Although turnout was a little sparse, the quality of the discussions was, as ever, excellent. Several members had sent emails to apologise that they would not be able to attend and some indicated how they wished the Trust to use it's votes at the AGM. Congratulations to the Cheltenham contingent for making the effort to come to the meeting - much appreciated! In addition to the Trust board and members, Cllr Justin Tomlinson attended as a guest to bring members up to date on the latest over the County Ground and answer any questions members may have had.
County Ground Update
This item was dealt with first as Justin needed to dash off. Basically the situation has not progressed really since March when the club had their "lover's tiff" falling out with St Modwen. The situation is that the council are waiting for the club to come back to them to explain how the financial aspects of the scheme stack up - that is the final stage of the "preparatory phase" in which the club and developers talk to the council officers over what is possible in the redevelopment. It is anticipated that the next stage would then be a presentation by the club/developers to the council cabinet and/or group leaders to explain their proposals in detail, followed by a public consultation to gain feedback from local residents, other interested parties etc before the club finally submitted a planning application. However, at the moment the club are still in negotiations with St Modwens as to how the financial aspects of the scheme stack up, to ensure that there is value in the scheme for both the club and the council to make the venture worthwhile and workable.
Justin also explained that he had urged the club to accept the idea of a Trust rep on the board on several occasions, on the grounds that the club could only benefit from having closer liaison with the fans and it would significantly enhance the club's credibility with the council as being an organisation that was actually rooted in the town. He also emphasised that the club had so far done a poor job on PR over both the Shaw and County Ground developments, that it was only the Trust who had mounted any credible PR over the CG redevelopment and that without the Trust's efforts, the CG redevelopment scheme would not have got off the ground. Apparently the response from board members when he had pressed this case had been negative, with Mike Diamandis especially hostile as he claimed that the Trust were opposed to his ticket price policies and so could not be on the board.
Motions before the AGM/Questions at the AGM
There was some discussion of the "missing" 2003-04 accounts as we were told at the December AGM that these were ready to be signed off, bar a "small technicality" which was claimed at the time to be a funding shortfall but actually turned out to be a winding-up order. Several members expressed their scepticism as to whether anything the board said at the AGM could be trusted in the light of the concealment of the winding-up order at the last AGM. It was mentioned that despite comments in the media that these accounts which have been presented were not complete because of missing documents from the previous regime, the accounts actually cover a 2 year period which the current board was in charge for 18 months of. So for the 2002-03 accounts this board was in charge for the whole period and so there should be no need for the accounts to be qualified by the auditors.
The members resolved that the following questions be asked at the AGM:
- Has the club remained within the percentage of turnover for salaries specified by the Football League during the 2004-05 season?
- Why was the winding-up order served against the club on 6th December concealed from shareholders at the AGM held on 31st December?
- We were told at the AGM on 31st December 2004 that the accounts for 2003-04 were ready but just had not yet been signed off by the auditors due to a funding shortfall which was expected to be resolved within weeks (and was resolved by the end of January 2005). Why then have these accounts which have apparently been ready for some six months not been published at this time?
- The club have stated that the 01-02 and 02-03 accounts have been "qualified" by the auditors due to missing documentation and records from the previous board. Yet this board took over in Dec 2001, half-way through the 01-02 period - why then are the accounts for 02-03 a period in which this board was in control for the full year also qualified in this way?
- There is no breakdown of what constitutes "Costs of Sales" and "Administrative Expenses" in the accounts. We note that the latter was reduced by some £0.5 million and congratulate the board on achieving this, but can you give us a breakdown of what costs are included in each category?
- The club has been without a Chief Executive for the preceding season and while we appreciate the efforts of both Bob Holt and Sandy Gray in stepping into the breach, will the board please consider appointing if not a Chief Executive then a General Manager to ensure that the day-to-day administration of the business is attended to as too many details are still being overlooked (e.g. season ticket incentives still not ready some weeks after prices announced)?
- As the club suffered a 25% drop in gates last season (the 2nd worst in percentage terms in the entire Football League), how can the board justify continuing with the same disastrous price strategy that led to this fall? On what basis or business plan have the board decided to continue the current price structure and will the board produce figures to reassure shareholders that this is actually a properly thought out decision?
