Berwick Rangers 2015/16

[berwick-the-unbeatable]

gud point m8 i agree

[east fife for life]

Hand on heart I honestly can't believe Walker has got yet another contract in senior football, he is absolute garbage and the Berwick fans will agree once he's had a few games. Watch him score the winner on Sat now......

[ewan_fife]

Hand on heart I honestly can't believe Walker has got yet another contract in senior football, he is absolute garbage and the Berwick fans will agree once he's had a few games. Watch him score the winner on Sat now......

we did say that about Paul Willis..

[BerwickMad]

i think berwick should drop out the legue they dont play in this country and would be fair to have a team from up here take the place

We r all brittish

[maxruby]

We're having enough coping with "Jamsey" on Clyde threads. Ignore it.

[Red Mist]

For all the points made on here over the last few months, there's been a surprising lack of interest in what happened at the AGM. There was some good discussion, and a lot of disagreement on key points. The accountant said that the governance at the football club - the way it's run and it's financial management - have improved substantially over the last few years. I'd concur with that view but I also think that that seal of approval is at risk - see below.

It's disappointing that the usual keyboard warriors were conspicuous by their absence. People need to step up to the plate - you either want to challenge the status quo so we can improve things together or you're happy to let it slide. You can't have it both ways. At the minute, there are plenty of people who talk the talk but very few who are actually prepared to get out from behind their keyboard and enact real change.

Here are the questions we asked at the AGM:

Q1: Over the first 20 matches of the 2014/15 season, Colin Cameron’s record as manager was 7 wins, 6 draws and 7 losses, which showed a win rate of 35%.

He was offered a new contract on this very modest record, which was inferior to that of his predecessors, Ian little and Jimmy Crease.

Over the first 11 matches of the 2015/16 season, his record was 4 wins, 3 draws and 4 losses, which also showed a win rate of 35%, yet the decision was made to sack him despite overseeing a win rate exactly the same as that which saw him awarded a new contract.

Why did the board award Colin Cameron a new contract in January 2015?

What was the financial cost to the club of terminating Colin Cameron’s contract?

On reflection, what would the board do differently about a decision which has had serious consequences for the club in both financial and footballing performance terms?

Q2 : Since the current board took over in 2008, Berwick Rangers’ league record has been as follows:

Season

Won

Drawn

Lost

Position

Win%

2008/09

10

7

19

9th

27.7%

2009/10

14

8

14

6th

38.8%

2010/11

12

13

11

6th

33.3%

2011/12

12

12

12

7th

33.3%

2012/13

14

7

15

4^th (P/offs)

38.8%

2013/14

15

7

14

5th

41.6%

2014/15

11

10

15

8^th

30.5%

2015/16

6

3

9

8^th

33.3%

Totals (270 matches)

94 (34.8%)

67 (24.8%)

109 (40.3%)

6.6

34.8%

How can the board explain 8 consecutive seasons of footballing failure in a ten team league where 40% of the participants are guaranteed a title or a place in the play-offs?

In light of their experience over the previous 8 seasons, what will the board do differently in the future to bring footballing success to Berwick Rangers?

Q3: In light of the record I’ve detailed in my previous question, why does each member of the board believe they should continue in post as a director of Berwick Rangers?

In any walk of life, if performance is consistently below the level promised or delivered, the people responsible are normally asked to step down to give someone else a chance to improve performance. Whys should different rules apply to the BRFC board?

Q4: Since 2007, over £233,000 worth of work has been carried out at Shielfield by director’s companies.

What systems are in place to ensure that these transactions represent best value for Berwick Rangers?

Does the board accept that by contracting these works in-house, it could have a negative effect on the way that other businesses in the area perceive the football club, and that that could be damaging given that the club might want to approach these businesses for sponsorship or hospitality?

Q5 : I understand that the Trust chairman wrote to you proposing that the two candidates for the position of chairman of the football club set out their respective cases before an audience of supporters. What is your position on that proposal?

