BU meeting

[Mr Tree]

is that your positive contribution to the debate? cheers, well done

 

[JoeBourke]

..... yes I am a nasty piece of work......

I can confirm this rumour to be accurate and not mere speculation!

 

[Bee H]

Afternoon Joe,

Your thoughts on post # 41 please ??? :shrug:

Many thanks

 

[JoeBourke]

Afternoon Joe,

Your thoughts on post # 41 please ??? :shrug:

Many thanks

Bee H,

I think Baz Bee is right in that project management of sizeable construction projects is a specialist area. However, you really need to be on the ground reviewing all of the details, including the tendering requirements of the Football Stadia Improvement Fund, to make a proper assessment of the logistics.

The subject was discussed last night and the feedback was that daily delivery of materials would not be practical in this instance, presumably based on industry advice.

Matt Dolman (BIAS and BU), who is an architect by profession, also gave his view on the costs involved with the preparation of detailed production drawings and supported the opinion that this could run into six figures.

It is an area where the board needs to take professional advice and be careful in its decisions. Some work may be carried out during the season, if parts of the ground can be closed, but the bulk of the work may need to be compressed into a six week period, when the pitch is not in use by the Bronco's. Design and build may be an option, but there are often considerable alterations/additions during construction with this approach and extra's are where contractors squeeze out good profits from what started out as competitive tenders.

 

[ianallon]

is that your positive contribution to the debate? cheers, well done

Unfortunately it seems to be the most positive post on this thread! :shrug:

 

[Baffled]

And where pray was Graham Hall in all of this. I told you back in October that he would be a disaster and then of course the "Foggies" (Friends of Graham) came out of the woodwork and told us he was a great umpire or some such crap and would be an enormous asset to the BFC board......I suppose they got the "enormous" bit right........but this was the consultant who was used to going into businesses, identifying the problems in the twinkling of an eye and putting them right. Erm yes quite..........

Graham Hall, King of the Porkies, was there last night. He assumed a tactical position - as befitting a board member - away from the BU exec when they got ready to answer questions.
I think this was because he didn't understand what was going on. Something to do with members asking some awkward questions - which might put him on the spot. Or could it have been because he considers chief exec Andy Finch merely a general manager - as he informed a recent BIAS meeting.
His total contribution to the evening was as follows:

 

[abee]

Unfortunately it seems to be the most positive post on this thread! :shrug:

Well fingers crossed that you get lucky........Bees United won't need anything from me and the present BFC board which you clearly believe to be the best available (and I defend to the death your right to that viewpoint) stays exactly as it is.

That is the preference of my wife and Cancer Research as well so you are not alone........

 

[Banana]

Bee H,

I think Baz Bee is right in that project management of sizeable construction projects is a specialist area. However, you really need to be on the ground reviewing all of the details, including the tendering requirements of the Football Stadia Improvement Fund, to make a proper assessment of the logistics.

The subject was discussed last night and the feedback was that daily delivery of materials would not be practical in this instance, presumably based on industry advice.

Matt Dolman (BIAS and BU), who is an architect by profession, also gave his view on the costs involved with the preparation of detailed production drawings and supported the opinion that this could run into six figures.

It is an area where the board needs to take professional advice and be careful in its decisions. Some work may be carried out during the season, if parts of the ground can be closed, but the bulk of the work may need to be compressed into a six week period, when the pitch is not in use by the Bronco's. Design and build may be an option, but there are often considerable alterations/additions during construction with this approach and extra's are where contractors squeeze out good profits from what started out as competitive tenders.

Wouldn't these costs be met be one of the 2 organisations willing to buy GP? If not, then they should be as it'll be cheaper won't it? How many tender preparations do Barrats do per year compared to BFC

 

[Mr Tree]

Unfortunately it seems to be the most positive post on this thread! :shrug:

personally i'd say it's the most depressing post on this thread, but whatever :shrug:

 

[JoeBourke]

Wouldn't these costs be met be one of the 2 organisations willing to buy GP? If not, then they should be as it'll be cheaper won't it? How many tender preparations do Barrats do per year compared to BFC

I don't know the answer, Banana, but there would be no harm in checking. I'll pass it along.

 

[abee]

Nothing lost by trying but haven't Doug White and Roy King got a hammer lock on this. I thought that Doug had been through this stuff plenty of times and I seem to remember him saying that he was using King 'cos King had done this sort of work at Charlton......but not the electrical stuff..........

