[valemadness]

Benno Spire, on 06 February 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

Is Mr Biggs a shareholder?

According to his twitter, yes.

Dry sense of humour from chairman Mike Warner at #Chesterfieldfc AGM. Here as shareholder only. Any tweets random. https://t.co/peFyjjBwMU

[erniemossity]

Is it just me or did anyone else think Mike Warner didn't seem to be taking the proceedings very seriously? I don't know the bloke but he his attitude seemed very much of a man who thinks this is all a bit of a joke and cos the debt is Dave Allen's he can avoid any blame for the current situation. Indeed, I don't think there was any collective responsibility shown for the dire straits we find ourselves in. Basically, if we want a successful team then we have to pay over the odds for it, which means huge debt. So....what's gone wrong this season then?
It was confirmed that the conferencing and banqueting were making significant profits, close to £700,000 if I'm not mistaken. There are obviously parts of the business that are generally doing very well, I find it incomprehensible that the "elephant in the room" , (or not in the room actually) wasn't there to answer why the other parts of the business are haemorrhaging money. As much as I think CT is a financial buffoon, I very much got the impression last night that he is deliberately being kept out of the way to avoid further embarrassment.
Reading between the lines I don't think MW has any confidence in him.
I thought GC spoke well, and I for one believe he is single minded enough to stick with his principles to give us a team worth watching, albeit probably in L2.
Overall impression of last night? Financially we are in deep doodoo, but that's DA's issue not the current board.
The issues "over the road" have now been admitted, but they want to draw a line under it (in other words they are so embarrassed by it they don't want to discuss it any more).
If we want a successful team then the debt stays and rises.
MW is a reluctant figurehead only, although they've said DA has no involvement it's pretty obvious his influence remains full on in the shape of AC despite Ashley's criticism of DA over the Boly transfer saga.
Some awkward silences and mumbling whispers on the top table at times before answers were given. Lots of stuff we are still not being told methinks.
Oh... nice touch but if they really want to cut costs they don't need to put on a buffet...I'm sure we would understand. Every little helps....

[Sammy Spireite]

Part of me feels sorry for MW, he seems a decent and genuine guy, and I have no reason to doubt his love for the club.

At times last night, particularly when fielding questions about the DC, he looked like a rabbit in the headlights and was visibly uncomfortable with some of the suggestions/accusations/diabolical truths being discussed from both sides of the table. Culminating in him refusing to accept any further questions on the DC issues.

I would imagine he'd reluctantly agreed to be chairman, more for his loyalty to the club rather than to DA but given the lack of alternatives probably felt he had to do it.

My only gripe with him, was when people challenged him on what the plan was to reduce the debt he talked solely of cutting the playing budget, yet didn't mention cutting any other overheads simply stating the club/stadium "drank money" (or words to that effect).

Irrelevant of current roles, CT SHOULD have been there last night, and faced some of the probing questions regarding his time in charge and decisions he allegedly made (or not, as the case may be). AC said early on that he was away 'working' down south ("as far away from the club as possible" came the welcomed heckle from the back) yet after the meeting AC admitted he'd instructed CT not to attend, which is damning in itself.

Also, worth mentioning GC who sat there through an hour or so listening to scandal after scandal regarding his new employers, listening to concerned fans try to get answers from the club as to why were in a terrible state. He must have had thoughts of "what have I let myself in for". He did field a few football related questions with the usual PR gusto of any new manager would, but must have left with serious doubts over his future at the club, certainly long term.

[dazcarrlegend]

Skywalker, on 07 February 2017 - 08:29 AM, said:

4000 extra supporters per match wouldn't see us breaking even at those losses. Shambolic mismanagement.

Yes, anyone would think that it is beneficial for a successful businessman to have a loss-making business in their portfolio for taxation purposes

[azul]

Sammy Spireite, on 07 February 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Part of me feels sorry for MW, he seems a decent and genuine guy, and I have no reason to doubt his love for the club.

At times last night, particularly when fielding questions about the DC, he looked like a rabbit in the headlights and was visibly uncomfortable with some of the suggestions/accusations/diabolical truths being discussed from both sides of the table. Culminating in him refusing to accept any further questions on the DC issues.

