We would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who supported us through the election and AGM process.
We are astonished that we managed to get 2 people voted on to the board of the Trust.
Obviously we knew that one of us would be elected but to get two people onto the Board is a massive achievement.
It is unprecedented in the short history of WST that the membership voted out a sitting board member in favour of outsiders.
This can only be a healthy development for a democratic body.
There is obviously a keen desire on the part of a large number of WST members to see a change in the way that the WST operates and we hope and expect that the Board of the WST takes note of this constituency.
"Fresh Approach" is now finished and the two candidates elected to the board will now work with the rest of the board to move both the trust and the club forward.
Once again thank you for your support.
Friday, 8 June 2007
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
A LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCE
We have today sent the following letter to the Secretary of the Wrexham Supporters Trust.
To the Secretary Wrexham Supporter Trust
This letter is a follow up to Colin Bithell’s telephone call to yourself on Sunday.
I am writing to you, on behalf of the candidates listed below, to register our protest regarding the manner in which the WST AGM 2007 has been handled by the Board of the Trust. This is not done lightly, but we feel that, irrespective of whatever the results of the Board elections and the resolutions, democracy in the WST has not been served well. It is also our opinion that the Board have acted without thought to Rule 39 of the WST Constitution, which states:
“It is the responsibility of the Society Board, the Chair of the meeting and the Secretary to ensure that, at any general meeting:
a) the issues to be decided are clearly explained;
b) sufficient information is provided to members to enable rational discussion to take place;
c) where appropriate, members of the Executive Board, experts in relevant fields or representatives of special interest groups are invited to address the meeting.”
In outlining our concerns,I deal with these matters under separate headings for the sake of simplicity.
AGM Pack
The AGM pack sent out to members properly listed the Resolutions to be voted on at the AGM. However, in a departure from normal WST practice the Board has commented on all of the Resolutions, expressing the Board view on whether the membership should support or reject the proposal. Further, in an additional departure from the norm, with regards to two of those resolutions put forwards by ourselves (F and J) the Board have seen fit to explain, briefly, their reason for opposing the resolutions. In our view this action, together with the failure to allow us to put forward our reasons for the resolutions, is undemocratic and in breach of rule 39(b). It must be obvious, and as the board will be aware, it is quite possible that the number of proxy votes will exceed the number of members who attend the meeting in person. Without access to the internet those members who have sent in a proxy vote will have had no sight of a view alternative to that presented by the Board.
“Seconders” of the Resolutions
For certain of the resolutions proposed for consideration, the names of some members who seconded those proposals have been excluded. In some cases the names of twenty to thirty members are missing. The view of the Vice Chairman of the WST is that members, in effect, need not see any pre-vote show of support. This view is a departure from all previous AGM packs, which have listed ALL ‘seconders’ to ALL resolutions proposed. In our opinion the view of the Vice Chairman is also at odds with the Board’s own stance in relation to each resolution, where the Board’s members, in essence, have expressed a pre-vote show of support or of opposition.
WST Newsletter
Following the issuing of the AGM pack the Board of the WST issued a newsletter to the membership of the society that outlined the Board’s view on all resolutions put to the AGM. Within that newsletter the Board discuss the resolutions proposed by non-Board members (Resolutions F to K inclusive) and give reasons for supporting or opposing those resolutions. It is our contention that, in a Society purporting to be democratic, the proposer/seconders of those resolutions should have had the opportunity of responding to the Board’s concerns for the benefit of those members in receipt of that newsletter. Our request for that courtesy was refused by the Vice Chairman, on the basis that the Board may not consider that action to be in the WST’s best interests. That is a view that, quite frankly, astonishes us. Surely, in relation to resolutions validly proposed and seconded, it is for the membership to decide whether they are in the WST’s best interests, and that can only be done, under Rule 39, if the members are in possession of sufficient information. In our view the Board has failed to discharge its duty impartially under the WST Constitution.