 

[eghambee]

Nothing lost by trying but haven't Doug White and Roy King got a hammer lock on this. I thought that Doug had been through this stuff plenty of times and I seem to remember him saying that he was using King 'cos King had done this sort of work at Charlton......but not the electrical stuff..........

But those Tenders were from the far east :suspect:

 

[JoeBourke]

Unfortunately it seems to be the most positive post on this thread! :shrug:

Ianallon,

This thread started with Nurse Betty's summation of last night's meeting. I noted your recent post as to the difficulty that supporter trusts have in taking account of contrasting individual views and that is certainly true of virtually every voluntary organisation.

The current programme we have set ourselves is the raising of £1m. There has already been £500k contributed by fans over the past three years to support the club financially and general fundraising will need to continue, even after the exercise of the option to support the club financially.

To be successful investors (and specifically the core BU membership that have and continue to support the club financially) need to be comfortable that the stategy to be pursued is the right one, that business plans are realistic and achievable and that the management resources to execute those plans are in place. Last night's forum was part of the ongoing communication and feedback process and judging by the feedback at the end appears to have been well received.

Individual supporters, with wide business experience, can and have assisted with the development of the clubs planning.

While it is true that it is not practical to act on every view or opinion, what can be done is to listen to feedback and accomodate that in developing future plans and that is precisely what happens notwithstanding perceptions to the contrary.

The sole criteria for all policy decisions is what is most likely to be in the best long term interests of the club - while there will be differing opinions on specific issues, surely a broad consensus among supporters generally is achievable.

 

[Russell]

But those Tenders were from the far east :suspect:

Which explains perfectly why it's a 3 month process. Slow boat from China anyone?

 

[keefor]

To really get this fund raising going we need a big dramatic gesture. I would like to see the board digging deep into their pockets and publically paying into the £1m fighting fund.

I would suggest that those involved in the Southampton debacle made a start by chipping in between them the cost of the big screen that was at GP.

I'm sure this would help to 'persuade' more donors.

JM did say that it was an overall cock up by many, and did admit to his part in the balls up.

 

[Russell]

To really get this fund raising going we need a big dramatic gesture. I would like to see the board digging deep into their pockets and publically paying into the £1m fighting fund.

I would suggest that those involved in the Southampton debacle made a start by chipping in between them the cost of the big screen that was at GP.

I'm sure this would help to 'persuade' more donors.

Well for sure if all directors of BFC are committed to, and believe 100% in their strategy, the least they should do is put their money where their mouths are and stump up some of their own cash, say £50k each to start with. If any of them haven't got that sort of loose money laying around, a quick call to their friendly bank manager will enable a re-mortgage on their respectives homes. A £50k repayment mortgage over say 15 years is about £400 per month right now.

Anything less from each of them says to me they aren't as confident as they expect us to be. Not surprising when you consider who's in charge though

 

[abee]

Hi Joe,

You seem to have missed an earlier post of mine so I will try again.

Andy Finch was brought in as CEO earlier this month and according to just about all comments on here by the attendees at Thursdays Fans Forum Andy's comments left few people in any doubt that the administrative and accountability procedures at Griffin Park were virtually non-existent.

Now Bees United has (and reasonably enough) made great play of its financial probity and the work achieved on reducing the operating losses. I have no problem with you focusing on this part of the "success story" if we wish to call it that. However Joe, you, I and many others will know that in sorting out a business large or small the financial aspects are a piece of cake. You zero budget every expense line item and build up from there......it's not hard and in the case of BFC Bees United seems to have done a reasonable job although they were clearly very lucky that Martin Allen and the players achieved the Cup run otherwise as you have told us it would all have gone pear shaped. However the trick of course is at the same time as dealing with the financial situation to get a hammer lock on the administration and take the staff along with you by inspiration and leadership. On that score Bees United (or if you like its appointees) seems to have been er.......somewhat less that brilliant.