I would imagine he'd reluctantly agreed to be chairman, more for his loyalty to the club rather than to DA but given the lack of alternatives probably felt he had to do it.

My only gripe with him, was when people challenged him on what the plan was to reduce the debt he talked solely of cutting the playing budget, yet didn't mention cutting any other overheads simply stating the club/stadium "drank money" (or words to that effect).

Irrelevant of current roles, CT SHOULD have been there last night, and faced some of the probing questions regarding his time in charge and decisions he allegedly made (or not, as the case may be). AC said early on that he was away 'working' down south ("as far away from the club as possible" came the welcomed heckle from the back) yet after the meeting AC admitted he'd instructed CT not to attend, which is damning in itself.

Also, worth mentioning GC who sat there through an hour or so listening to scandal after scandal regarding his new employers, listening to concerned fans try to get answers from the club as to why were in a terrible state. He must have had thoughts of "what have I let myself in for". He did field a few football related questions with the usual PR gusto of any new manager would, but must have left with serious doubts over his future at the club, certainly long term.

With loses currently at £1.3M what is it going to be at the end of the reporting year? I suppose season ticket sales for next season might keep the losses below £2M. It is going to be some squad we'll have next year to reduce that level of ongoing loss significantly.

Although it is a disgrace that Turner wasn't there, it might have been a blessing is disguise. HE would have burbled, waffled and blustered for 10 minute at a time, not answering the question

[Zorro]

There is no doubt that Mike Warner is CFC through and through but last night I was very disappointed in his attitude and performance as a chairman. He was more like a stand up comedian that tried to make fun out of questions and answered serious questions with off the cuff remarks. Ashley Carson tried to answer questions and Howard gave figures and answers to the financial questions. I was disappointed that at the start of the meeting MW announced that time would be given to all questions but when the in depth questions kept cropping up regarding the enterprise across the road he closed it down and would not take any more questions as 'he' thought it had been fully covered.

CT not being in attendance was a clever move by AC. This saved Chris from a verbal bashing from certain fans and Ashley was happy to take the flak. CT is in the eyes of a lot of fans the main person responsible for a lot of the problems yet I still think that CT has never acted independently. I would go as far as to say that everything CT has done has been in the eyes of others and he is merely a fall guy for the establishment.

It was also disappointing that no questions were asked regarding the Hub which nicely confirms my suggestion that the format of the agenda should be visited and that topics for the agenda should be looked at where shareholders can add items to the agenda.

Historically the agenda has always been set by the board of directors where the usual topics are listed and any other topic is brought up as A.O.B. Both the DC & the Hub should not have been left to A.O.B. and should have been included within the agenda where the directors should have reported on the year to inform the shareholders of their activities, profits or losses by reporting.

Z

[moondog]

Sammy Spireite, on 07 February 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Part of me feels sorry for MW, he seems a decent and genuine guy, and I have no reason to doubt his love for the club. At times last night, particularly when fielding questions about the DC, he looked like a rabbit in the headlights and was visibly uncomfortable with some of the suggestions/accusations/diabolical truths being discussed from both sides of the table. Culminating in him refusing to accept any further questions on the DC issues. I would imagine he'd reluctantly agreed to be chairman, more for his loyalty to the club rather than to DA but given the lack of alternatives probably felt he had to do it. My only gripe with him, was when people challenged him on what the plan was to reduce the debt he talked solely of cutting the playing budget, yet didn't mention cutting any other overheads simply stating the club/stadium "drank money" (or words to that effect). Irrelevant of current roles, CT SHOULD have been there last night, and faced some of the probing questions regarding his time in charge and decisions he allegedly made (or not, as the case may be). AC said early on that he was away 'working' down south ("as far away from the club as possible" came the welcomed heckle from the back) yet after the meeting AC admitted he'd instructed CT not to attend, which is damning in itself. Also, worth mentioning GC who sat there through an hour or so listening to scandal after scandal regarding his new employers, listening to concerned fans try to get answers from the club as to why were in a terrible state. He must have had thoughts of "what have I let myself in for". He did field a few football related questions with the usual PR gusto of any new manager would, but must have left with serious doubts over his future at the club, certainly long term.

