Kevin Haynes' Son Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Let's hope it's not the same 'friends on the board who play golf together' nonsense. Time to give everyone and this club a shake Leonard!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Irrespective of the decision, or whether we have the right man at the top or not, it can't be right that a supporter owned club has an all powerful chairman where only a select group of people have a say in who that is. I'm a member of both the trust and the SC and as with everyone else seemingly, have had no information as to what each candidate stands for, never mind has a say on how both organisations representatives would vote. It's a 'supporters owned' club only by name as far as I can see. As a side, I'm glad to see Dougie Watkins involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy two times Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Interested to see the reaction from the terraces on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tescodave Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Interested to see the reaction from the terraces on this one The reaction in Facebook ain't exactly great. In my opinion it isn't a great appointment. I really can't see what vision or expertise he can bring. Cracking option for bulb changing tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berwick-the-unbeatable Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 From a SC standpoint, it's worth nothing that as far as I'm aware, no committee members have been asked to question any of the whole process with regards to the cheyreman nor the shares issue. However, whilst I cant speak for the whole committee nor the 'sub committee' I appear to be a part of, I would imagine there is some unrest amongst us with regards to how the situation has played out - particularly the chairman vote and the strange secrecy behind the process. Now I'm not a big believer in airing the dirty laundry, but I am a huge believer that transparency is they key to trust - and as a SC committee member I believe I have some responsibility to at least explain my thoughts and more importantly concerns - the club is at a stage where it needs to be challenged imo. I laugh when the likes of Razor Mist are branded as troublemakers in the eyes of some. In personal conversations I have had with board members, I've been patted on the head with the 'you lot are the future', 'you can change things'. The reality is, it's the likes of Razor Mist that are challenging the status quo and trying to change things. At a meeting around 2-3 months back, I forwarded on some resolutions from FC United's AGM which I felt the club could greatly benefit from employing with regards to reviewing, monitoring and improving the club's structure - after the directors on the club board who were present at our meeting had requested invitations for feedback on how the club was run. I wasn't at the meeting itself, but was told it was well received. Since, I have heard nothing of how or even if it was presented to the rest of the board. I assume it has - but I think it's a good example of a club who claim they are desperate to improve, who are looking for change and claim they're listening who, when push comes to shove, fail to actually implement any change. At the latest talk in I was dumbfounded when our chairman claimed he was looking for a new board member who's first quality had to be that he or she 'did something'. Effort should be the minimum requirement - not the supposed 'skill' you search for - and besides, that is surely an acknowledgement that some on the board aren't pulling their weight, yet the very same people who were on the board that night remain. Shortly after the chairman had made this statement, a family asked about the board's hierarchy and individual responsibilities, noting it was actually something they did for a living, only to be shot down from behind the bar of all places by another official who was immediately on the defensive. What good does that do? Please give us your feedback, but please bear in mind, we always know better? As I believe has already been alluded to, the SC board were not invited to have a say as to their preference for new chair. Whether this is because Lenny is also a SC board member and it was 'assumed' - I don't think it's fair. I feel like I complain constantly on here at the minute with regards to the structure and hierarchy within the club and how flawed it is, yet the more I consider the Supporters Club's, the more I draw striking similarities. I slate the board for allowing one man - namely whoever is chair at that point, have so much power over the rest of the board, to where from the outside at very least it looks like they're impossible to outvote. Yet in this situation, the SC decision has been made by the exact same figure in our structure. Whether you believe John was robbed or Lenny was the guy for the job is or should be irrelevant in this. The whole situation is part of a wider issue. The process was wrong and that's being part of wider problems is the key issue imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Agree with most of what you say there BTU. Depressingly, the argument seems to have come down to 'it's the wrong person' looking at the comments on social media as opposed to the whole process being wrong. As I said when I talked about not going to the AGM, it simply looks like 'us v them' on both sides. One side looking to protect themselves and the other just assuming they speak on behalf of the fans. The trust chairmans was the best intervention/suggestion in the run up to the decision. It didn't happen because one man in the supporters owned club decided it shouldn't happen. There wasn't even a quote from the new chairman in the statement, never mind setting out what his plans were, and there was nothing I could see from John Bell setting out what he was offering, unless you're his friend or the Duns Chairman who said he's 'seen the presentation'. Well I haven't, and there's nothing anywhere that I've seen. Backing seems to be assumed. The problem isn't this decision, it's the whole process and the arrogance from the top that they know best. That comes from both sides and it's frustrating as f**k when you have talented people in the support willing to help and make suggestions, but they're just swept aside or forgotten about. Small suggestions to improve communication are just totally ignored, whether deliberately or not, it shows and arrogance and is utterly disrespectful to people who have skills that they don't. And it's all of them, not just one side or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tescodave Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Red Mist has spoken about what he feels should be happening going forwards on several occasions over several months indeed years. That's more than anyone within the club has, ever. Presentation telling us his business plan and vision should be available for supporters to see but Eyre wouldn't be capable of presenting a par on the fields easiest hole. Let's be honest here folks. I'm I missing something here as I presumed Parkin and Eyre were buddies but going by his Facebook post the friendship seems anything but rosey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 It was my post on Facebook if it's the one you're referring to. I'm not a director. It doesn't matter anyway. It shouldn't come down to who's friends with who. Personally, I like both John and Lenny however it should be about who is best for the job at hand and in my opinion people should have the opportunity to make their mind up based on something in front of them related to the actual job as opposed to who they're friendlier with. My best friend could be up for a job, but if I think someone I don't like would be better than them at the job, then I'd back the person I don't like. At least give fans something to judge them on though, as opposed to relying on their past, reputation or whether you like them or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disc Potato Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Slightly off the current subject but:- Under the companies act 2006, Directors have to seek shareholders or the boards approval for conflicts of interest. 