Q6: (To the chairman) Why have you decided to sell your 26,000 shares to the Supporters Club?

Note: Q6 did'nt get asked because the meeting ran out of time, but I'd like to focus on that. What's the supporters' club thinking behind buying the chairman's shares (many of which were acquired from an outgoing director)? Say for example, the supporters club pay 50p per share, that will cost them £13,000. That's money that members have paid into the SC for the benefit of the football club surely, not to hand over to the retiring chairman? That does'nt seem like an appropriate use of funds to me, and if I was paying a membership fee to te SC I'd be cancelling it pretty sharpish if my money was'nt being used to further the interests of BRFC. Several years ago, the Trust purchased shares from Jamie Curle using money donated by Brooks Mileson specifically for that purpose.

The Trust was absolutely vilified for that, even though Mileson had ring-fenced the money. What's different about this latest development? Can someone from the SC come on here and explain why they're doing it and how, if this was to go through it would be in the best interests of BRFC?

[tescodave]

So no answers were given to the questions then?

Or were they?

[Yellow Feet]

Has anyone else been hoping to see a new striker in the door this window?

[Yellow Feet]

Has anyone else been hoping to see a new striker in the door this window?

So now we've seen Henderson once again confirm he isn't a lone striker and Coff bring on another midfielder instead of Rusty I think that shows we're lacking.

[BerwickMad]

I've never been to an AGM. It was probably something I should have attended in all honesty.

I've given my views on here, about thinking the board room should be smaller and directors should have overall responsibility for certain areas with working groups below them, then be held accountable for the certain areas. I also said similar to the chairman at the talk in and do at SC meetings. I don't especially believe that the supporters groups need to be represented on the board and think they should be separate but with the power to scrutinise and monitor the performance of directors. Whether any of that is achievable, I've no idea, but I'd like to see everyone working towards that. Some may disagree.

The reason I probably became disheartened, and it was probably a few things that led me to the view that I couldn't really be bothered with the AGM, was how the debate seemed to be around extremes and a long way from what I would like to see. Another 'us against them' battle for the boardroom. I don't agree that directors should be sacked or backed over a managerial decision, especially one I was probably 40/60 on at the time. I think there started to be a lot of spin in the debate. 'Remember this but forget that'. That's why I posted to try and add some balance to John Bell great, drinking club bad posts. I've still next to no idea what either candidate for chairman stand for as they haven't said anything.

I have nothing especially against any of the directors, even though I have my own ideas on how things could be done better. I'd like to see everyone working together for what's best, even through disagreements, and personally I don't have any appetite to get involved in picking sides of two warring factions. I don't think there's any appetite for that in the minds of the people I go to games either, although they can speak for themselves. "Not this shit again" is usually the reaction I hear.

I agree with most of those questions, and agree 100% with the trust asking for what is a supporter owned club to have candidates for chairman set out their ambitions. I just don't like the 'good guys, bad guys' type debate. And I mean that from what you hear on both 'sides'.

As for the shares thing. I'd be in favour of it personally. I was in favour of the Mileson thing and would be at this. I don't think shares going into the hands of supporters when an individual wants rid of them is a bad thing. I don't see it as a negative though can understand the opposing view.

[berwick-the-unbeatable]

I wasn't at the meeting where any of this was spoken, but I don't see it as a negative.

Even though we're in a good position in terms of fan ownership, I'd sooner see that many shares come to one of the supporters parties than sold off to the highest bidder etc, so I'm not against it. Certainly, I don't see what harm it does getting them - I don't believe that buying these shares isn't in the interests of the football club.

WIth that being said, I do believe the structure must change. When it was requested by the board that the SC consider some ways to restructure the board etc going forward, I suggested a smaller board with several working groups and a clear role for each director - all clearly serving a purpose. I put forward the example of FC United who do exactly that, and took some of their AGM resolutions including a clear roadmap of the responsibilities of all volunteers, directors, officials etc so that we can look at monitoring for improvement, but also to highlight and take advantage of the club's strengths.

