It has been clear for some time that the apparent pledge in the statement issued on behalf of the Chairman on March 1st to hold this statutory gathering on March 28th will not be fulfilled. The requirement to give 21 days’ notice currently means that no gathering can be held before 10th April, even if notice was served tomorrow. Implicit in Para 55 of the company’s Articles of Association is that the deadline for holding this meeting was 21st December of last year, so the extent of the apparent default appears currently to stand at 3 months and 20 days… and counting.

As regards the company’s accounts, these were filed with Companies House on the deadline day of 28th February and duly publicised through the media from that source. So far, to my knowledge, the company has made no acknowledgement of its own of their content - not even to the extent of a single figure such as the £835,000 loss. Apart from that, shareholders and supporters have absolutely no information about the club’s financial fortunes in almost 10 months since the end of the period covered by these 31.5.22. accounts - a period during which the Concert Company, touted in earlier accounts as an apparent financial saviour…. collapsed with still unknown implications for the football club, despite (mercifully!) their having been technically separate entities.

Now that the accounts have been filed with Companies House and an AGM date informally made public… why has the latter not been adhered to?

At least there will be the revenue from the cup run - whenever that arrives - but, although extremely welcome, this is no panacea for a fundamentally loss making business of unclear cash flow status, kept afloat by wealthy well wishers.

4 hours ago, Robert said:

I’m with DD. Whilst standard business practices may have been followed, it leaves a sour taste that the failure of the concert initiative has left local businesses out of pocket. The club and concert company may have done nothing wrong legally, but misjudging they potential revenue has been costly for many and has damaged the club’s reputation. The club may not have suffered financially but how do you put a price on reputation and the potential loss of future revenue as a result?

4 hours ago, Robert said:

It is also worrying that they don’t see the disconnect with fans.

 

These two items are of concern to me.

No regard for local businesses who will take a long time - if ever - to forgive the club and trust them with any business dealings, and then apparently no idea about the disconnect with fans despite there being plenty of evidence of this all-over social media, this forum, and elsewhere. Treating the trust like something on the bottom of your shoe is also not cool. 

They may not think that any one group represents all of the fans, and that is true... but when you manage to discount, trivialise, and look down their noses at all the groups at once then its a recipe for disaster and a far wider spectrum of users than they may think.

Its all well and good that we have a cup semi tomorrow and we have been on an upward trend in the league but let's not forget it was not that long ago we were at the wrong end of the table, looking at the other end of the playoffs and were OUT of this same cup. Fortune favours the brave and lets hope we are very brave in these next few weeks, but we are still unfortunately papering over the cracks on and off the field.     

I hesitate as a long standing footie fan to say anything that would counter a place in the final and playoffs, however what goes on at the chairman and board level ultimately positions the club identity, relationship with the area, local community and business. The Trump -Johnson approach don’t fit well with me and sometimes you need to experience a Liz Trust moment to get change!

Time will tell……….

 

On 4/28/2023 at 11:28 AM, Satan said:

So the major shareholders 'tolerated' the board ' whilst not being impressed with the way the club is being run...

Odd state of affairs indeed. They are obviously happy to continue with the status quo , and continuing cash injections to cover the costs from whoever currently underwrites these sums.

How long does this tolerance last,  as they are the ones with the tools at their disposal to change the board?

I don't know that anyone can be considered a major shareholder as to the best of my knowledge, no individual owns a double figure percentage of shares .  Nor do I know if those individuals who have the largest shareholdings were present at the meeting.  I do know that the most pertinent questions raised during the meeting were raised by people who only have a very small shareholding.

And whilst the situation may be very unsatisfactory, it is not really "odd" at all.  We may have reservations about the way the Club is being run at the moment, but what is the alternative?  I'm not aware of any individual or group that is interested in taking over the running of the club, investing more money into the club and implementing better income generating practices than the current regime.  Meanwhile, the current regime continues to cover any shortfall and has financed the club to allow the recent massive improvement on the park to take place.

Until there is a more viable and attractive alternative on the table, then despite reservations, there is little option but to support the current Board and for supporters group and others to try to work with the current regime in improving the way the club is run.  I am no longer on the Board of the Supporter's Trust but at least the Supporters Trust is trying its best to engage with the Club in order to make improvements.  The matchday experience survey is an example of this, but please note that the survey closes at the end of today so if you haven't completed it yet and want to have your say, please CLICK HERE NOW!  

Of course, the Supporters Trust can only be as effective as the supporters as a whole allow it to be.  If people don't join the Trust and support its work, then the influence the Trust can have on influencing the Board will continue to be minimal.  The Trust has a minimum 10% voting stake in the Club and therefore could be very influential should some other group with money to invest in the club show their hand.  Also, with an increased and more active membership, the case for an elected supporter representative becomes stronger.  There's no point just having a pop from the sidelines. If people are unhappy with aspects of the way the club is run, then they should do something about it.  Join the Supporters Trust and support its work, because the Trust is trying to work with the club  and improve things for the supporters.

8 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Until there is a more viable and attractive alternative on the table, then despite reservations, there is little option but to support the current Board and for supporters group and others to try to work with the current regime in improving the way the club is run.

There is another option.  Fans can vote with their feet 🤷‍♂️

11 hours ago, STFU said:

There is another option.  Fans can vote with their feet 🤷‍♂️

Sadly I would say a great many already have.

Let’s face it our significant improvement on the field as watered down the previously expected vitriol. Are the upper echelons not primarily focused on the budgets and explaining the spending - or perhaps utilising clever concealment. So many were baying for this AGM and it has been a damp squib - giving no real responses to the fan base. My main concern would be an ignorance towards the fans views BUT most forums have predominantly been supportive with the main dissenters being - as Caley 100 would shout - Fannies. And finally if there were major shareholders it may be different and let’s hope that the sale of houses continues.