Surprised not to see anything about this on here: http://robinstrust.org/trustwp/?p=395#more-395" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(Apologies if I missed it) Is anyone else aside from Clive Gowing thinking of running? It would probably feel better not to be a straightforward coronation. I was wondering what the situation would be about Clive's dual role on the board if someone else was appointed - does anyone know the situation? Surely it would be in the Trust's interest to have someone else (obviously if it was someone else who had the skills and the time) - even though Clive's role would then be dealing with the financial side, the Trust would still have at least two of its members on the board then, even though it would only be represented by the FED.
I know there's been a big debate about the whole dual role situation on here already, but it still doesn't feel entirely within the spirit of having someone from the trust on the board to me - something I believe is also felt by organisations working with supporters trusts.
(before someone suggestions I could nominate myself to at least add a name to the ballot, I'm based far from Cheltenhamshire - this is a genuine query, not cage rattling).
Fan Elected Director
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
-
Reliant Robin
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 21:10
Clive has my 100% support.
Most of the Directors have skills they bring to the Club, as well as giving their time freely to the cause. Clive has accountancy skills so it makes sense for the Club to tap into them.
We are lucky to have someone like Clive Gowing, he's a totally committed fan, does shed loads for the Club, is willing to be the fans elected Director and he is a total professional. I see no reasons whatsoever to have any doubts, whether he stands alone or up against others.
Most of the Directors have skills they bring to the Club, as well as giving their time freely to the cause. Clive has accountancy skills so it makes sense for the Club to tap into them.
We are lucky to have someone like Clive Gowing, he's a totally committed fan, does shed loads for the Club, is willing to be the fans elected Director and he is a total professional. I see no reasons whatsoever to have any doubts, whether he stands alone or up against others.
-
confused.com
- Posts: 2666
- Joined: 04 Oct 2012, 07:16
RR I think you are missing the point of OP. Nobody was questioning Clives efforts or skills, so no need to jump in so quick to defend, I believe OP was talking about maximising the situation
-
hookyrobin
- Posts: 118
- Joined: 30 Jan 2014, 20:09
I should stress here that I think Clive has been excellent as the Trust's first FED. I'm not calling him out, it's just that the club co-opted his financial experience, and I think it would be great if there were also other people with the skills and ideas to potentially offer the Trust.
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29817
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I fully support Clive as FED and am glad he is set to continue in the role, however I am not in agreement with this being shared with the CTFC Finance Director role. Especially because the two questions of (1) whether the FD role is in addition to the FED or if it takes time away from the FED, and (2) whether Clive's FED hat or FD hat takes priority when making contributions to Board meetings, especially if the view of the Trust conflicts with the view of CTFC.
I would not vote against Clive on this issue, but would feel uncomfortable voting for him given that the questions above have been asked several times with no serious or non-aloof answer from the Trust. Luckily, as I let my membership expire due to the poor communications over the FED vs FD issue, I won't need to worry about voting.
I would not vote against Clive on this issue, but would feel uncomfortable voting for him given that the questions above have been asked several times with no serious or non-aloof answer from the Trust. Luckily, as I let my membership expire due to the poor communications over the FED vs FD issue, I won't need to worry about voting.
I was going to post the link to the announcement, but Hooky beat me to it, and there is no need to repeat.
I do think it would be good to have an election - it would allow issues and questions to be aired at the SGM, but I am not in a position to stand myself
I do think it would be good to have an election - it would allow issues and questions to be aired at the SGM, but I am not in a position to stand myself
-
Reliant Robin
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 21:10
Indeed, and thanks confused.com - I was aware that the post was not demeaning Clive's efforts or skills. I posted my comment in the sincere hope that any other Trust Member's reading the opening thread item are not swayed or minded to vote for A.N. Other should it come to more than a one horse race, because of this alleged conflict of interest issue.confused.com wrote:RR I think you are missing the point of OP. Nobody was questioning Clives efforts or skills, so no need to jump in so quick to defend, I believe OP was talking about maximising the situation
I don't think we would be permitted to get a second fan elected person onto the Board as an opportunity by voting for someone else, unless we stumped up the extra cash investment. I would not want us to risk losing Clive off the Directorship, by putting the position at risk through trying to maximise the situation in the Trust's favour.
Perhaps what we wouldn't know for sure would be whether the Board would be minded to retain Clive in the Finance Director role should he lose a Trust Membership election? He would then possibly just revert to being an 'employee' rather than a Director?
My understanding was that £200K was more than the going rate for a director
There are also associate directors who appear to be coopt as and when they are needed
There has to be a conflict of interest full stop, and that cannot be healthy
That said I do believe that Clive is doing a good job but perhaps someone else could do a different job or a worse job
It is the principle
What happened to all those sub groups/ committees that the trust were supposed to have representatives on
Do they still operate , what are they and how do the trust board members know my views when none of them have spoken to me in last year
I dont know if it is the underlying intention that the trust one day will own the club - trust board members feel free to answer
Is the trust a success - i would say slightly but could they handle a Leyton Orient fiasco ?