The SC & Trust should then for me be holding the directors accountable, reviewing the performances. Whilst the directors may be accountable for their own separate areas, including those volunteers & officials, it should be the supporters' organisation's job to essentialy monitor their performance. At the minute, it seems we're a fan owned club only in that we have shares - there is no actual accountability.

I actually don't care who the next chairman is. It worries me that whoever the chairman is seems to have dictatorship-esque power. The amount of power afforded to our Chairs seems to be way exceeding what it should be, or at least in my opinion. While I have no doubt that Brian is a brilliant businessman for example, it seems at the minute that directors have to convince him should they want idea X to take place. Surely ideas should be put forward to the whole board and voted upon. The aim shouldn't be to convince one man that idea X would be a good investment - it should be to persuade a group of people who are recognised as having the sufficient skills, experience and knowledge to be making those kinds of decisions in the first place, hence their role as a director. If this structure was ever to happen, both organisations would require as many shares as possible to make it convincing imo.

Red Mist makes some fair points in his post - I'm most in agreement with our pathetic performance on the park, which is what should be but never is the bread and butter for me. But it seems at the moment a lot is being twisted towards an agenda, I think quite a lot of people have grown disinterested in that quickly because of previous experiences. As above, I'm now at the point where I don't care who the chair is. That's because I don't think either's top priority would be our league performance, because I believe the structure we have will remain in place under either, and because neither have said a word (It might be that both have cracking ideas, will plunge 300k of their own money in signing Danny Swanson to get us promoted and will reinstall the ducket fence, but how the f**k are we supposed to know if neither say anything. They don't need the permission of Porteous whether or not they hold the suggested event, if they were desperate to tell fans their plans they'd take the intiative and find a way - something John arguably failed to do in the Trust newsletter). And even then, it isn't our decision anyway - it's the decision of the directors. Our views don't really hold any relevance in the grand scheme.

[dreamteamer]

So it looks like Coughlins finished his transfer business in this window i take it????

[Kevin Haynes' Son]

So it looks like Coughlins finished his transfer business in this window i take it????

Hope not, striker still needed!!

When teams like east fife are signing players such as Ali coote and the lad Isnall from hibs, and Elgin City lure Dylan Easton up to the highlands, and we are signing Brian Martin from Musselburgh, you've got to question the recruitment process at the club.

[ewan_fife]

Hope not, striker still needed!!

When teams like east fife are signing players such as Ali coote and the lad Insall from hibs.

[Red Mist]

I wasn't at the meeting where any of this was spoken, but I don't see it as a negative.

Even though we're in a good position in terms of fan ownership, I'd sooner see that many shares come to one of the supporters parties than sold off to the highest bidder etc, so I'm not against it. Certainly, I don't see what harm it does getting them - I don't believe that buying these shares isn't in the interests of the football club.

WIth that being said, I do believe the structure must change. When it was requested by the board that the SC consider some ways to restructure the board etc going forward, I suggested a smaller board with several working groups and a clear role for each director - all clearly serving a purpose. I put forward the example of FC United who do exactly that, and took some of their AGM resolutions including a clear roadmap of the responsibilities of all volunteers, directors, officials etc so that we can look at monitoring for improvement, but also to highlight and take advantage of the club's strengths.

The SC & Trust should then for me be holding the directors accountable, reviewing the performances. Whilst the directors may be accountable for their own separate areas, including those volunteers & officials, it should be the supporters' organisation's job to essentialy monitor their performance. At the minute, it seems we're a fan owned club only in that we have shares - there is no actual accountability.

I actually don't care who the next chairman is. It worries me that whoever the chairman is seems to have dictatorship-esque power. The amount of power afforded to our Chairs seems to be way exceeding what it should be, or at least in my opinion. While I have no doubt that Brian is a brilliant businessman for example, it seems at the minute that directors have to convince him should they want idea X to take place. Surely ideas should be put forward to the whole board and voted upon. The aim shouldn't be to convince one man that idea X would be a good investment - it should be to persuade a group of people who are recognised as having the sufficient skills, experience and knowledge to be making those kinds of decisions in the first place, hence their role as a director. If this structure was ever to happen, both organisations would require as many shares as possible to make it convincing imo.

