[Wooden Spoon]

dalekpete, on Jun 6 2005, 09:55 PM, said:

No apologies for resubmitting this as many good points were being made-

Some on the message board have commented on the role of those involved with our Club; I add this as one on the fringes who intends no criticism of those who are doing their best for that which we all love.

The current position

My view is that we have three groups of people helping to run CFC. They are part of a jigsaw that is our Club. These groups liaise with the football authorities, local government, supporters, local and national commercial interests and community groups. Every part of the jigsaw is vital to the success of CFC.

Of those that run the Club the first is the CFC Board. These people are the managing agents charged with the day-to-day running and with short and medium-term decision making. They are there because they are fans with money and some experience. In essence they bailed out the CFSS when money was short. They have made little profit on their investment of time and money but have kept the Club on an even keel and are in a position to protect their investment.

Their names are public knowledge but include two without significant personal means who represent CFSS. I do not believe any of them are there in the expectation of making any personal wealth from their involvement.

The “real” owner of the Club is a trust. There have been between 1500 and 3000 individuals holding shares in CFSS at various times. This trust is run by a Board of 12 to 15 people. I would struggle to name them all. I certainly wouldn’t know what duties each of them is vested with. The medium term purpose of this Board is to raise the money to meet the existing debts. I accept that some on the CFSS Board bring acumen and associations that make them essential; however most should have a defined role to justify their position. I will come to this later.

Perfectly equal in status to the Football Club Board member or Trust Board member is the ordinary fan. This “ordinary” role should not be under-estimated. For those wanting a role at the Club without mortgaging their home or committing all their free-time there is the position of volunteer.

Where someone is willing to give up their time to help the Club they should be encouraged. CFC has to be inclusive, both to involve more people but also to involve those who are committed to an ever greater degree. The volunteers group is an excellent concept but more has to be done to show that “ordinary” Spireites have a place and a role in moving the Club on.

Chesterfield Football Supporters Society

This is where the CFSS Board comes in. With a dozen or so members roles can be assigned in a Cabinet style arrangement:

• CFC Board liaison
• Stadium Development
• Minutes Secretary
• Membership Secretary
• Community Development
• Football in the Community
• Player/staff relations
• Fundraising- events
• Fundraising- strategic
• Gala Day and stadium events
• External events
• Commercial relations
• Website and e-marketing
• Volunteer liaison (including Chair of the volunteers group)
• Publicity
• Treasurer
• Chairman

To stand for the CFSS Board means that you will be willing to undertake one of these roles, and more importantly to report on activities at least bi-monthly. One person can undertake more than one role but must report on all their remits. To hand all responsibilities to a few individuals dilutes the power of the Board and places unfair pressure on those individuals.

At other clubs some of the roles will be the responsibility of employees. I am not against paying someone where that outlay is necessary and where there is not sufficient expertise in-house. I am also conscious that such an arrangement doesn’t mean we can circumvent normal commercial tendering where we contract-out work.

Priorities

I concur that the most exciting off-field development is the “Clubs the Hub” and the prospect for the Club and community that this holds; there are other priorities.

First among the roles are those concerned with minutes, publicity and volunteers; as these are areas that can be immediately improved. Minutes, including progress reports, show that CFSS is still a dynamic influence. Publicity is needed not for individual events but to show that the Trust is integral to the Club and the community. The local and regional media should be coming to us for copy rather than us offering it in hope.

The volunteer group is a first-rate idea, offering a means of involvement on a casual or ad hoc basis. Such involvement doesn’t mean that the effort should be overlooked if we are to build an inclusive, community club then that involvement is vital. However it needs to be synchronized. Whoever oversees this part of the Club needs to balance the involvement of supporters at a social level with the needs to produce outcomes that move the Club forward. This is no easy task!

A conclusion

I welcomed the CFSS re-launch in the autumn but wondered how its new aims would be attractive to those fans that had saved their Club. Without the immediate threat of extinction the attraction somewhat diminishes.

Along with the community efforts and the new stadium there needs to be a focus to CFSS. This involves individuals taking ownership of issues and the Society promoting them. It also needs a formal volunteer set-up even if this seems an oxymoron. The Club needs to be attractive, inclusive and open but still needs to make the most of what the supporters have to offer.

pete, now your on the inside, and its 18 months later, how would you assess CFSS,its re-launch and goals, given your own criteria?

and what needs to change?again as an insider, you can give a far better assessment than the rest of us.