There are also associate directors who appear to be coopt as and when they are needed
There has to be a conflict of interest full stop, and that cannot be healthy
That said I do believe that Clive is doing a good job but perhaps someone else could do a different job or a worse job
It is the principle
What happened to all those sub groups/ committees that the trust were supposed to have representatives on
Do they still operate , what are they and how do the trust board members know my views when none of them have spoken to me in last year
I dont know if it is the underlying intention that the trust one day will own the club - trust board members feel free to answer
Is the trust a success - i would say slightly but could they handle a Leyton Orient fiasco ?
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29817
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
It all depends on the time commitments for each role.
I don't know on what agreement the Trust investment was made in terms of Clive's time. For arguments sake, let's say the Trust invested on the premise Clive would spend 10 days a month as FED.
If he is FED for 10 days and FD for one day so 11 in total, then fair enough. He is volunteering an extra day (leaving aside any conflict of interest arguements).
However, if he still does 10 days in total so has reduced FED to nine days replaced with one for FD then the Trust members would be justified to ask for 10% of the investment back.
I don't know on what agreement the Trust investment was made in terms of Clive's time. For arguments sake, let's say the Trust invested on the premise Clive would spend 10 days a month as FED.
If he is FED for 10 days and FD for one day so 11 in total, then fair enough. He is volunteering an extra day (leaving aside any conflict of interest arguements).
However, if he still does 10 days in total so has reduced FED to nine days replaced with one for FD then the Trust members would be justified to ask for 10% of the investment back.
-
Reliant Robin
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 21:10
Let's not forget, Clive has a young family and he has his own job away from CTFC. I know he's professional enough to rise above any perceived misgivings about aspects of the role he is doing, but if it were me trying to fulfil that role, would I want my integrity called into question? I think it's unfair on him.
-
horlickfanclub
- Posts: 3928
- Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
I agree with Reliant. As far as I can see he does a great job.
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29817
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
No one is questioning his integrity or ability. As you say, he has other work and family commitments, so the question of whether FD activity takes time away from FED activity is even more pertinent. The Trust voted to invest for an FED, not to subsidise a CTFC. Surely there are clear records to show if the same number of hours have been spent on the FED role by Clive after the FD role was given to him as before.
I think that by some of the arguments mentioned here are disingenuous, trying to create a conflict where one does not exist.
There is not a defined role of FED, or a defined FD. All of the board is jointly responsible for the club's activities, and generally board members take on tasks according to their abilities and time available.
As FED, Clive has to be mindful of the needs and wants of the supporters, but all of the directors should have this in mind anyway as it is still true that the majority of the club's funding comes through the gates, and that a considerable amount of sponsorship is for the sponsors to advertise to the supporter base.
The Financial director has a degree of extra responsibility in financial matters, but this is not generally contradictory to the role of FED. Most (if not all) supporters want the club to be run in a financially responsible way.
The matter, including the potential for conflict of interest was discussed at the Trust AGM, where it would have been possible for the membership to censure Clive and demand that he stepped down from the Financial role. The membership at this point decided not to do so.
Frankly, as someone who has served with Clive on the trust board, I have not really noticed a difference in the way Clive approaches the post since he has taken on the dual role. I will have no hesitation in supporting him again this time.
There is not a defined role of FED, or a defined FD. All of the board is jointly responsible for the club's activities, and generally board members take on tasks according to their abilities and time available.
As FED, Clive has to be mindful of the needs and wants of the supporters, but all of the directors should have this in mind anyway as it is still true that the majority of the club's funding comes through the gates, and that a considerable amount of sponsorship is for the sponsors to advertise to the supporter base.
The Financial director has a degree of extra responsibility in financial matters, but this is not generally contradictory to the role of FED. Most (if not all) supporters want the club to be run in a financially responsible way.
The matter, including the potential for conflict of interest was discussed at the Trust AGM, where it would have been possible for the membership to censure Clive and demand that he stepped down from the Financial role. The membership at this point decided not to do so.
Frankly, as someone who has served with Clive on the trust board, I have not really noticed a difference in the way Clive approaches the post since he has taken on the dual role. I will have no hesitation in supporting him again this time.
-
Reliant Robin
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 21:10
Well put Leo.
In terms of overall Club running and funding transparency, it's all the more important we have our FED with his finger right on the pulse. I know we are extremely fortunate to have this opportunity, brought about because of Clive's skills and his willingness to do this role. Let's not rock any boats.
In terms of overall Club running and funding transparency, it's all the more important we have our FED with his finger right on the pulse. I know we are extremely fortunate to have this opportunity, brought about because of Clive's skills and his willingness to do this role. Let's not rock any boats.