Press briefings
We believe that the Board of the WST has abused its’ access to the local media in relation to the AGM. Within an article in the Evening Leader on May 27th, it is our contention that the Chairman of the WST made statements in relation to the Resolutions put forward by members which have no basis in fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the resolutions proposed by the membership will have any adverse effect upon the football club and it is something that we always bore in mind when formulating the Resolutions. Further, in stating within that article that the proposer/seconders of the members’ Resolutions HAVE foreseen that they are a threat to the existence of the football club but have chosen to ignore such a threat is an insult to many members who worked tirelessly on behalf of both the WST and the Club when it WAS threatened with extinction.
Board/Members Resolutions
We note, with some alarm, that the Board appears to have seen fit to involve Geoff Moss in their ‘campaign’. It is apparent, from the newsletter already referred to, that he was invited to consider resolutions F to K and express his view. The Board also expressed their view. Both these views were contained within the newsletter However, the persons who actually proposed those resolutions were not asked for to provide their views on their own resolutions!
As stated our request for such an opportunity was refused, meaning that the membership were able to read criticism provided by a non member of the WST yet were barred from reading an explanation for the Resolutions from the members of the WST who had proposed them.
It must be further noted, and commented upon, that the board met to discuss the Board Resolutions on 10th May, the closing date for submissions. Further, another meeting was held by the Board to discuss those Resolutions some four days after that closing date.
It is sad to note that, in a democratic Society, the first of those meetings has not been minuted and this, in our view, is in breach of clause B4 of the Board’s Membership Policy, which requires the vote taken by the Board on such matters to be included in the pack sent to WST members.
The only other alternative is that the Board has not voted on the Resolutions that it proposes, which is fanciful in the extreme. Further, by failing to comply with Clause B4 of the Policy the Board has failed to comply with the very thing it is asking the members to endorse at Resolution E!!
In short we feel that the organization and conduct of the 2007 AGM has fallen well short of the standards previously set by the WST. Taken separately the failures of the Board to properly and fairly run the process, as we have outlined above, are bad enough. The combined effect is many times worse, with the quashing of reasoned and fair debate and the effective disenfranchisement of the members who are not in attendance at the AGM and able to hear our Resolutions explained.
The failures we have highlighted leave us fearing for the future of the WST itself. In short, we feel that in this instance the Board has failed to discharge its duties to the membership of the Society and has prejudiced the outcome of the election and the voting on the resolutions. We feel that the only equitable solution would be to adjourn the AGM and allow us to properly respond to the partiality shown by the Board in relation to these important votes.
I await your response.
Lindsay Jones
Colin Bithell
Phil Wynne
Wayne Price
Len Willett.
To the Secretary Wrexham Supporter Trust
This letter is a follow up to Colin Bithell’s telephone call to yourself on Sunday.
I am writing to you, on behalf of the candidates listed below, to register our protest regarding the manner in which the WST AGM 2007 has been handled by the Board of the Trust. This is not done lightly, but we feel that, irrespective of whatever the results of the Board elections and the resolutions, democracy in the WST has not been served well. It is also our opinion that the Board have acted without thought to Rule 39 of the WST Constitution, which states:
“It is the responsibility of the Society Board, the Chair of the meeting and the Secretary to ensure that, at any general meeting:
a) the issues to be decided are clearly explained;
b) sufficient information is provided to members to enable rational discussion to take place;
c) where appropriate, members of the Executive Board, experts in relevant fields or representatives of special interest groups are invited to address the meeting.”
In outlining our concerns,I deal with these matters under separate headings for the sake of simplicity.
AGM Pack
The AGM pack sent out to members properly listed the Resolutions to be voted on at the AGM. However, in a departure from normal WST practice the Board has commented on all of the Resolutions, expressing the Board view on whether the membership should support or reject the proposal. Further, in an additional departure from the norm, with regards to two of those resolutions put forwards by ourselves (F and J) the Board have seen fit to explain, briefly, their reason for opposing the resolutions. In our view this action, together with the failure to allow us to put forward our reasons for the resolutions, is undemocratic and in breach of rule 39(b). It must be obvious, and as the board will be aware, it is quite possible that the number of proxy votes will exceed the number of members who attend the meeting in person. Without access to the internet those members who have sent in a proxy vote will have had no sight of a view alternative to that presented by the Board.
