Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater – a message for Dave Felstead

[buffwa]

I don't know If Mr Felstead would welcome this, but it seems he will have a very big say in the future of the club. If the supported decide for change at today's meeting, should he be given a place on the intrem board as a fans representative? His ability to call today's meeting at such short notice is excellent and shows he is giving every supporter their chance to speak either pro or anti board. Perhaps Mr Williams could make Mr Felstead his representative (as boxrap did with Mudie) and we should have him on any future board???

[old sage]

Fair enough, Jean - I bow to your encyclopaedic knowledge :D

 

As a separate issue - do you think one person (note I'm not sexist like what you are) one vote is workable?

Yes but only if each person only has one share.

In truth the fans owned idea is a utopian on but would only work at the giant clubs like Manure, Arsenal and Liverpool because these clubs have huge fanbases worldwide so they could sell their shares individually and would sell them all. Unfortunately it doesn't work lower down the pyramid because there isn't enough fans to buy them singularly.

Also the 24.9% shares idea doesn't work either because if two people could do that with a third person who is in cahoots with them by a further 2% and hey presto you have a dictatorship.

Personally I would be delighted to see Mo and Mark Sims do this because I have spoken to Mark and his passion for Port Vale shines out like a beacon and I am sure that he would only do what he believes is in the club's best interests.

[Jinkin John Jeffers]

Personally, I would prefer Mo to have 51%. This gives him the focus to succeed and a business IMO need's a leader with the overall final say. It will also give hime the motivation to succeed.

 

The 24.9% has been rammed at people so much that people have become obsessed with it.

[Aussie Rules]

I don't know If Mr Felstead would welcome this, but it seems he will have a very big say in the future of the club. If the supported decide for change at today's meeting, should he be given a place on the intrem board as a fans representative? His ability to call today's meeting at such short notice is excellent and shows he is giving every supporter their chance to speak either pro or anti board. Perhaps Mr Williams could make Mr Felstead his representative (as boxrap did with Mudie) and we should have him on any future board???

 

Interesting thought Buffers, and given RW's confidence in the Supporters' Club I believe it shoud at least be part of the post EGM discussion - which ever way it goes - and given that's what Dave would want.

[old sage]

Interesting thought Buffers, and given RW's confidence in the Supporters' Club I believe it shoud at least be part of the post EGM discussion - which ever way it goes - and given that's what Dave would want.

I wouldn't argue with that Aussie we could all sleep in our beds content in the fact that the club is being run honestly not that I disbelieve Mo but Dave is a man that everyone can trust 100%. So would assure the 'doubting Thomas's'

[NEV]

i can not get to the meeting today but i would like dave to vote the boad of but not to change the 24.9% .that said i wont to know why mo and mark wit h lb will be at the meeting, we all know there feeling, this meeting is so dave can have a view of the none shareholder the fan that go every week i think that the three should keep away and let dave do wot robbie wonts him to do, a fans veiw on how to vote

[Valiant62]

Valiant62,

 

Your views are well presented and have been noted.

 

Many thanks for taking the time to express them.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dave

 

Cheers, Dave and thanks for taking on the responsibility.

 

To others, I don't have a completely fixed view on what a future structure should look like but I'm really glad to see the debate on here and people (myself included) developing their ideas flexibly.

[fordedem]

Think everyone other than the odd few want change, people that don't want change hav had 6 months to show there feelings it's our chance to force change now and call the end to v2001 !!!

[Thats Entertainment]

Interesting political analogy and a useful argument, I think.

As with the current wider economic crisis I think we've seen socialism fail, but we've also seen the unfettered free market fail. People are looking to the Keynesian type stuff about private ownership with tight outside regulation. Getting back to your "combination" idea, that's basically what I'm proposing as my ideal solution - 24.9% proxied (assuming Robbie's willingness to do that longer term) to an accountable fan's organisation, 24.9% to a successful Vale fan / businessman (Simms) 24.9% to a particularly wealthy entrepreneur with deep pockets and something to prove, 25.3% to others. That gives a much smaller, more mobile and accountable board (say three people) as well as protecting "the community" from unregulated / unsafe business practice. Problem is... could we sell that idea to Chaudry?

