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.
Resolution I
Resolution I: In line with our constitutional obligation to protect the heritage of our club, Members of the Society are concerned that the owners of our club have changed its name from Wrexham AFC to Wrexham FC and respectfully request them to hold a public consultation on this matter to let the supporters decide whether such a change is necessary or desirable.
We are not saying the change of name is necessarily wrong.
We are saying that the fans should have been included in the process. After all it is our club.
We are disappointed that Mr Moss has stated to the Board of the WST that he will not enter into any correspondence on this issue.
We are disappointed that he has not explained the reasoning behind the change of badge and name.
By implication we are suggesting that in any future issues of this nature the supporters of the club are consulted before any changes are made.
We feel that by backing this measure we will be sending out a clear message to the clubs owners that the fans voice should be heard in the decision making process.
After all, that is what supporters organisations are supposed to do.
We are not saying the change of name is necessarily wrong.
We are saying that the fans should have been included in the process. After all it is our club.
We are disappointed that Mr Moss has stated to the Board of the WST that he will not enter into any correspondence on this issue.
We are disappointed that he has not explained the reasoning behind the change of badge and name.
By implication we are suggesting that in any future issues of this nature the supporters of the club are consulted before any changes are made.
We feel that by backing this measure we will be sending out a clear message to the clubs owners that the fans voice should be heard in the decision making process.
After all, that is what supporters organisations are supposed to do.
Resolution H:
Resolution H: Members of the Society believe that a large measure fans ownership of the club is its only effective long-term safeguard. As such we do not wish to place an upper limit on money raised by the WST. In support of this we call upon the board of the WST to set up a sub committee, drawn from the membership, to co-ordinate and increase the revenues of the society.
Again we are grateful to the board of WST for backing this measure.
At some point in the future the current owners will be looking to exit the club.
WST needs to be a part of the regime that takes it over and for that we will need more money than we currently have at this point. How much? Who can say, there is no indicative price, however the more money we raise the more say we can have in the consortium.
Again we are grateful to the board of WST for backing this measure.
At some point in the future the current owners will be looking to exit the club.
WST needs to be a part of the regime that takes it over and for that we will need more money than we currently have at this point. How much? Who can say, there is no indicative price, however the more money we raise the more say we can have in the consortium.
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Resolution G
Resolution G: Members of the Society believe that the Turf Hotel is an important part of our cultural heritage and are opposed to plans to demolish this building. We call upon the Board of the WST to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to campaign for the preservation of this iconic building.
The Racecourse is the oldest existing International FootballStadium. At the first ever International game (Scotland 1877) the players actually changed in the Turf.
We are grateful to the Board of the WST for their support of this resolution and to everybody who signed the petition. We would hope to present this petition to the Marstons brewery at some time in the near future.
Demolition of the Turf was not in the initial planning application and we see no compelling reason why the building should be demolished.
Although the development plans have been withdrawn this does not necessarily mean that the Turf is safe and we would anticipate the sub committee trying to secure some form of listed status for the building.
See more about the Turf here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turf_Hotel
Sign the petition here
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savetheturf/signatures.html
The Racecourse is the oldest existing International FootballStadium. At the first ever International game (Scotland 1877) the players actually changed in the Turf.
We are grateful to the Board of the WST for their support of this resolution and to everybody who signed the petition. We would hope to present this petition to the Marstons brewery at some time in the near future.
Demolition of the Turf was not in the initial planning application and we see no compelling reason why the building should be demolished.
Although the development plans have been withdrawn this does not necessarily mean that the Turf is safe and we would anticipate the sub committee trying to secure some form of listed status for the building.
See more about the Turf here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turf_Hotel
Sign the petition here
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/savetheturf/signatures.html
Monday, 28 May 2007
Resolution F: Our reasoning
Resolution F
Members of the society cannot support any proposal to separate our club from its ownership of the Racecourse Ground and the Colliers Park training facility and call upon the Board of the Society to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to explore alternatives to this scenario.
If you look at a list of clubs that have lost ownership of their grounds it doesn't fill you with much optimism.
Oxford United
None of these clubs could currently be described as a raging success and it may be harsh, but fair, to state that they all have uncertain futures.
The WST has had two formal meetings with the club this year.
The first meeting was on Feb 7th and the second was in early April. At each of these meetings the subject of splitting the ground from the club has been broached by the owners of the club.In the first meeting attended by Rob Griffiths, Lindsay Jones & Bruce Clapton the matter was raised by Mr Dickens.
