was coming into the club via DA these last few years and it has helped the club in so many ways. At this point I made comment that I didn't think he realised why the majority, if not all those present were there. Speaking for myself I'm in no way crtiscising DAs cash injection s over the years but asking WHY? Why the need to keep doing it on the back of record gates, success on the pitch, player sales etc. It's like Groundhog Day keep repeating it but we all want to know why we keep haemorrhaging money season, after season after season without any other rational plan to reduce the debt other than sell, sell sell.
Very worrying, like many have said let's hope last night is the start of genuine bridge building and a realisation that drastic action is needed regarding the day to day finances of the club.

I was there last on night with the Bridge inn travel and fully concur with what you say, the lack of any credible plan going forward, to stop the need for DA bailing us out, is the most worrying aspect of last nights findings. Until a plan is found though we can't afford for DA to pull the plug as it would be disastrous so Amy protest needs to be shelved, unless any protester can come up with a credible plan B of course

[Heart of a Niven]

It's all very well suggesting we shelve protests but isn't that the main reason they wanted this meeting in the first instance - to save face on TV? I heartly agree that we need to get behind the team but last night should change nothing. The Gang Of Three are still in charge and it seems quite clear they just don't understand what the problem is.

[Stockholm Spireite]

alho, on 10 November 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

I was there last on night with the Bridge inn travel and fully concur with what you say, the lack of any credible plan going forward, to stop the need for DA bailing us out, is the most worrying aspect of last nights findings. Until a plan is found though we can't afford for DA to pull the plug as it would be disastrous so Amy protest needs to be shelved, unless any protester can come up with a credible plan B of course

It's quite a leap to suggest that DA would walk away over a protest. He's already ignored worse than this

[Phil V 72]

Well, this has convinced me.

My money's continuing to stay in my pocket on Saturday afternoons.

[spireman]

Blue95, on 10 November 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

Conflict of interest surely?! This whole scenario is absolute bizarre/ridiculous/farcical/amatuer. Professional club my bottom. Turner & Allen out. Idiots.

Surely if an object of the club is to support the finances with player sales to incenticise the ceo is sensible, the more fees are received the more bonus is paid. Would have thought this is normal practice in most businesses and shouldnt be the subject of a lot of comments on here.

[Heart of a Niven]

spireman, on 10 November 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

Surely if an object of the club is to support the finances with player sales to incenticise the ceo is sensible, the more fees are received the more bonus is paid. Would have thought this is normal practice in most businesses and shouldnt be the subject of a lot of comments on here.

Yes but we're not 'most businesses' and the fact that, as mentioned earlier in the thread, CT is paid less than others in similar positions at other clubs tells you everything you need to know.

[boot]

spireman, on 10 November 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

Surely if an object of the club is to support the finances with player sales to incenticise the ceo is sensible, the more fees are received the more bonus is paid. Would have thought this is normal practice in most businesses and shouldnt be the subject of a lot of comments on here.

If he needs incentivising to get the best deal then he shouldn't be in the job in the first place. The only bonus that should be paid, if any at all should be on annual profit, and the state we are in I'm against that really. The idea that he works harder if there is a cut in it for him is quite frankly appalling. There can be no justification for such a scandalous diversion of funds.

[moondog]

freelander2, on 10 November 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

I believe Moondog might issue all with an update later.

As I understand it, 16 questions were submitted to Ashley Carson prior to last night's meeting. All of those questions were finance related and the majority were based on present versus historical data.

We have received answers, some of which we are not overly happy with. We are in the process of asking Ashley Carson to relook at some of his answers before they are released on here.

With regards to last night's Q&A, there's about three and a half hours of audio to listen to and summarise. In reality, that's probably seven hours worth of work. Nick Johnson got lumbered with that and it was agreed that all parties would agree the content before it is released.

In terms of the meeting itself, I can only speak for myself, CHANGE IS REQUIRED AT OUR FOOTBALL CLUB. It is leaderless and those currently in charge of the business do not have the knowledge, understanding or qualifications to make it work. I'm not convinced they know what the problem is and I am 100% certain after last night they have no solution for it.

Given that Dave Allen supports what is going on, you really have to wonder where our club is going.

The only update I can give at the moment is

a) to confirm we intend to go back to AC for him to look again at our advance accounts/financial related questions and answers before they are published on here

b) AC has asked Nick Johnson to release a record of last night's meeting as soon as possible, however as has been pointed out this is a major piece of work and I can see discussions on here about what was said last night have naturally begun. It wouldn't be right or realistic to try and stop that. I haven't got the time to write up all that what was said

c) Dates proposed by the club for the next meeting will be 23, 25 or 30th January 2017, with a request that 50% from each group be newly attending fans. This of course meets the needs of other members who would like to attend and we need in due course to decide a fair way of selection. One condition is again likely to be that you be prepared to reveal your real identity to the club.

[essexspireman]

moondog, on 10 November 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:

The only update I can give at the moment is

a) to confirm we intend to go back to AC for him to look again at our advance accounts/financial related questions and answers before they are published on here

b) AC has asked Nick Johnson to release a record of last night's meeting as soon as possible, however as has been pointed out this is a major piece of work and I can see discussions on here about what was said last night have naturally begun. It wouldn't be right or realistic to try and stop that. I haven't got the time to write up all that what was said

c) Dates proposed by the club for the next meeting will be 23, 25 or 30th January 2017, with a request that 50% from each group be newly attending fans. This of course meets the needs of other members who would like to attend and we need in due course to decide a fair way of selection. One condition is again likely to be that you be prepared to reveal your real identity to the club.

can the recording of the meeting be posted on here?

[moondog]

essexspireman, on 10 November 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

can the recording of the meeting be posted on here?

I think it may require the consent of the attendees as it wasn't specifically stated a recording would be released

[Spireite88]

moondog, on 10 November 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

I think it may require the consent of the attendees as it wasn't specifically stated a recording would be released

What would be the reason for witholding consent though may i ask, if members in attendance were happy with the answers given?

[The Rec]

Heart of a Niven, on 10 November 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Yes but we're not 'most businesses' and the fact that, as mentioned earlier in the thread, CT is paid less than others in similar positions at other clubs tells you everything you need to know.

Pay peanuts, get monkeys?

[The Black Triangle]

The Rec, on 10 November 2016 - 06:19 PM, said:

Pay peanuts, get monkeys?

Lol

Pay peanuts get Turn1ps

[moondog]

Spireite88, on 10 November 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

What would be the reason for witholding consent though may i ask, if members in attendance were happy with the answers given?

No reason just what i think is a point of order

[bucko]

Moondog

Why can't you just post the answers to the questions that were given regardless of whether you have asked him to rearrange look at them so that the rest of us can see what was discussed at least then nothing is not disclosed??

[moondog]

bucko, on 10 November 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

Moondog

Why can't you just post the answers to the questions that were given regardless of whether you have asked him to rearrange look at them so that the rest of us can see what was discussed at least then nothing is not disclosed??

There's nothing to hide we just want to offer him the courtesy of providing a more complete response