That's the big issue, we are being asked to beleive we have unfixable costs in operating the football club from this stadium. I beleive this is far from the case as the previous regime ran it at lower cost and other similar clubs can operate relatively successfully at lower cost both on and off field. Whilstever there is no proper and detailed explanation for the increased off field costs the major mistrust of those running the club will never go away.

[ELTON 2020]

moondog, on 07 February 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

That's the big issue, we are being asked to beleive we have unfixable costs in operating the football club from this stadium. I beleive this is far from the case as the previous regime ran it at lower cost and other similar clubs can operate relatively successfully at lower cost both on and off field. Whilstever there is no proper and detailed explanation for the increased off field costs the major mistrust of those running the club will never go away.

In terms of fixed costs - these must be in relation to non-playing staff. There seems to be a hell of a lot of people employed by the club compared to 10 years ago. Are there any figures comparing ours with , say, Oxford or Shrewsbury etc...?

[hewittfan]

azul, on 07 February 2017 - 12:08 PM, said:

With loses currently at £1.3M what is it going to be at the end of the reporting year? I suppose season ticket sales for next season might keep the losses below £2M. It is going to be some squad we'll have next year to reduce that level of ongoing loss significantly.

Although it is a disgrace that Turner wasn't there, it might have been a blessing is disguise. HE would have burbled, waffled and blustered for 10 minute at a time, not answering the question

No, season ticket sales for next season would be kept on the balance sheet at the year end. They wouldn't be taken to profit until next year's accounts.

[Mr Mercury]

Sammy Spireite, on 07 February 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

Part of me feels sorry for MW, he seems a decent and genuine guy, and I have no reason to doubt his love for the club.

At times last night, particularly when fielding questions about the DC, he looked like a rabbit in the headlights and was visibly uncomfortable with some of the suggestions/accusations/diabolical truths being discussed from both sides of the table. Culminating in him refusing to accept any further questions on the DC issues.

I would imagine he'd reluctantly agreed to be chairman, more for his loyalty to the club rather than to DA but given the lack of alternatives probably felt he had to do it.

My only gripe with him, was when people challenged him on what the plan was to reduce the debt he talked solely of cutting the playing budget, yet didn't mention cutting any other overheads simply stating the club/stadium "drank money" (or words to that effect).

Irrelevant of current roles, CT SHOULD have been there last night, and faced some of the probing questions regarding his time in charge and decisions he allegedly made (or not, as the case may be). AC said early on that he was away 'working' down south ("as far away from the club as possible" came the welcomed heckle from the back) yet after the meeting AC admitted he'd instructed CT not to attend, which is damning in itself.

Also, worth mentioning GC who sat there through an hour or so listening to scandal after scandal regarding his new employers, listening to concerned fans try to get answers from the club as to why were in a terrible state. He must have had thoughts of "what have I let myself in for". He did field a few football related questions with the usual PR gusto of any new manager would, but must have left with serious doubts over his future at the club, certainly long term.

Hi Sammy, it was me who asked the question asking why wasn't CT there being as the AGM was regarding the accounts when CT was CEO, the Chair stated that he was and I quote "working tonight, somewhere down south I think" I then replied , "so,has far away from the club as possible tonight then?" Now I've read elsewhere that AC apparently,said, but I didn't hear it, that CT could have attended but was told there was no need because he's no longer involved with any running of the club. First of all if that's true then may I thank the chair for his incorrect answer to me, a concerned shareholder, or direct my scorn at AC for not correcting the chair to say he'd told CT not to attend. Either way his none attendance was a total and utter insult to everyone connected to the meeting last night. If it was an attempt at keeping him out of the way of some very tricky and searching, but important questions then I'm disgusted by it. For every step attempted forward there's a bigger step back.
Edit, also,I,agree with the comments regarding the "performance" of the chair last night. I understand it could be a way of dealing with the onslaught but things like the pithy one liners are ok when everything in the garden is rosey, not when there are vitally serious issues to be discussed and major financial problems for the club going forward.

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 07 February 2017 - 02:53 PM

[dim view]

Mr Mercury, on 07 February 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

Edit, also,I,agree with the comments regarding the "performance" of the chair last night. I understand it could be a way of dealing with the onslaught but things like the pithy one liners are ok when everything in the garden is rosey, not when there are vitally serious issues to be discussed and major financial problems for the club going forward.

I've been to Ex-Spireites footie this morning and received similar feedback from shareholders.