Neville Dickens What if we offered you the club. After the deal went through and all the property side was sorted.
Lindsay Jones; What would the club own?
Neville Dickens; The players contracts
Lindsay Jones; Where would we play?
Neville Dickens; We could sort out a good lease.
Mr Dickens did not state who would own the ground although it is implied in his statement that Dickens & Moss would. However it is fair to say that the ground owner would definitely not be the club which would hold a lease granted by Messrs Dickens & Moss, the freeholders.
In the second meeting, attended by Peter Jones, Wyn Griffiths & Kevin Baugh, the possibility broached by Mr Dickens was followed up by Mr Moss. In fact he ventured a reason why, in his opinion, it would be a good thing for the ground to be separate from the club.
Geoff Moss suggested that in the long term it would be advisable to separate the ownership of the club and stadium, as this is advisable so that the ground could not be claimed against as an asset of the club in case of future problems. WST Minutes
We feel that this is a bizarre reason for taking a £9.5m asset out of a business. The loss of the clubs only real asset would actually make the club even more vulnerable to these "financial problems".
The main issues we see are as follows.
Our concerns are also shared by the WST Treasurer Mark Williams. At the WST members meeting on 30/4/2007 he commented on the suggestion as follows.
Mark Williams advised that if the club did not own the ground, it would not be able to use it to secure any borrowing to fund any expansion plans in the future. Provided the share issue was set up correctly, the ground would be protected from selling outside the club. WST Website
Bruce Clapton , Chairman of the WST, also outlined retaining control of the ground as a key element of the WST bid when he told the same meeting that a key element of the Trust investment plan would be.
"The future ownership of the Racecourse to be protected and to remain within the full control of the club."
He then went on to state that, all investors regardless of location would have to agree to all the principles of the investment plan.
The WST is actually asking investors to sign up to the principle that the club should retain control of its ground. It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without retaining ownership.
In light of these comments it is a bit disappointing that the Board of the WST is now actually opposing this resolution.
By splitting the ground from the club the owners are able to protect the value of their holding and would then be free to offer shares in the club or in fact to sell it.
Resolution F calls for a sub-committee to be set up to explore alternatives to the ground splitting scenario. We would hope that this sub committee would be able to find a solution that met the financial needs of both the club and its owners.
WST board position
This resolution has been opposed by the board of the WST as follows.
"The board cannot support this resolution in this form due to the potential restrictions it may place on the Trusts stated constitutional aims regarding the achieving of the best long term security for the club and its ground, as stated in resolution A."
In responding to this we are going to quote ex WST board member Simon Johnson;
"Without wishing to understate the importance of WST, we haven't got any input into whether the club sells its assets or not. We have no options to keep open and nothing to be prepared for because we are not involved. All we can do at present is be a watchdog for fans' interests and that means telling the club's owners what we think is best for the long-term future of the club.The only reasons I have heard in favour of selling the ground (from a fan's perspective) is that it might protect it from an asset-stripper. That implies a scenario in which an asset-stripper has been allowed to take over the club. Surely we should be trying to stop that rather than trying to mitigate it? I thought D&M wouldn't allow that to happen."
We agree, the decision to split off the ground from the club is entirely one for the owners of the club and that we as fans can only hope to influence that decision by using our collective voice.
Please support Resolution F.
Members of the society cannot support any proposal to separate our club from its ownership of the Racecourse Ground and the Colliers Park training facility and call upon the Board of the Society to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to explore alternatives to this scenario.
If you look at a list of clubs that have lost ownership of their grounds it doesn't fill you with much optimism.
Oxford United
Cambridge United
Chester City
York City
Brentford
Wimbledon
Boston United
None of these clubs could currently be described as a raging success and it may be harsh, but fair, to state that they all have uncertain futures.
The WST has had two formal meetings with the club this year.
The first meeting was on Feb 7th and the second was in early April. At each of these meetings the subject of splitting the ground from the club has been broached by the owners of the club.In the first meeting attended by Rob Griffiths, Lindsay Jones & Bruce Clapton the matter was raised by Mr Dickens.
Neville Dickens What if we offered you the club. After the deal went through and all the property side was sorted.
Lindsay Jones; What would the club own?
Neville Dickens; The players contracts
Lindsay Jones; Where would we play?
Neville Dickens; We could sort out a good lease.