“Seconders” of the Resolutions
For certain of the resolutions proposed for consideration, the names of some members who seconded those proposals have been excluded. In some cases the names of twenty to thirty members are missing. The view of the Vice Chairman of the WST is that members, in effect, need not see any pre-vote show of support. This view is a departure from all previous AGM packs, which have listed ALL ‘seconders’ to ALL resolutions proposed. In our opinion the view of the Vice Chairman is also at odds with the Board’s own stance in relation to each resolution, where the Board’s members, in essence, have expressed a pre-vote show of support or of opposition.
WST Newsletter
Following the issuing of the AGM pack the Board of the WST issued a newsletter to the membership of the society that outlined the Board’s view on all resolutions put to the AGM. Within that newsletter the Board discuss the resolutions proposed by non-Board members (Resolutions F to K inclusive) and give reasons for supporting or opposing those resolutions. It is our contention that, in a Society purporting to be democratic, the proposer/seconders of those resolutions should have had the opportunity of responding to the Board’s concerns for the benefit of those members in receipt of that newsletter. Our request for that courtesy was refused by the Vice Chairman, on the basis that the Board may not consider that action to be in the WST’s best interests. That is a view that, quite frankly, astonishes us. Surely, in relation to resolutions validly proposed and seconded, it is for the membership to decide whether they are in the WST’s best interests, and that can only be done, under Rule 39, if the members are in possession of sufficient information. In our view the Board has failed to discharge its duty impartially under the WST Constitution.
Press briefings
We believe that the Board of the WST has abused its’ access to the local media in relation to the AGM. Within an article in the Evening Leader on May 27th, it is our contention that the Chairman of the WST made statements in relation to the Resolutions put forward by members which have no basis in fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the resolutions proposed by the membership will have any adverse effect upon the football club and it is something that we always bore in mind when formulating the Resolutions. Further, in stating within that article that the proposer/seconders of the members’ Resolutions HAVE foreseen that they are a threat to the existence of the football club but have chosen to ignore such a threat is an insult to many members who worked tirelessly on behalf of both the WST and the Club when it WAS threatened with extinction.
Board/Members Resolutions
We note, with some alarm, that the Board appears to have seen fit to involve Geoff Moss in their ‘campaign’. It is apparent, from the newsletter already referred to, that he was invited to consider resolutions F to K and express his view. The Board also expressed their view. Both these views were contained within the newsletter However, the persons who actually proposed those resolutions were not asked for to provide their views on their own resolutions!
As stated our request for such an opportunity was refused, meaning that the membership were able to read criticism provided by a non member of the WST yet were barred from reading an explanation for the Resolutions from the members of the WST who had proposed them.
It must be further noted, and commented upon, that the board met to discuss the Board Resolutions on 10th May, the closing date for submissions. Further, another meeting was held by the Board to discuss those Resolutions some four days after that closing date.
It is sad to note that, in a democratic Society, the first of those meetings has not been minuted and this, in our view, is in breach of clause B4 of the Board’s Membership Policy, which requires the vote taken by the Board on such matters to be included in the pack sent to WST members.
The only other alternative is that the Board has not voted on the Resolutions that it proposes, which is fanciful in the extreme. Further, by failing to comply with Clause B4 of the Policy the Board has failed to comply with the very thing it is asking the members to endorse at Resolution E!!
In short we feel that the organization and conduct of the 2007 AGM has fallen well short of the standards previously set by the WST. Taken separately the failures of the Board to properly and fairly run the process, as we have outlined above, are bad enough. The combined effect is many times worse, with the quashing of reasoned and fair debate and the effective disenfranchisement of the members who are not in attendance at the AGM and able to hear our Resolutions explained.
The failures we have highlighted leave us fearing for the future of the WST itself. In short, we feel that in this instance the Board has failed to discharge its duties to the membership of the Society and has prejudiced the outcome of the election and the voting on the resolutions. We feel that the only equitable solution would be to adjourn the AGM and allow us to properly respond to the partiality shown by the Board in relation to these important votes.
I await your response.
Lindsay Jones
Colin Bithell
Phil Wynne
Wayne Price
Len Willett.
RESOLUTION E
Whilst we understand that all Trusts have to have a board membership policy we are uncomfortable with several of the clauses included in this proposal.