Early last year I was approached by a well-known GPG poster who wanted to try to bridge the "gap" if you like between John Mac and myself.
(I had been posting that John Mac had been overpromoted and I saw absolutely nothing that suggested that his reign as the "de facto" CEO was going to end in anything other than an expensive disaster. I know these type of comments were found "bruising" by the BFC board and that several members we are told of the present BU board consider the criticism on the GPG unfair but heck it is our football club that they are playing with and in my view anyway we have a right to comment). Of course when I was desperately trying to point out where I believed it was all heading there were the repetitive accusations levelled at me about "having another agenda" "trying to bring down Bees United" "consumed with jealousy of those in power" (my alltime favourite) and the rest of the usual rubbish. (Joe, you know that when it looked as if the wheels could fall off at the turn of the year and before the brilliant Cup run I confirmed to you and Brian Burgess that I would cover the situation and you also know that at no time have I ever expressed any interest in being a director of BFC).

However back to the point....... I was asked by this individual whether I would be prepared to help in tidying up the "non-financial" situation at Griffin Park and I said that I just wanted what was best for Brentford Football Club and that I would be prepared to take a few weeks off from my Paris position and would be very surprised if I couldn't sort out whatever "non-financial" problems there were at GP in pretty short order and put in some line management systems and reporting parameters in short order.
A week or two later I was told that my services were not needed and everything was considered okay.......that was fine.......I thought that it was a shame but clearly the hubris that was compelling individuals whom I believed had been promoted beyond their levels of competence was still steering the ship at GP. And so I watched in riveted horror and fascination as BFC staggered on from one shambles to the next culminating in the Southampton ticket fiasco........BFC was I believed a train wreck waiting to happen and I certainly was banging my head against the wall when Roy King was appointed as General Manager last June. I thought that the BFC board had taken individual and collective leave of their senses and I seriously wondered about the judgement values that obtained at BFC board meetings.. Well the King experiment didn't last very long and now we have Andy Finch, except of course the "executive" payrolls are being gradually ratcheted up to absorb and correct a problem that I believe should have been identified by the BU board and the BFC board of directors maybe two years ago.

So my question is two fold :-

1) Does Bees United agree with Andy Finch's comments on the state in which he found the "off the field" side of things at Griffin Park

2a) If "no" will Bees United be issuing a rebuttal of Andy Finch's alleged comments (although you seem to agree with Nurse Betty's note taking at the meeting)

or if "yes"

2b) Would you comment on whether the administrative side was in a dreadful state when Noades passed over the management to Bees United and if not would you lay the blame for the situation that resulted in the urgent appointment of a CEO to clean up the mess at the door of John Mac, Stephen Callen, Roy King or all three.

Thank you Joe........

 

[JoeBourke]

Hi abee,

To answer properly, we would need to revisit how we got here.

John Mcglashan was actively involved with the formation of Bees United by BIAS back in the summer of 2001 and was appointed as the first Chairman of Bees United. In the spring of 2002, John was appointed as the first supporter director on the board of BFC and an option agreement was negotiated with Altonwood based on taking over responsibility for guaranteeing the debts of the club.

John subsequently became an employee of Bees United for a short period to work on trust matters full time and after a couple of months was engaged as an employee of the club to assist Gary Hargraves wiith his duties.

After the expiration of the first six month option in 2002, the focus of Bees United was to try to get more supporter directors onto the club board to increase supporter influence and work up financial plans to stabilise the clubs operation. These plans revolved principally around efforts to persuade Altonwood to invest money directly in the club interest free, on the basis that the club could operate at breakeven before interest costs.

John was working at the club and had direct access to Ron Noades, so he was the principal intermediary between Ron and BU. When Ron decided he wanted to withdraw from direct management of the club and offered a second option to BU, the big problem was there was no reduction in the interest costs on offer. BU had sufficient funds at the time to cover one year bot not thereafter. As a commercial business deal it would make no sense, but efforts to save a football club are driven by different criteria.

Bees United subsequently appointed two further elected BU board members Stephen Callen (an accountant) and Andrew Wainwright (a solicitor) to the BFC board. Stephen was retiring from his job in the city and was able to work at the club part-time on a gratis basis fior the first year. Andrew works full time in his own practice and serves in a non-executive capacity.

John made it clear from the beginning that sales and marketing was not his forte and he would have to rely on Gary Hargraves to maintain the clubs commercial activities. So these three, John Mac, Gary Hargraves and Stephen Callen combined as an executive committee to manage the clubs affairs with Eddie Rogers as Chairman, John Herting continuing as a non-executive director and Doug White joining the board.