Mr Dickens did not state who would own the ground although it is implied in his statement that Dickens & Moss would. However it is fair to say that the ground owner would definitely not be the club which would hold a lease granted by Messrs Dickens & Moss, the freeholders.
In the second meeting, attended by Peter Jones, Wyn Griffiths & Kevin Baugh, the possibility broached by Mr Dickens was followed up by Mr Moss. In fact he ventured a reason why, in his opinion, it would be a good thing for the ground to be separate from the club.
Geoff Moss suggested that in the long term it would be advisable to separate the ownership of the club and stadium, as this is advisable so that the ground could not be claimed against as an asset of the club in case of future problems. WST Minutes
We feel that this is a bizarre reason for taking a £9.5m asset out of a business. The loss of the clubs only real asset would actually make the club even more vulnerable to these "financial problems".
The main issues we see are as follows.
- A business with a short trading record and without any assets would be seen as a high risk proposition and would therefore be unlikely to attract substantial investment. The investors we are hoping to attract would be more willing to put money into a club that owned its own ground than one that didn't.
- A business without any assets on which to secure an advance would be unlikely to obtain credit on favourable terms, if at all. A lenders first consideration is always the borrowers ability to repay the loan.
- A business without assets or access to affordable finance would need to be run in an excessively cautious manner to ensure that it did not exceed its overdraft.
- In effect the club would be "living out of the till" and vulnerable to fluctuations in day-to-day trading.
- Furthermore, if one day the club needed to move there would be nothing to sell to fund our new Stadium. Consider Shrewsbury Town who have just sold the Meadow and used the proceeds of the sale to build a new ground. By losing the ground we would no longer have that option.
- We would become a tenant, probably paying rent, on a ground that we now own.
- It is unlikely that the club would receive the full market value for the ground. Who would write a cheque for £9.5m? The council definitely wouldn't and neither would the current owners. After all they already own the land.
Our concerns are also shared by the WST Treasurer Mark Williams. At the WST members meeting on 30/4/2007 he commented on the suggestion as follows.
Mark Williams advised that if the club did not own the ground, it would not be able to use it to secure any borrowing to fund any expansion plans in the future. Provided the share issue was set up correctly, the ground would be protected from selling outside the club. WST Website
Bruce Clapton , Chairman of the WST, also outlined retaining control of the ground as a key element of the WST bid when he told the same meeting that a key element of the Trust investment plan would be.
"The future ownership of the Racecourse to be protected and to remain within the full control of the club."
He then went on to state that, all investors regardless of location would have to agree to all the principles of the investment plan.
The WST is actually asking investors to sign up to the principle that the club should retain control of its ground. It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without retaining ownership.
In light of these comments it is a bit disappointing that the Board of the WST is now actually opposing this resolution.
It is easy to see the dangers in following such a strategy but not so easy to see the benefits to the club. In fact, like Mark and Bruce, we think that taking ownership of the ground out of the club will have serious consequences for the clubs financial situation and future prospects.
Consider this as a possible scenario.
- The squad is cut to the bone because the wages to turnover has to be kept to less than, for example, 45% because we need to create a financial reserve against any potential fall in revenue.
- Several injuries reduce the squad further but the manager is not able to bring in loan signings or permanent signings to make good the shortfall because of the financial restraints.
- With a weakened team the results deteriorate and so do the gate receipts leading the club to the limits of its overdraft.
- A spell of bad weather over the Christmas period leads to a cash flow crisis at the club which may lead to wages and other bills not being paid. This may be an overly pessimistic view of what might happen but it all could happen. How would an asset-less club deal with the situation?
By splitting the ground from the club the owners are able to protect the value of their holding and would then be free to offer shares in the club or in fact to sell it.
Resolution F calls for a sub-committee to be set up to explore alternatives to the ground splitting scenario. We would hope that this sub committee would be able to find a solution that met the financial needs of both the club and its owners.
WST board position
This resolution has been opposed by the board of the WST as follows.
"The board cannot support this resolution in this form due to the potential restrictions it may place on the Trusts stated constitutional aims regarding the achieving of the best long term security for the club and its ground, as stated in resolution A."