In particular we wish to highlight clause B1 that states,
“Members of the Board acknowledge that discussions at Board Meetings are strictly confidential save where expressly stated not to be”
We feel that the wording of this clause should be altered as follows,
“Members of the Board acknowledge that discussions at Board meetings are not strictly confidential save where expressly stated to be so”
It is absurd to suggest that board members cannot discuss the contents of meetings unless they receive the approbation of the rest of the board.
We recognize that from time to time matters will arise which requires handling in a confidential manner. Common sense should then prevail and the board would decide that such matters were confidential.
However these matters will only arise as an exception rather than the rule.
The rest of the business of the Board of WST should not be confidential and should be transparent and accountable to the members.
Confidentiality is a reason often cited by organizations that wish to cover up controversial & embarrassing issues. We do not want the WST to be accused of acting in such a way.
If members vote for Resolution E you are in effect voting for the right to be kept in the dark.
We are suggesting that members vote down this measure and that the board rewrite this Resolution in conjunction with members of the Society to find a solution that better reflects the democratic principles of the organization.
We are also concerned that copies of the Board policy have not been included in either the AGM pack or the newsletter that discussed the resolutions.
This we feel does not aid members in making an informed decision on the merits of Resolution E .
In particular we wish to highlight clause B1 that states,
“Members of the Board acknowledge that discussions at Board Meetings are strictly confidential save where expressly stated not to be”
We feel that the wording of this clause should be altered as follows,
“Members of the Board acknowledge that discussions at Board meetings are not strictly confidential save where expressly stated to be so”
It is absurd to suggest that board members cannot discuss the contents of meetings unless they receive the approbation of the rest of the board.
We recognize that from time to time matters will arise which requires handling in a confidential manner. Common sense should then prevail and the board would decide that such matters were confidential.
However these matters will only arise as an exception rather than the rule.
The rest of the business of the Board of WST should not be confidential and should be transparent and accountable to the members.
Confidentiality is a reason often cited by organizations that wish to cover up controversial & embarrassing issues. We do not want the WST to be accused of acting in such a way.
If members vote for Resolution E you are in effect voting for the right to be kept in the dark.
We are suggesting that members vote down this measure and that the board rewrite this Resolution in conjunction with members of the Society to find a solution that better reflects the democratic principles of the organization.
We are also concerned that copies of the Board policy have not been included in either the AGM pack or the newsletter that discussed the resolutions.
This we feel does not aid members in making an informed decision on the merits of Resolution E .
Sunday, 3 June 2007
Resolution D - Our View
As several of the the resolutions put forward by the board of the WST conflict with those proposed by ourselves we will be putting forward our views on them over the next few nights.
We start with Resolution D
Resolution D. (Proposed by the Societys board)
Following the recent successful exit from administration, the Trust board would like to re-iterate its commitment to helping the clubs recovery by proposing a 50/50 split on future Trust profits, above those set out in Resolution C.
This split would be used to allow the Trust to a invest a proportion of future funds into practical projects specifically aimed at helping Wrexham FC and its recovery, in line with existing Trust principles
Our view.
Until the owners plans have crystallised we do not know how much money would be required to take over the club or when this might happen, if at all.
Resolution D, taken in conjunction with Resolution C, would basically cap our available stake to around £300k.We cannot afford to make this business decision until we have a clearer picture of what we are buying and at what price.
Furthermore with no plans or funding applications put in place for the new Kop we do not know what funds the clubs new owners, potentially WST, would have to find to ensure it is built.
Resolution H states our position on the matter of fundraising and is supported by the board of the WST.
There is a further reason for our opposition to this resolution which we state below together with what we suggest most members would find an equitable solution to this issue.
Resolution D may prove to be the most divisive resolution to be considered by the membership at this AGM as many of the members feel that whilst the club is making a trading profit all the Trust funds should be set aside to assist the club owners exit strategy.
If this resolution is passed then this will result in many members withdrawing their support for the Trust or reducing their contributions.
However we do recognise that many members also feel that the WST could be doing more to assist the clubs recovery. Also some fans have used this as a reason not to join the WST, which is not in the best interests of the WST.
Therefore as a compromise solution we would recommend that these members have the choice to elect to have their membership fees paid into a sub-fund (less a fair contribution to Trust running costs) which can be paid over to the club on the same terms as originally suggested in Resolution D.