0ver £200,000 worth of work was shared between directors companies. Did the board seek other quotes? As the law states, is it minuted that the board voted on this to approve the work? If the board didn't comply to both THIS IS AN ACT OF FRAUD. This needs closely investigated as its not the first time it has happened either. Excellent post BTU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowlandleaguer Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Asked that question at the AGM, the chairman said the directors companies that actually done the work done so at such a low price that no other company could have competed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Feet Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share Posted February 1, 2016 Mr Eyre interview on advertiser website. First thing he says is an idea to turn Old Shielfield into a 3G training pitch. "Hi potential players, our pitch is still dodgy as shit but feel free to drive an extra hour and a bit to training twice a week on our new bang average facility." Ridiculous. Edit for link: http://m.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/sport/football/berwick-rangers/eyre-is-appointed-as-new-chairman-elect-at-rangers-1-4017760 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Haynes' Son Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Let's build a nine hole golf course on it, be about as sensible. If any work is to be done on facilities / pitches it's Shielfield, where we play our home games. Let's just focus on staying up first Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tescodave Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Incoming Vice is the brand new director it seems. Mr Eyre building his yes men around him. Not good for the club but very astute from the sparky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Mr Eyre interview on advertiser website. First thing he says is an idea to turn Old Shielfield into a 3G training pitch. "Hi potential players, our pitch is still dodgy as shit but feel free to drive an extra hour and a bit to training twice a week on our new bang average facility." Ridiculous. Edit for link: http://m.berwick-advertiser.co.uk/sport/football/berwick-rangers/eyre-is-appointed-as-new-chairman-elect-at-rangers-1-4017760 I'm sure he doesn't mean for the first team to train on. Berwick as a town is crying out for a 3G pitch and the league football club in the town should be a major player into helping make that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Feet Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share Posted February 1, 2016 I'm sure he doesn't mean for the first team to train on. Berwick as a town is crying out for a 3G pitch and the league football club in the town should be a major player into helping make that happen.Surely if we were to make it happen it would have to be an Annan type pitch though. We use it Saturday afternoons, kids teams etc can use it rest of the week. To me a pitch for playing on should be the priority, not a pitch for the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I would be in favour of the club contributing towards a 3G facility in Berwick, but not on Old Shielfield. If you look at facilities in Edinburgh, the Lothians and Borders which have been most successful, they require plenty of space - e.g. for 5 aside cages - as well as good access, car parking, services for parents etc. - e.g. café - and get used night and day. Old Shielfield is a cramped site, backing onto a street of houses, poorly accessed (I suppose you could drive a road through the timber yard from the industrial estate?) and would need a pavilion, floodlights and so on put in. Shielfield or another site IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Shielfield is unsuitable for a 3G pitch as it would need to be levelled. Brian Porteous had suggested it would cost hundreds of thousands to level before even taking into account the costs of the pitch. If there was a 3G pitch on old Shielfield, owned by the club, then it could be a community facility as well as helping to make money for the club. This is the first I've heard of this idea, but I would hardly call it ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Haynes' Son Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Let's not steer away from the fact that our Transfer dealings are over , and nothing else has happened, sticking with the same average squad that has taken 6 points out of a possible 27 since coff was annanounced.. Can't see the signings / current players making much of a real difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Feet Posted February 1, 2016 Author Share Posted February 1, 2016 before even taking into account the costs of the pitch. If there was a 3G pitch on old Shielfield, owned by the club, then it could be a community facility as well as helping to make money for the club. Just briefly looking up costs online and making assumptions here so bear with me. - An average football pitch is around 7000 square metres. - 3g turf is apparently £45/50 per square metre. So say £40x7000, £280,000 to lay, then add the cost of decent access, changing rooms etc. Rent it out for £25 an hour, 20 hours a week gives you £26,000 a year. That would make it 11 years until it started making money, by which point it would be fucked and need replaced. Thats where my opinion that its ridiculous comes from, however I don't know the full story and/or accurate figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Just briefly looking up costs online and making assumptions here so bear with me. - An average football pitch is around 7000 square metres. - 3g turf is apparently £45/50 per square metre. So say £40x7000, £280,000 to lay, then add the cost of decent access, changing rooms etc. Rent it out for £25 an hour, 20 hours a week gives you £26,000 a year. That would make it 11 years until it started making money, by which point it would be fucked and need replaced. Thats where my opinion that its ridiculous comes from, however I don't know the full story and/or accurate figures. I wouldn't pretend to know the full costs or how much you could charge or whatever. Plenty of towns have them though so I'd assume it has to be worth it somewhere down the line. Worth looking into anyway. I work in East Lothian and pretty much every town and big village has one. It's a bit embarrassing that a town the size of Berwick doesn't. You'd probably be looking towards funding from the council of Football Foundation or whoever though. Preferably, we'd have a new ground and it's all in one like Annan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.