In responding to this we are going to quote ex WST board member Simon Johnson;
"Without wishing to understate the importance of WST, we haven't got any input into whether the club sells its assets or not. We have no options to keep open and nothing to be prepared for because we are not involved. All we can do at present is be a watchdog for fans' interests and that means telling the club's owners what we think is best for the long-term future of the club.The only reasons I have heard in favour of selling the ground (from a fan's perspective) is that it might protect it from an asset-stripper. That implies a scenario in which an asset-stripper has been allowed to take over the club. Surely we should be trying to stop that rather than trying to mitigate it? I thought D&M wouldn't allow that to happen."
We agree, the decision to split off the ground from the club is entirely one for the owners of the club and that we as fans can only hope to influence that decision by using our collective voice.
Please support Resolution F.
Sunday, 20 May 2007
Wrexham Supporters Trust Annual General Meeting
The following candidates are standing for election to the board of the WST on a joint platform.
Colin Bithell
Lindsay Jones
Wayne Price
Len Willett
Phil Wynne
We have proposed the following six resolutions. We are grateful for the support of members who have seconded these measures and feel sure that, if passed, they will provide the WST with a clear platform for the next twelve months.
Over the next two weeks we will expand on our reasons for proposing these measures in a lot more detail.
It is absolutely vital for the future of our club that the WST takes the necessary measures to protect its future and long term interests.
We feel that the present strategy of the board of the WST is too narrowly focussed to be effective and that the WST needs to take further measures to achieve its aims.
Resolutions
Resolution G: Members of the Society believe that the Turf Hotel is an important part of our cultural heritage and are opposed to plans to demolish this building. We call upon the Board of the WST to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to campaign for the preservation of this iconic building.
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.
Resolution H: Members of the Society believe that a large measure fans ownership of the club is its only effective long-term safeguard. As such we do not wish to place an upper limit on money raised by the WST. In support of this we call upon the board of the WST to set up a sub committee, drawn from the membership, to co-ordinate and increase the revenues of the society.
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.
Resolution F: Members of the society cannot support any proposal to separate our club from its ownership of the Racecourse Ground and the Colliers Park training facility and call upon the Board of the Society to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to explore alternatives to this scenario.
Resolution I: In line with our constitutional obligation to protect the heritage of our club ,Members of the Society are concerned that the owners of our club have changed its name from Wrexham AFC to Wrexham FC and respectfully request them to hold a public consultation on this matter to let the supporters decide whether such a change is necessary or desirable.
Colin Bithell
Lindsay Jones
Wayne Price
Len Willett
Phil Wynne
We have proposed the following six resolutions. We are grateful for the support of members who have seconded these measures and feel sure that, if passed, they will provide the WST with a clear platform for the next twelve months.
Over the next two weeks we will expand on our reasons for proposing these measures in a lot more detail.
It is absolutely vital for the future of our club that the WST takes the necessary measures to protect its future and long term interests.
We feel that the present strategy of the board of the WST is too narrowly focussed to be effective and that the WST needs to take further measures to achieve its aims.
Resolutions
Resolution G: Members of the Society believe that the Turf Hotel is an important part of our cultural heritage and are opposed to plans to demolish this building. We call upon the Board of the WST to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to campaign for the preservation of this iconic building.
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.
Resolution H: Members of the Society believe that a large measure fans ownership of the club is its only effective long-term safeguard. As such we do not wish to place an upper limit on money raised by the WST. In support of this we call upon the board of the WST to set up a sub committee, drawn from the membership, to co-ordinate and increase the revenues of the society.
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.
Resolution F: Members of the society cannot support any proposal to separate our club from its ownership of the Racecourse Ground and the Colliers Park training facility and call upon the Board of the Society to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to explore alternatives to this scenario.
Resolution I: In line with our constitutional obligation to protect the heritage of our club ,Members of the Society are concerned that the owners of our club have changed its name from Wrexham AFC to Wrexham FC and respectfully request them to hold a public consultation on this matter to let the supporters decide whether such a change is necessary or desirable.
Friday, 18 May 2007
Wayne Price - Election Address and CV
My name is Wayne Price, 35, based in Manchester and have been a fan since my dad took me to my first game, when we lost to Mansfield in May1977. If you need to put a face to a name, I was one of the guys who did the sponsored walk from The Racecourse to Cardiff's Millennium Stadium for the LDV trophy final and won the first WST's Fans' extra mile award.
All those who have put themselves up for election have been invited to state what potential we think we would add to the WST board. I like to think I'd bring my business pragmatism to the board, as was suggested/inferred in the last joint statement by the Club & WST board. This is because I run my own web design and web marketing business in Manchester. As well as bringing business experience to the board, I'd liketo think I'd be bringing webmaster skills, marketing and communication experience as these are connected with what I do everyday. These skills could be used to help the WST in a number of ways, some of those I have suggested below:
Marketing experience
- To attract new members.