Any surplus from other WST activities could also be split on a pro rata basis.
For example,
If 25% of members elect to join the new sub fund then 25% of profit is taken from other WST activities and added to the potential contribution.
This we feel would be an arrangement that would satisfy all of our members wishes.
We have spoken to the WST on this issue and they have confirmed that it is possible to deal with contributions in this manner.
Therefore we are suggesting that Resolution D is withdrawn and that the board of WST formulates a new resolution along the lines suggested and which would find widespread support.
This resolution could be put to the membership at the next members meeting which would then become an EGM for the purposes of endorsing, or not, this strategy.
By following this strategy the WST would be getting the best of both worlds.
# No loss of membership due to a vote going one-way or the other
# A truly democratic solution to the problem, you actually decide what to do with your money.
# The ability to attract new members based on a flexible membership policy.
# By being able to demonstrate to the club and the town our practical support in aiding the clubs recovery we will build a better relationship.
We feel that the strength of WST is not due to the sum of money in its bank account.
Its strength is due to the support received from Wrexham fans. Any measure which impacts on this support in a negative fashion must be avoided.
We welcome your views on this.
We start with Resolution D
Resolution D. (Proposed by the Societys board)
Following the recent successful exit from administration, the Trust board would like to re-iterate its commitment to helping the clubs recovery by proposing a 50/50 split on future Trust profits, above those set out in Resolution C.
This split would be used to allow the Trust to a invest a proportion of future funds into practical projects specifically aimed at helping Wrexham FC and its recovery, in line with existing Trust principles
Our view.
Until the owners plans have crystallised we do not know how much money would be required to take over the club or when this might happen, if at all.
Resolution D, taken in conjunction with Resolution C, would basically cap our available stake to around £300k.We cannot afford to make this business decision until we have a clearer picture of what we are buying and at what price.
Furthermore with no plans or funding applications put in place for the new Kop we do not know what funds the clubs new owners, potentially WST, would have to find to ensure it is built.
Resolution H states our position on the matter of fundraising and is supported by the board of the WST.
There is a further reason for our opposition to this resolution which we state below together with what we suggest most members would find an equitable solution to this issue.
Resolution D may prove to be the most divisive resolution to be considered by the membership at this AGM as many of the members feel that whilst the club is making a trading profit all the Trust funds should be set aside to assist the club owners exit strategy.
If this resolution is passed then this will result in many members withdrawing their support for the Trust or reducing their contributions.
However we do recognise that many members also feel that the WST could be doing more to assist the clubs recovery. Also some fans have used this as a reason not to join the WST, which is not in the best interests of the WST.
Therefore as a compromise solution we would recommend that these members have the choice to elect to have their membership fees paid into a sub-fund (less a fair contribution to Trust running costs) which can be paid over to the club on the same terms as originally suggested in Resolution D.
Any surplus from other WST activities could also be split on a pro rata basis.
For example,
If 25% of members elect to join the new sub fund then 25% of profit is taken from other WST activities and added to the potential contribution.
This we feel would be an arrangement that would satisfy all of our members wishes.
We have spoken to the WST on this issue and they have confirmed that it is possible to deal with contributions in this manner.
Therefore we are suggesting that Resolution D is withdrawn and that the board of WST formulates a new resolution along the lines suggested and which would find widespread support.
This resolution could be put to the membership at the next members meeting which would then become an EGM for the purposes of endorsing, or not, this strategy.
By following this strategy the WST would be getting the best of both worlds.
# No loss of membership due to a vote going one-way or the other
# A truly democratic solution to the problem, you actually decide what to do with your money.
# The ability to attract new members based on a flexible membership policy.
# By being able to demonstrate to the club and the town our practical support in aiding the clubs recovery we will build a better relationship.
We feel that the strength of WST is not due to the sum of money in its bank account.
Its strength is due to the support received from Wrexham fans. Any measure which impacts on this support in a negative fashion must be avoided.
We welcome your views on this.
Friday, 1 June 2007
Our reaction to the WST newsletter
"Its not in the Trust's best interests "
We have received our copies today and have to express how disappointed we are that we have not been given the chance to put our case to the membership.