[fishini]

death, on Dec 2 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

pete, now your on the inside, and its 18 months later, how would you assess CFSS,its re-launch and goals, given your own criteria?

and what needs to change?again as an insider, you can give a far better assessment than the rest of us.

Only one thing total dismantlement of this excuse for owners the distrustewd CFSS and lets get this club ran by one board

[Balearic Mac]

fishini, on Dec 2 2006, 08:41 PM, said:

Only one thing total dismantlement of this excuse for owners the distrustewd CFSS and lets get this club ran by one board

A board with your man, 'Ma' Hubbard, at the helm, Fish? How would that sit with you?

I know there's supposed to be no alternative, but I hope CFSS's hibernation has been little more than a cover for a concerted behind the scenes effort to find one. Mind you, judging by a post by MP Spire on another thread, the delay in any announcement has been entirely as a result of the Victorian mill owner being on a well-earned jolly - I had hoped the delay was as a result of something of an altogether more explosive nature.

This post has been edited by Balearic Mac: 02 December 2006 - 10:05 PM

[fishini]

Balearic Mac, on Dec 2 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

A board with your man, 'Ma' Hubbard, at the helm, Fish? How would that sit with you?

I know there's supposed to be no alternative, but I hope CFSS's hibernation has been little more than a cover for a concerted behind the scenes effort to find one. Mind you, judging by a post by MP Spire on another thread, the delay in any announcement has been entirely as a result of the Victorian mill owner being on a well-earned jolly - I had hoped the delay was as a result of something of an altogether more explosive nature.

Ma Hubbard not my favourite option as much as I dislike him I do trust him more than the CFSS who tell us nothing about this club that we the members are supposed to own, it does not belong to the CFSS board, they were elected to to run the club on behalf of it's owners and as owners we have a right to know what is happening, we have a right to know what the MA Hubbard proposal was, we have a right to know what is happening concerning the ground, we have a right to have meetings and minutes on time, the CFSS board have no right to withold information from the clubs owners

So I would prefer Ma Hubbard to the incompetant untrustworthy buffoons within the CFSS

[Wooden Spoon]

fishini, on Dec 3 2006, 06:53 PM, said:

Ma Hubbard not my favourite option as much as I dislike him I do trust him more than the CFSS who tell us nothing about this club that we the members are supposed to own, it does not belong to the CFSS board, they were elected to to run the club on behalf of it's owners and as owners we have a right to know what is happening, we have a right to know what the MA Hubbard proposal was, we have a right to know what is happening concerning the ground, we have a right to have meetings and minutes on time, the CFSS board have no right to withold information from the clubs owners

So I would prefer Ma Hubbard to the incompetant untrustworthy buffoons within the CFSS

the silence from the comittee man, regarding his own criteria about themselves says it all.

moving the goal posts? more like they have revolving goalposts .

sums up everything wrong with CFSS

This post has been edited by death: 03 December 2006 - 07:40 PM

[dalekpete]

death, on Dec 2 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

pete, now your on the inside, and its 18 months later, how would you assess CFSS,its re-launch and goals, given your own criteria?

and what needs to change?again as an insider, you can give a far better assessment than the rest of us.

I will probably wait a few weeks before giving a full answer.

However I stand by all I wrote.

The Board has not been exactly what I expected. In fact it has been a more stressful and less enjoyable experience than I hoped (and that is not just down to fishini!) That doesn't mean that it hasn't been worthwhile and I hope my involvement continues.

In terms of mandates for members this is difficult when elections are not contested. In terms of the areas of responsibility listed most are actually covered but many in a non-formal way.

I still believe that the community side of CFSS/CFC is integral to the Club and the new stadium.

[Town_Fan]

MP-Spire, on Dec 3 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

Far too many assumptions have been made and naivety shown for my liking.

From what I hear, CFC have made it practically impossible for CFSS to be involved once the new ground has been built, community based or otherwise.

CFSS want a donald ducking for not having an alternative group lined up. By alternative group, I mean one that wouldn't reduce Roy's budget by 20-25%.