Red Mist makes some fair points in his post - I'm most in agreement with our pathetic performance on the park, which is what should be but never is the bread and butter for me. But it seems at the moment a lot is being twisted towards an agenda, I think quite a lot of people have grown disinterested in that quickly because of previous experiences. As above, I'm now at the point where I don't care who the chair is. That's because I don't think either's top priority would be our league performance, because I believe the structure we have will remain in place under either, and because neither have said a word (It might be that both have cracking ideas, will plunge 300k of their own money in signing Danny Swanson to get us promoted and will reinstall the ducket fence, but how the f**k are we supposed to know if neither say anything. They don't need the permission of Porteous whether or not they hold the suggested event, if they were desperate to tell fans their plans they'd take the intiative and find a way - something John arguably failed to do in the Trust newsletter). And even then, it isn't our decision anyway - it's the decision of the directors. Our views don't really hold any relevance in the grand scheme.

There are always agendas, but that doesn't mean to say they're a bad thing.

Re BM's post, I'd contest the claim that this is about warring factions. That suggests an all-out conflict, which this isn't. What it is about is holding the people charged with running the club to account by actively scrutinisng what they do and challenging bad decisions. If we don't do that, then it gives them carte blanche to do what they want without the checks and balances provided, in theory at least, by the supporters organisations who appoint representatives to the board. A board without supporters reps on it when their organisations are major financial contributors and shareholders would be an epic failure of sensible governance.

As for the supporters club buying shares from the chairman, I disagree fundamentally with both BTU and BM. SC members pay their membership fee ( as I did for years before the Trust was established) so that Berwick Rangers can play in a stadium that is more or less fit for purpose and put a competitive team on the park - emphatically not so that SC can increase its already dominant shareholding and give the chairman some pocket money. It beggars belief.

It's hard to dismiss the impression that the board is dominated by the chairman. At the AGM, no other board member took part in the debate. As for his successors having the opportunity to put forward their respective cases for taking over as chairman, I proposed at the AGM that the two candidates present their cases to an open meeting of supporters - not just SC or Trust members - and that at the end of the presentation, supporters could vote for the person they thought would make the best chairman. Whilst acknowledging that the final decision would be made by the board itself, I argued that if the board was informed of the outcome of the supporters' vote, they should at least take account of that when making their final decision. The chairman thought about it but eventually dismissed my proposals because he said that was'nt how he wanted it done. Instead, both candidates will present to the board on Saturday, behind closed doors. I firmly believe this is a fait accomplit and that they will choose Lenny Eyre, not because he's the best candidiate but because he is part of a clique on the board and guarantees the continuation of the status quo. So when the SC acquires shares from the chairman to boost its already ruling shareholding, ask yourslves, what power does it really have?

That's why I challenge things. A lot of people regard me as a trouble-making, argumentative ***t. They're probably right. But I give one about where the football club is going, and I don't much like the current direction of travel.

In case anyone's forgotten, we're sitting 9th in the league and are in deep trouble. Crowds are dwindling and we look uncompetitive in the transfer window. The future could be Lowland League-shaped, and that's a dismal project and a desperate failure. If that does'nt shake people out of complacency, nothing will. No more status quo - it's not working. Time for a big change.

[ewan_fife]

Has Andy Russell left?

[Kevin Haynes' Son]

Has Andy Russell left?

He has indeed.

Paving the way for a striker to come in... Danny handling on loan? Who knows

[ewan_fife]

He has indeed.

Paving the way for a striker to come in... Danny handling on loan? Who knows

. Allan Walker can play upfront....

[Yellow Feet]

. Allan Walker can play upfront....

So can I, doesn't mean its a sensible option

[ewan_fife]

So can I, doesn't mean its a sensible option

course it's a sensible option, absolute baller. #zing