I felt I was one of the speakers treated disrespectfully as I was asked to wait for answers until AOB, and then he refused to do AOB on the accounts once discussions about football had started.

The pithiness was of course a useful defence mechanism and I suppose quite effective a) as he didn't know many answers and b) the majority of shareholders probably wanted to discuss footie.

I think the lesson learned here is that an AGM is not the arena for an extended forensic discussion which is not of interest to the majority. Perhaps the Board will invite interested parties in again to take things further.

I must look up the rules about being able to call an EGM.

This post has been edited by dim view: 07 February 2017 - 03:47 PM

[moondog]

Post AGM interviews with Ashley Carson & Mike Warner care of the Chesterfield Post

http://chesterfieldp...c_00001317.html

[Westbars Spireite]

Panic over; we're a 'thriving business'.

What's Mike Warner's story? I don't know a thing about him nor before listening to that have I ever heard him speak.

[dim view]

moondog, on 07 February 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

Post AGM interviews with Ashley Carson & Mike Warner care of the Chesterfield Post

http://chesterfieldp...c_00001317.html

Well done Karen

Ashley confirms then that the party line is that Turner was hands off and knew nowt about owt.

If that's so, who asked Sutcliffe to make 'unusual' payments to CFC staff?

[erniemossity]

dim view, on 07 February 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

Well done Karen

Ashley confirms then that the party line is that Turner was hands off and knew nowt about owt.

If that's so, who asked Sutcliffe to make 'unusual' payments to CFC staff?

And why has he still got a job if he patently knows nowt about owt

[Billy Bob]

Chris Turner
I ultimately take responsibility for not inviting CT last night to the AGM.
He is no longer involved in the day to day decision making of the football club and I stand by my decision.
He remains as Director of Football and is doing a very good job.
Square Peg / Round Hole springs to mind.
Once again I hope that we can move forward now in a positive way.

Facebook post by AC

This post has been edited by Billy Bob: 07 February 2017 - 09:31 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

dim view, on 07 February 2017 - 06:03 PM, said:

Well done Karen

Ashley confirms then that the party line is that Turner was hands off and knew nowt about owt.

If that's so, who asked Sutcliffe to make 'unusual' payments to CFC staff?

Turner tried the 'I was the dark and run rings 'round' line post Alnassar.

Turner tried the 'I was in the dark and run rings 'round' line post Bingham.

Turner tried the 'I was in the dark and run rings 'round' line post 'Rafflegate'.

However not only is there evidence confirming he was made aware of Sutcliffe's behaviour long before it came under wider scrutiny, not only has Carson confirmed there was significant financial interaction between CFC and the DS which he'd repeatedly denied, not only does that raise huge and unanswered conflict of interest questions, but as a director of the DS he had a legal obligation to ensure it was run properly.

His 'I was in the dark and run rings 'round' excuses have run out.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 07 February 2017 - 09:33 PM

[Mr Mercury]

Billy Bob, on 07 February 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Chris Turner
I ultimately take responsibility for not inviting CT last night to the AGM.
He is no longer involved in the day to day decision making of the football club and I stand by my decision.
He remains as Director of Football and is doing a very good job.
Square Peg / Round Hole springs to mind.
Once again I hope that we can move forward now in a positive way.

Facebook post by AC

Absolute rubbish Ashley, he was CEO for the period in which the accounts were being discussed, he was a partner in the DC which you knew would feature heavily in last nights meeting, I find it nothing more than a blatent attempt to keep him away from questions which you knew would make him look shambolic at best. Disgusting decision.

[Stockholm Spireite]

It's been a quiet 24 hours for the "let's give them a chance" brigade...

[meowdmucker]

Billy Bob, on 07 February 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Chris Turner
I ultimately take responsibility for not inviting CT last night to the AGM.
He is no longer involved in the day to day decision making of the football club and I stand by my decision.
He remains as Director of Football and is doing a very good job.
Square Peg / Round Hole springs to mind.
Once again I hope that we can move forward now in a positive way.

Facebook post by AC

I'm afraid that any trust I had regained recently in our board totally disintegrated with this decision.
You get a massive no confidence vote from me but ,hey, don't let that put you off dragging this club deeper and deeper into the gutter.