- To retain current members or memberships that have lapsed.
- To attract local businesses for the suggested WST consortium to takeover the club when Nev Dickens & Geoff Moss exit.
Communication experience
- To increase the feedback on the WST from members, fans and those who live in and around Wrexham.
- To simplify and increase the clarity of the WST message & aims.
- To increase the communication with local business for the suggested WST takeover consortium.
Webmaster Skills
- Increase the effectiveness of the web site.
- Increase the effectiveness of the internet communication between the Trust, its members, fans, local businesses and those who live in and around Wrexham.
- Increase the effectiveness of online fundraising.
I along with the other nominees Phil Wynne, Len Willett, Colin Bithell and Lindsay Jones support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club. However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
All those who have put themselves up for election have been invited to state what potential we think we would add to the WST board. I like to think I'd bring my business pragmatism to the board, as was suggested/inferred in the last joint statement by the Club & WST board. This is because I run my own web design and web marketing business in Manchester. As well as bringing business experience to the board, I'd liketo think I'd be bringing webmaster skills, marketing and communication experience as these are connected with what I do everyday. These skills could be used to help the WST in a number of ways, some of those I have suggested below:
Marketing experience
- To attract new members.
- To retain current members or memberships that have lapsed.
- To attract local businesses for the suggested WST consortium to takeover the club when Nev Dickens & Geoff Moss exit.
Communication experience
- To increase the feedback on the WST from members, fans and those who live in and around Wrexham.
- To simplify and increase the clarity of the WST message & aims.
- To increase the communication with local business for the suggested WST takeover consortium.
Webmaster Skills
- Increase the effectiveness of the web site.
- Increase the effectiveness of the internet communication between the Trust, its members, fans, local businesses and those who live in and around Wrexham.
- Increase the effectiveness of online fundraising.
I along with the other nominees Phil Wynne, Len Willett, Colin Bithell and Lindsay Jones support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club. However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Lindsay Jones - Election Address and CV
Lindsay Jones
I am a 44 year old father of 3 .I live near Oswestry and work as retail manager. I saw my first Wrexham game during the 1969/70 promotion season.
During the 'struggle' I helped with the original fanzine that exposed the corrupt actions taking place at the club.
For my pains I was sued , along with my schoolmate Ken, by Guterman who wished to suppress certain material. Because of the information passed to me in the case I was able to pass important information to the Administrators which helped to bring about the Summary Judgement last year.
I was a board member of the WST from June 2004 till March this year when I resigned because of my increasing frustration with the direction the WST was taking. During my time on the Trust board I attended many meetings on behalf of the WST and worked on more projects than I care to remember although I am particularly proud of the Yearbook we produced, a real team effort by members of the WST.
I feel that the members of WST have received a very poor return for their unequivocal support of Mr Moss & Mr Dickens and nearly 12 months after their takeover we still have no idea what their vision for the club entails.
Of particular worry to me is their proposal, or suggestion, that the club would benefit by the splitting of the business into two separate companies, one to own the club and the other to own the ground. Over the past three years we have all seen the 'benefits' that such a move can bring to the club and, like all of you, I have no wish to return to that situation.
This idea was floated at a meeting between the WST board and the club but I have yet to see any comment on this from the board of the WST. I feel that they should be actively condemning it.
It is vital that the club retains its assets.
I along with the other nominees Wayne Price, Len Willett, Colin Bithell and Phil Wynne support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.
However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about.
We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
I am a 44 year old father of 3 .I live near Oswestry and work as retail manager. I saw my first Wrexham game during the 1969/70 promotion season.
During the 'struggle' I helped with the original fanzine that exposed the corrupt actions taking place at the club.
For my pains I was sued , along with my schoolmate Ken, by Guterman who wished to suppress certain material. Because of the information passed to me in the case I was able to pass important information to the Administrators which helped to bring about the Summary Judgement last year.
I was a board member of the WST from June 2004 till March this year when I resigned because of my increasing frustration with the direction the WST was taking. During my time on the Trust board I attended many meetings on behalf of the WST and worked on more projects than I care to remember although I am particularly proud of the Yearbook we produced, a real team effort by members of the WST.