We did request this but were refused permission.
(We reproduce the series of E mails in full below.)
The WST has nearly a 1000 members. Only around 20% will attend the AGM and many members have no access to the Internet.
Therefore the only information that these members will receive to help them make up their minds is contained in the newsletter. They have received a very distorted, biased and unbalanced view on the subject.
We feel that in the interests of balance we should have been given the opportunity to put our case to the membership.
The proxy votes will be crucial in both the outcome of the election and the resolutions adopted by the society. It cannot be to the benefit of the WST that debate is quoshed in this way and that decisions are made on such a shaky basis.
We were willing to fund the mail-drop ourselves in the interests of democracy and frankly we are stunned that Vice Chairman Rob Griffiths has taken this high handed and undemocratic decision.
After the AGM we feel that as a matter of urgency this whole episode needs to be reviewed and that guidelines are set which reflect the democratic principles of the society.
Correspondence between WST and Members relating to the Newsletter
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com ] Sent: 26 May 2007 01:19To: jrgriffiths@nospam.comCc: Bruce.Clapton@nospam.com; bruce@nospam.com
Subject: newsletter
Rob/Bruce
Pete Jones mentioned at the meeting last night that there was a newsletter going out soon explaining the resolutions put forward by the board in more detail.
In the interests of balance and healthy debate I would like to ask for the facility to do the same for the resolutions that myself and Phil have proposed.
I would be grateful if you could advise on timelines etc.
Regards, Lindsay.
#################################################
Message Received: May 26 2007, 10:37 AMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.com, "'kebmoe2003'" Cc: Bruce.Clapton@nospam.com
Subject: RE: newsletter
Hi Lindsay,
It's too late to consider this request. The next newsletter is already printed and ready for distribution. It includes all of the resolutions and sets out guidance for members on each, as we are required to do.
best regards
Rob
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com] Sent: 26 May 2007 20:24To: Rob Griffiths
Subject: RE: newsletter
thank you rob,
would we be able to add an insert to this?
regards, lindsay
Message Received: May 26 2007, 08:32 PMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.comCc:
Subject: RE: newsletter
Sorry Lindsay, it is too late this time to consider your request
Regards
Rob
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com] Sent: 26 May 2007 21:04To: Rob GriffithsSubject: RE: newsletter
No problem rob,
Would the board of the WST allow us access to the membership database so that we could organise a mailing ourselves/i understand that there may be data protection issues but I am sure there would be a route around this.
regards, lindsay.
========================================
Message Received: May 26 2007, 10:25 PMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.com Cc: WST-Board@nospam.comSubject: RE: newsletter
Lindsay, data protection would certainly be an issue and there is also the issue of whether we would consider your proposed mailing to be in the Trust's best interests. I cannot see how we could agree to this, but I will ask the other board members for a view.
regards,
Rob
ps what do you mean by 'ourselves' in this context?
We have received our copies today and have to express how disappointed we are that we have not been given the chance to put our case to the membership.
We did request this but were refused permission.
(We reproduce the series of E mails in full below.)
The WST has nearly a 1000 members. Only around 20% will attend the AGM and many members have no access to the Internet.
Therefore the only information that these members will receive to help them make up their minds is contained in the newsletter. They have received a very distorted, biased and unbalanced view on the subject.
We feel that in the interests of balance we should have been given the opportunity to put our case to the membership.
The proxy votes will be crucial in both the outcome of the election and the resolutions adopted by the society. It cannot be to the benefit of the WST that debate is quoshed in this way and that decisions are made on such a shaky basis.
We were willing to fund the mail-drop ourselves in the interests of democracy and frankly we are stunned that Vice Chairman Rob Griffiths has taken this high handed and undemocratic decision.
After the AGM we feel that as a matter of urgency this whole episode needs to be reviewed and that guidelines are set which reflect the democratic principles of the society.
Correspondence between WST and Members relating to the Newsletter
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com ] Sent: 26 May 2007 01:19To: jrgriffiths@nospam.comCc: Bruce.Clapton@nospam.com; bruce@nospam.com
Subject: newsletter
Rob/Bruce
Pete Jones mentioned at the meeting last night that there was a newsletter going out soon explaining the resolutions put forward by the board in more detail.