In addition, the members voted as to how the Trust should vote using its shares on the items on the AGM agenda:
- To reappoint Mr. James Wills as a director - the Trust will vote in favour of this motion
- To appoint Sandy Gray as a director - the Trust will vote against this motion
- To accept the accounts for the periods ended 31st May 2002 and 31st May 2003 - the Trust will vote to accept the accounts for 2001-02 but not to accept the accounts for 2002-03 for the reasons outlined above (queries as to why these should have been qualified)
- To reappoint Messrs. Ross, Brooke Accountants as auditors of the Company - the Trust will vote in favour of this motion
Fan on the Board
The rationale for a Trust rep on the board was discussed. The reasons why we want to do this include:
- Better liaison between club and fans and hopefully restore fans' faith in the way the club is being run. Recent fiascos (e.g. the concealing of the winding up order at the December AGM) have severely damaged the board's credibility with a large section of the fanbase - a Trust rep on the board would go some way to restoring faith that things were being done properly
- Board can only be strengthened by having direct feedback from fans (businesses pay thousands for that kind of market research). Fans have demonstrated they do have worthwhile ideas which are at least worth the board discussing (e.g. Trust's recent ticket price proposals generated considerable amount of very positive feedback and several excellent suggestions for promotion schemes etc) and the board currently appear to simply ignore their "customers" which goes some way to explaining the catastrophic drop in gates this season
- A Trust rep could provide some input into the board on local issues and the need for the club to interact better with the local community. The most obvious examples here are the Shaw fiasco compared with the County Ground motion - in the first instance, the club went alone and failed badly; in the second instance the Trust did a lot of the groundwork and succeeded in gaining all-party support for the motion.
- This isn't going out on a limb - dozens of other clubs are already benefiting from a supporter-director. It is a well-recognised framework with strict guidelines drafted by the government-backed Supporters' Direct and is proven to work well at other clubs. Examples given include Luton who were in deep crisis two seasons ago but have just been promoted as Champions of League One, and Lincoln who went into administration (and nearly out of business) following the collapse of ITV Digital but who have just recorded a £750k profit.
It was also explained that we now fulfill the criteria the board gave last time for rejecting a Trust rep on the board: 14 days' notice before the AGM must be given and the Trust must prove it has something positive to contribute to the club, which we have amply demonstrated not just with the County Ground redevelopment (both in terms of securing the motion and advice afterwards on issues which the club would simply have been unaware of without Trust input) but also in terms of positive suggestions to benefit the business, such as the detailed (and costed) ticket price proposals we submitted in March.
The members voted unanimously to support the idea of a Trust rep being put forward for the board at the AGM.
In future it is hoped that a Trust rep will be elected by the members, according to the criteria laid down in the Supporters' Direct guidelines. One of these criteria is that a supporter-director must have served on the Trust board for 12 months prior to standing for the club board - this is a safeguard to prevent "timewasters" simply standing for a laugh and also so that both the Trust and the club can see that any potential candidate has the relevant qualities needed. However, for the moment, this is to be varied to 6 months so as to allow any Trust member to stand for the Trust board now and still be able then to stand for the club board by Christmas time, assuming that this is when the next AGM may be.
On this occasion, the Trust rep has simply been nominated by the Trust board as Andy Ratcliffe, partly due to the time constraints of submitting a candidate prior to the AGM and partly because of the constraints stipulated by the Supporters' Direct guidelines and also the Board's own stated criteria for an individual candidate, which include experience of running a business, experience of being on a board and a proven commitment to the club. Andy fulfills these qualities admirably and so was nominated by the Trust board as the Trust rep for the club board. However we very much hope that prior to the next club AGM it will be possible to find two or more candidates who fulfill the criteria and so enable Trust members to vote for who they would like to be put forward for the club board.
Red Army Fund update
Obviously the signing of Michael Proctor has depleted funds, but collections since then have rebuilt the fund to a decent, if not yet "useful" (in terms of signings) amount. There have been other expenses related to the running of the Fund to pay for (e.g. printing of leaflets etc) and so there is currently around £2500 in the Red Army Fund account. There was some discussion of ideas for fundraising/merchandise etc which will be looked at over the summer.
Ideas to improve the Trust
The key suggestion here was communication - members felt that the Trust could improve communication with fans as to what the "core values" of the Trust are - for example, one suggestion was to put "Info Sheets" giving brief news of what the Trust has been doing around the toilets and snack bars at each home game. It was also suggested that we get ex-players to come as guest speakers to the next members' meeting so that there is a social as well as "business" element to attract people. This has worked very well in the past and should be tried again.
| 