I feel that the members of WST have received a very poor return for their unequivocal support of Mr Moss & Mr Dickens and nearly 12 months after their takeover we still have no idea what their vision for the club entails.
Of particular worry to me is their proposal, or suggestion, that the club would benefit by the splitting of the business into two separate companies, one to own the club and the other to own the ground. Over the past three years we have all seen the 'benefits' that such a move can bring to the club and, like all of you, I have no wish to return to that situation.
This idea was floated at a meeting between the WST board and the club but I have yet to see any comment on this from the board of the WST. I feel that they should be actively condemning it.
It is vital that the club retains its assets.
I along with the other nominees Wayne Price, Len Willett, Colin Bithell and Phil Wynne support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.
However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about.
We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Len Willett - Election Address and CV
Len Willett
Born in Ruabon 1940. First saw Wrexham AFC play at the age of seven.
I have played football at Junior School level in Wrexham. I captained Denbighshire Tech and Wrexham School Boys and joined Wolverhampton Wanders FC at the age of fifteen during which time I won a Welsh School Boy cap.
I returned to Wrexham to play for Rhosddu before signing professional for Wrexham AFC. I had the pleasure of pulling on a red shirt to play league football for our club for three seasons before playing for Winsford Utd and Ellesmere Port Town in the Cheshire County League.
During the 1960’s I travelled to Australia to play for USC Lions Melbourne, followed by Merton Rovers and Germania Brisbane. Whilst down-under I captained the Queensland’s state team and also won the Australian Premiership.
On my return to the UK in 1970 I was made manager of Newtown in the Mid Wales League before retiring from football.
As a qualified electrician I have been employed by Thornton’s of Wrexham, Wrexham Borough Council, Woolworth’s and Chester City Council.
I have also been a part-time youth leader, Chairman of the Wrexham Area Youth Council, Board member of Clwyd Alyn Housing Association and Chairman of the Yale Park Tenants Group.
I have been a regular Season Ticket holder at the Racecourse and a life-long supporter of the club. I consider myself to have a great deal of experience of football from the "inside" and hope to be able to offer my life experiences to the WST.
I along with the other nominees Cllr Colin Bithell, Lindsay Jones, Wayne Price and Cllr Phillip Wynn support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Born in Ruabon 1940. First saw Wrexham AFC play at the age of seven.
I have played football at Junior School level in Wrexham. I captained Denbighshire Tech and Wrexham School Boys and joined Wolverhampton Wanders FC at the age of fifteen during which time I won a Welsh School Boy cap.
I returned to Wrexham to play for Rhosddu before signing professional for Wrexham AFC. I had the pleasure of pulling on a red shirt to play league football for our club for three seasons before playing for Winsford Utd and Ellesmere Port Town in the Cheshire County League.
During the 1960’s I travelled to Australia to play for USC Lions Melbourne, followed by Merton Rovers and Germania Brisbane. Whilst down-under I captained the Queensland’s state team and also won the Australian Premiership.
On my return to the UK in 1970 I was made manager of Newtown in the Mid Wales League before retiring from football.
As a qualified electrician I have been employed by Thornton’s of Wrexham, Wrexham Borough Council, Woolworth’s and Chester City Council.
I have also been a part-time youth leader, Chairman of the Wrexham Area Youth Council, Board member of Clwyd Alyn Housing Association and Chairman of the Yale Park Tenants Group.
I have been a regular Season Ticket holder at the Racecourse and a life-long supporter of the club. I consider myself to have a great deal of experience of football from the "inside" and hope to be able to offer my life experiences to the WST.
I along with the other nominees Cllr Colin Bithell, Lindsay Jones, Wayne Price and Cllr Phillip Wynn support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Cllr Colin Bithell - Election Address and CV
Cllr Colin Bithell
I have been a Wrexham supporter for forty years.
I have been elected a local councillor for thirty-seven years with experience of Community, District and currently County level with Flintshire County Council. I am vice chairman of the County Audit Committee.
I am also a governor of the Welsh College of Horticulture at Northop.
During my working like at Vauxhall Motors I was a Production Controller and also the Union Staff Convenor. I have also previously served as a member of the Independent Tribunal Service.
I along with the other nominees Lindsay Jones, Wayne Price, Len Willett and Phillip Wynn support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
I have been a Wrexham supporter for forty years.
I have been elected a local councillor for thirty-seven years with experience of Community, District and currently County level with Flintshire County Council. I am vice chairman of the County Audit Committee.