In the interests of balance and healthy debate I would like to ask for the facility to do the same for the resolutions that myself and Phil have proposed.
I would be grateful if you could advise on timelines etc.
Regards, Lindsay.
#################################################
Message Received: May 26 2007, 10:37 AMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.com, "'kebmoe2003'" Cc: Bruce.Clapton@nospam.com
Subject: RE: newsletter
Hi Lindsay,
It's too late to consider this request. The next newsletter is already printed and ready for distribution. It includes all of the resolutions and sets out guidance for members on each, as we are required to do.
best regards
Rob
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com] Sent: 26 May 2007 20:24To: Rob Griffiths
Subject: RE: newsletter
thank you rob,
would we be able to add an insert to this?
regards, lindsay
Message Received: May 26 2007, 08:32 PMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.comCc:
Subject: RE: newsletter
Sorry Lindsay, it is too late this time to consider your request
Regards
Rob
From: julia jones [mailto: member@nospam.com] Sent: 26 May 2007 21:04To: Rob GriffithsSubject: RE: newsletter
No problem rob,
Would the board of the WST allow us access to the membership database so that we could organise a mailing ourselves/i understand that there may be data protection issues but I am sure there would be a route around this.
regards, lindsay.
========================================
Message Received: May 26 2007, 10:25 PMFrom: "Rob Griffiths" To: member@nospam.com Cc: WST-Board@nospam.comSubject: RE: newsletter
Lindsay, data protection would certainly be an issue and there is also the issue of whether we would consider your proposed mailing to be in the Trust's best interests. I cannot see how we could agree to this, but I will ask the other board members for a view.
regards,
Rob
ps what do you mean by 'ourselves' in this context?
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Resolution K
Resolution K: Members of the society call upon the board of the WST to appoint a negotiating team of professionals to handle all negotiations with the owners of the football club relating to the purchase of the club.
When companies buy and sell parts of their business they generally appoint a team of people to handle the detail. Lawyers, Accountants business experts and so on.
These people then report back to the board with a set of recommendations.
We see no reason why the WST should be any different in this regard.
There are people within the membership who are willing to help if called upon and the Board of the WST should use them.
At the moment the WST approach to meetings with the Club is not businesslike. Meetings are called at very short notice and without an agenda. As a result Board members attend, in contravention of their own Board Members Policy, without a mandate to agree anything with the club.
The attendees will be whoever is available to go on the day and as a result there is a lack of continuity and progress.
In the past this has lead to problems for the Board in its relationship with the club and we believe this has hampered progress.
We would like to see a small group of people working with the club on behalf of, and reporting to, the board of the Trust on set agendas and with a clear mandate.
Buying a football club is a complex business and it is vital that the Trust is represented by the best people possible.
When companies buy and sell parts of their business they generally appoint a team of people to handle the detail. Lawyers, Accountants business experts and so on.
These people then report back to the board with a set of recommendations.
We see no reason why the WST should be any different in this regard.
There are people within the membership who are willing to help if called upon and the Board of the WST should use them.
At the moment the WST approach to meetings with the Club is not businesslike. Meetings are called at very short notice and without an agenda. As a result Board members attend, in contravention of their own Board Members Policy, without a mandate to agree anything with the club.
The attendees will be whoever is available to go on the day and as a result there is a lack of continuity and progress.
In the past this has lead to problems for the Board in its relationship with the club and we believe this has hampered progress.
We would like to see a small group of people working with the club on behalf of, and reporting to, the board of the Trust on set agendas and with a clear mandate.
Buying a football club is a complex business and it is vital that the Trust is represented by the best people possible.
Resolution J
Resolution J:Members of the society believe that retaining the Racecourse as a 15,000 capacity International Standard Stadium is a priority for the club and the town of Wrexham and call on the Wrexham Maelor Borough Council to ensure that this becomes a reality by ensuring that funding is in place to build the new Kop stand prior to granting detailed planning permission for the development behind the Kop.
Outline planning consent was granted for the development last May and the clauses relating to the granting of detailed consent were made at that time.
At the WST members meeting on August 14th 2006 Mr Dickens stated that the new Kop would have a capacity of 15500.