I think we should at the very least be pausing to negotiate, and I'm anxious that a new interim board might act in haste without doing so. I happen to think getting the structure right is more important than getting every last penny we can out of Chaudry.

 

Good Post :D

 

===

[sheffield61]

Good to see people discussing without pro/anti board boxing matches on here. Having said that, RobbieH, Banbell[end], etc, etc, WHERE are you NOW eh!?...... :D

[ginginator]

Good to see people discussing without pro/anti board boxing matches on here. Having said that, RobbieH, Banbell[end], etc, etc, WHERE are you NOW eh!?...... :D

 

Waterworld

[Mr Carter]

I dont go along with fan run clubs, rule by comittee etc,too much room for division and jealousy, I prefer the club to be run by one person, it makes decision making easier,and gets things moving,we have seen how long it takes getting everything done at the moment.

 

This does NOT mean I dont want other people on the board to keep the checks and balances, but if its your money you are spending you are going to be more circumspect about the way the club is managed.

 

I dont agree with this "For the People" it always seems to end up messy somehow ===

 

Sorry if that does not go with the popular view

[tisdeano]

my preference is simms / choudry joint bid

 

however the egm is only about the board and I say vote them all out asap

[Valiant62]

"Personally, I think we have to accept that anyone who wants to invest, unless they are a die hard fan, will want an element of control."

 

Even a die hard fan would want an element of control - I'm not hung up on the one share = one vote idea and I would like to see a small number of people having the lion share of ownership... just not one person

 

 

"I actually think Mo has been quite open on this front. He wants to have a majority holding but has never shut the door on others chipping in - if others invest, including the smallest of shareholders, Mo will have to keep putting his hand in his pocket to maintain his position. That to me is a win win because the club continues to benefit from increase shareholder capital, which hopefully helps to stabilise the finances and to help rebuild the club."

 

Decent argument

 

"I agree that the interim board should be asked to look at all options however Chaudry is still the only bid on the table. If the board had the wherewithal to attract a rival package surely it would have been seen by now? So we are then looking at an outsider because our most prominent supporters - Williams, Taylor, Sims appear to be advocating change in one form or another."

 

I think that's contradictory - Mo 51% hasn't been the only bid on the table, Mo 24.9 / Mark 24.9 was there for a time or was that just a smoke screen?, Robbie might put his hand in his pocket again if he can devolve responsibility and Taylor might do similar. The supporters club proxy might have legs beyond the EGM.

 

"I don't see a long queue forming to invest at any League 2 club so we have to try to come to a position of compromise. For me that is wealthy investor and fans coming together for the greater good."

 

Spot on!

 

"I've spoken to Mo a couple of times very informally at the club. I have no doubt that there is at least some part of him that is in this for the ego trip. I also however believe him when he says he wants to give something back. don't for one second believe that a man with land available at Festival Park wants to try to make money out of the land at Vale Park."

 

Ego trip - yes, no problem,

give something back probably - good on him

land at vale park - red herring, it's practically worthless to Mo

 

 

 

"Sometimes in life you have to take a leap of faith."

 

I'm not sure I agree. We took a leap of faith with V2001 and have been let down, surely it's attention to the structures that guarantees a sustainable future, not having faith in personalities.

That's why I said in my original post that there would have to be attention to the structure and accountability of the supporters club - I have high regard for Dave Felstead but long term, its about roles and positions, not personalities and with power people change ..we need to attend to the structures, not just trust in personalities. Likewise, no-one in all this could have more credibility than Mark Simms, but even in his case or if it was me my case we need to get the structures right, surely if there's one thing V2001 has taught us it's to be wary of leaps of faith!

 

 

 

"If the last 6 months have shown me anything about the people who follow this club it's that when we work for a common goal we can achieve. For too long we let this slide away in silence. Quite simply, we cannot let this chance pass us by."

 

Agreed.

[VantaaVale]

I think also if Mo would accept a board where no one member has control, it is really a matter of getting a board together where the members share a common goal and agree on the way to achieve it.

 

I think many of the problems with the current board were due to factions within it. It appears Mike Lloyd has been marginalised and then the efforts to rid the board of Machin and Wakefield (and Lloyd, which failed) did not go unnoticed.