I am also a governor of the Welsh College of Horticulture at Northop.
During my working like at Vauxhall Motors I was a Production Controller and also the Union Staff Convenor. I have also previously served as a member of the Independent Tribunal Service.
I along with the other nominees Lindsay Jones, Wayne Price, Len Willett and Phillip Wynn support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Cllr Phillip Wynn - Election Address & CV
Cllr Phillip Wynn
Born and bred Wrexham and very proud of it, I have had the fortune to have supported Wrexham AFC since the mid Seventies, with my first memory of watching our team was against Southampton FC at the Dell in the FA Cup Quarter Final, on a coach trip from the Gate Hangs High.
I am forty-three years of age and live in Wrexham with my partner Sue.
I work as a finance assistant for a radiotherapy company and anyone who knows the nature of accounting work, it leaves you yearning to express your creativity through some other avenue, luckily for me it is Wrexham AFC.
Since the formation of the WST I have assisted the cause through creating the "Save the Racecourse for Wrexham AFC" banner which was nearly as long as the Chinese Wall, played a big part in assisting Cornishred in collecting all 92 Football League autographed shirts, which raised over £13k, persuaded Rick Parry to allow the WST to do a bucket collection at Anfield, when Liverpool played Portsmouth, negotiated the premium rate phone line "Ring for Wrexham" as a way of raising funds and have also helped the club out through signing up many of the names on their "names on shirt campaign".
I am privileged to be serving as a co-opted member of Offa Community Council and hope to see the ties between the WST and Wrexham County Borough Council strengthened so as to ensure the Racecourse is protected as a truly international sporting venue, fit to serve the needs of North Wales.
I am currently working with others on the campaign to save the Turf pub from possible demolition and hope to convince Marston’s brewery to retain ownership of this iconic building.
If I am fortunate to be elected to the WST Board then I will be investing my energies into ensuring a swift and satisfactory settlement is achieved between the WST and the club owners, which ensures the clubs recent past is never again repeated. From talking to many fans and members of the WST it is important we keep our membership well informed of events and acknowledge it is the members wishes that we serve.
Having avoided the drop to the Conference League our club deserves a better future and the WST as the biggest Wrexham AFC fans group needs to be pivotal in delivering the better times we deserve, I along with the other nominees Cllr Colin Bithell, Lindsay Jones, Wayne Price and Len Willett support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiationswith the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Born and bred Wrexham and very proud of it, I have had the fortune to have supported Wrexham AFC since the mid Seventies, with my first memory of watching our team was against Southampton FC at the Dell in the FA Cup Quarter Final, on a coach trip from the Gate Hangs High.
I am forty-three years of age and live in Wrexham with my partner Sue.
I work as a finance assistant for a radiotherapy company and anyone who knows the nature of accounting work, it leaves you yearning to express your creativity through some other avenue, luckily for me it is Wrexham AFC.
Since the formation of the WST I have assisted the cause through creating the "Save the Racecourse for Wrexham AFC" banner which was nearly as long as the Chinese Wall, played a big part in assisting Cornishred in collecting all 92 Football League autographed shirts, which raised over £13k, persuaded Rick Parry to allow the WST to do a bucket collection at Anfield, when Liverpool played Portsmouth, negotiated the premium rate phone line "Ring for Wrexham" as a way of raising funds and have also helped the club out through signing up many of the names on their "names on shirt campaign".
I am privileged to be serving as a co-opted member of Offa Community Council and hope to see the ties between the WST and Wrexham County Borough Council strengthened so as to ensure the Racecourse is protected as a truly international sporting venue, fit to serve the needs of North Wales.
I am currently working with others on the campaign to save the Turf pub from possible demolition and hope to convince Marston’s brewery to retain ownership of this iconic building.
If I am fortunate to be elected to the WST Board then I will be investing my energies into ensuring a swift and satisfactory settlement is achieved between the WST and the club owners, which ensures the clubs recent past is never again repeated. From talking to many fans and members of the WST it is important we keep our membership well informed of events and acknowledge it is the members wishes that we serve.
Having avoided the drop to the Conference League our club deserves a better future and the WST as the biggest Wrexham AFC fans group needs to be pivotal in delivering the better times we deserve, I along with the other nominees Cllr Colin Bithell, Lindsay Jones, Wayne Price and Len Willett support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club.However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiationswith the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)