Vision 2012 was launched on December 1rst 2006 and that gave indicative drawings of the new Kop.
The then, Culture Minister, Alun Pugh, made encouraging noises about the new stand and in meetings with the WST board made clear his support for the project.
At the WST members meeting on April 30th Chairman Bruce Clapton stated.
The proposed 5,000 seat stand would only be built if funding from The Football Foundation and The Welsh Assembly was forthcoming, the projected cost of build would be £3m to 4m. If the grant money was not provided, a smaller 2,000 seat stand would be built. Bruce said that he did not wish to see the capacity of The Racecourse reduced, but we had to be realistic here and keep pushing for grant assistance.
We think it worrying that there is already a proposal to downsize the new Kop BEFORE any grant funding has even been applied for.
There has been no progress with obtaining funding for the new Kop since the Vision 2012 document was launched in 2006.
No plans have been revealed, no funding applications have been made and the message that is now being forwarded is that we have to be “practical†and lower our expectations. This is astonishing given that the funding process has yet to start.
When detailed planning consent is granted for the development the developers will pay the club £3.6m.The club will then pay off the loans secured on the ground and in effect become debt free.
The value of the land that the club retains would be in excess of £9m and unless the council ensure that funding is in place before granting planning permission then the owners of the football club would be under no obligation to provide a new stand on the Kop.
In fact it may not be in their financial interest to build a new stand because of the various strings that can be attached to grants of public money.
The WST needs to be pro active in supporting the clubs future prospects. Work needs to be done on raising funding for the new Kop so that we are not left with a three sided ground for years.
The Council are handling the business plan for assembly funding on behalf of the club and have offered the WST a role in this. This offer has not yet been taken up but we feel it is crucial that the WST is involved in all aspects of this project.
Obviously the WST cannot force this issue with either the club or the council but collectively we do have a voice and we need to state publicly what we expect.
The council is in a unique position to influence the future of the club and should use that influence to ensure that their, and our, publicly stated aspirations are met in full.
Outline planning consent was granted for the development last May and the clauses relating to the granting of detailed consent were made at that time.
At the WST members meeting on August 14th 2006 Mr Dickens stated that the new Kop would have a capacity of 15500.
Vision 2012 was launched on December 1rst 2006 and that gave indicative drawings of the new Kop.
The then, Culture Minister, Alun Pugh, made encouraging noises about the new stand and in meetings with the WST board made clear his support for the project.
At the WST members meeting on April 30th Chairman Bruce Clapton stated.
The proposed 5,000 seat stand would only be built if funding from The Football Foundation and The Welsh Assembly was forthcoming, the projected cost of build would be £3m to 4m. If the grant money was not provided, a smaller 2,000 seat stand would be built. Bruce said that he did not wish to see the capacity of The Racecourse reduced, but we had to be realistic here and keep pushing for grant assistance.
We think it worrying that there is already a proposal to downsize the new Kop BEFORE any grant funding has even been applied for.
There has been no progress with obtaining funding for the new Kop since the Vision 2012 document was launched in 2006.
No plans have been revealed, no funding applications have been made and the message that is now being forwarded is that we have to be “practical†and lower our expectations. This is astonishing given that the funding process has yet to start.
When detailed planning consent is granted for the development the developers will pay the club £3.6m.The club will then pay off the loans secured on the ground and in effect become debt free.
The value of the land that the club retains would be in excess of £9m and unless the council ensure that funding is in place before granting planning permission then the owners of the football club would be under no obligation to provide a new stand on the Kop.
In fact it may not be in their financial interest to build a new stand because of the various strings that can be attached to grants of public money.
The WST needs to be pro active in supporting the clubs future prospects. Work needs to be done on raising funding for the new Kop so that we are not left with a three sided ground for years.
The Council are handling the business plan for assembly funding on behalf of the club and have offered the WST a role in this. This offer has not yet been taken up but we feel it is crucial that the WST is involved in all aspects of this project.
Obviously the WST cannot force this issue with either the club or the council but collectively we do have a voice and we need to state publicly what we expect.
The council is in a unique position to influence the future of the club and should use that influence to ensure that their, and our, publicly stated aspirations are met in full.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