It pays to be one step ahead, sadly CFSS are still debating how to get out of the dressing room.

Wouldnt it be ironic if CFSS' refusal to look elsewhere and the "noone would be interested in the club" mentality would be ultimately what lost them control?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

dalekpete, on Dec 3 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

I will probably wait a few weeks before giving a full answer.

However I stand by all I wrote.

The Board has not been exactly what I expected. In fact it has been a more stressful and less enjoyable experience than I hoped (and that is not just down to fishini!) That doesn't mean that it hasn't been worthwhile and I hope my involvement continues.

In terms of mandates for members this is difficult when elections are not contested. In terms of the areas of responsibility listed most are actually covered but many in a non-formal way.

I still believe that the community side of CFSS/CFC is integral to the Club and the new stadium.

Pete I know you can't put what you really think, but the non formal way that is being approached is the main reason things don't happen. There is no accountability or responsibility to see tasks done by a certain date etc

[Wooden Spoon]

dalekpete, on Dec 3 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

I will probably wait a few weeks before giving a full answer.

However I stand by all I wrote.

so you still agree that the aim of cfss is =

"The medium term purpose of this Board is to raise the money to meet the existing debts."

dalekpete, on Dec 3 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

The Board has not been exactly what I expected. In fact it has been a more stressful and less enjoyable experience than I hoped (and that is not just down to fishini!) That doesn't mean that it hasn't been worthwhile and I hope my involvement continues.

i for one appreciate the time you take to answer questions on behalf of the comittee. its a shame your the only one out of the 12 thats does. thats a huge reason for falling numbers and fans dissengagement.

dalekpete, on Dec 3 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

In terms of mandates for members this is difficult when elections are not contested. In terms of the areas of responsibility listed most are actually covered but many in a non-formal way.

no it isnt.its easy. 6 places up for grabs, so you allocate 6 duties. i asked you some 2 months before the elections what role was to be assigned, as it isnt worth voting if there is no role allocated to each member.

thats why no one bothers pete. if we could see area`s of responsiblity and targets,goals and achievments it just might have kept the fans interested. apathy.

all we see now is a powerless once a month talking shop. with no aims, responsibility, goals or ideas. just the perception of blokes in it for "kudos" of being the proud owners of a football club. is it really any wonder the elections are not contested?
apathy again. "why bother joining them".

dalekpete, on Dec 3 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

I still believe that the community side of CFSS/CFC is integral to the Club and the new stadium.

you might beleive that, but once big bazza has the shares..........

[Spireite61]

Town_Fan, on Dec 3 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

Wouldnt it be ironic if CFSS' refusal to look elsewhere and the "noone would be interested in the club" mentality would be ultimately what lost them control?

It is surely now the case that even were the CFSS to publish the offer and there response this week, by the time they had arranged the AGM and organised the vote etc, assuming it went in favour of a hand over of power, this couldn't be done before the end of January, so not giving any new owners the chance to let Roy have a bit of dosh in the transfer window to ensure we avoid relegation this season.

And also thinking about things further, just what would be commercially sensative about the proposal etc. When Barry first muted the idea of a proposal being made he stated that it would need to be put to the membership of CFSS, so he was expecting us all to be aware of what was being offered, so the only "sensative" material is surely what is being put forward by CFSS in way of negotiation or conditions - so in effectour own leadership is keeping us in the dark about what it is negotiating supposedly on our behalf - not exactly the definition of an open democratic society me thinks.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Spireite61, on Dec 5 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

It is surely now the case that even were the CFSS to publish the offer and there response this week, by the time they had arranged the AGM and organised the vote etc, assuming it went in favour of a hand over of power, this couldn't be done before the end of January, so not giving any new owners the chance to let Roy have a bit of dosh in the transfer window to ensure we avoid relegation this season.

And also thinking about things further, just what would be commercially sensative about the proposal etc. When Barry first muted the idea of a proposal being made he stated that it would need to be put to the membership of CFSS, so he was expecting us all to be aware of what was being offered, so the only "sensative" material is surely what is being put forward by CFSS in way of negotiation or conditions - so in effectour own leadership is keeping us in the dark about what it is negotiating supposedly on our behalf - not exactly the definition of an open democratic society me thinks.

Perhaps it's some of the cfss board members that are sensitive to losing control