Gary Hargraves left after a few months and rather than commit scarce funds on the appointment of replacement managing director, a commercial manager was appointed to take up a sales and marketing role. One of the features of GH's management was that all staff reported direrctly to him for authorisation/decisions and there was very little delegated responsibility. It was a management style that John and Stephen set about to change, so that staff could make routine decisions without referral to the executive directors.

In the summer of 2003, on the basis that John was still finding himself tied down with day to day activities and finding it difficult to make time for the bigger projects - new stadium, G.P. Improvements, Altonwood refinancing etc - Roy King was asked to assume the general manager role. Doug White, in his clubcall interview at the time, refers to Roy King as a well liked member of staff with valuable experience with stadium developments, grant applications etc.

All well and good until setbacks with the initial planning application and customer service issues, but most importantly the lack of a single person that could take charge of the crisis surrounding the cup tie at Southampton. While not the sole reason, that was the catalyst for moving from a position where we could not afford a C.E.O to a position where we could not afford to continue without one.

The comments on lack of reporting lines and accountability presumably refers to the flat management approach that it was attempted to implement and I would guess that a more direct hands on approach will be reintroduced.

I wasn't aware that you had been sounded out to assist with developing management policies at the club. I am of course aware of your position with respect to participation on the club board, while it remains under Altonwood control but would reiterate that it is something I hope you and others of a like mind, might reconsider if and when it comes under Bees United control.

In answer to your question, I think John Mac has done a job for us when we had limited options and no money, but we have come to a point where it is time to push on. Stephen Callen is an able accountant and for the £15k a year he is paid, very good value. Roy King is an employee of the club reporting to the C.E.O. When Andy Finch says he is impressed with the competence and dedication of the staff working at the club, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Hungerford Bee]

For those of us who are simple minded or otherwisere dazed and confused could somebody please draw a organisation chart showing who reports to who at the club and the other roles, for example in BU, that these people hold?

 

[Ronan]

Ianallon,


The current programme we have set ourselves is the raising of £1m. There has already been £500k contributed by fans over the past three years to support the club financially and general fundraising will need to continue, even after the exercise of the option to support the club financially.

Realistically, isn't this an impossible task? 500k in 3 years, £1,000,000 in a few months? We need some kind of miracal (sp?) here.

 

[Beesnut]

We need some kind of miracal (sp?) here.

Miracle

 

[JoeBourke]

Realistically, isn't this an impossible task? 500k in 3 years, £1,000,000 in a few months? We need some kind of miracal (sp?) here.

Ronan,

At the BU forum, the trust Chairman advised that we were confident of raising at least £500k. That is based on verbal indications already given by wealthy fans. So while the target is a big ask, it is not impossible.

Taking kids out of the equation, there are around 4000 adult home fans regularly attending games. Half of these (about 2000) are season ticket holders. Bees United currently has around 1200 adult members i.e. approx 60% of the adult season ticket holders or 30% of the adult fan base.

Of the 1200 adult BU members, a little over half (about 550) make monthly S/O donations.

Not everyone, even most, are in a position to commit funds to the club and of those that are, the majority have already done so. So reaching the £1m target is heavily reliant on both participation from a small group of wealthy investors and developing interest from fans not currently members of Bees United,

I don't know that I would categorise it as needing a miracle, but challenging - definitetly. The single biggest limiting factor in fundraising is having sufficient people to undertake fundraising activities. Volunteers to organise campaigns, distribute literature, assist with mail-outs etc.,are vital to making progress.

It has been more or less the same small group of hardcore dedicated activists that have maintained bucket collections and fundraising efforts over the past three years. That they may get a little tetchy with critics at times, is probably as much to do with battle fatigue as anything else.

The point however is that everyone can help, whether it is the giving of time, money or new and innovative ideas - all are equally important.

 

[JTofBFC]

If BU will finally come up with a scheme that will enable those of us who have STOs to get something back from them, ie when the total you have donated gets to £1000 you get a share or something, then I for one will be more than willing to increase my STO from £10. As any STOs just go into a black hole labelled "supporters donations" and thats it, you never see your money again, then I'm afraid that is the limit of my benevolence for now. I'm sure others feel the same.

BU loan our money to the club but we dont loan the money to BU, we donate it. That doesn't seem equitable to me. If BU ever get their loan back where does it go?

I agree that if the same old same old approach to supporter fundraising that we heard from Steve Cowan at the last home match is to be regarded as our only hope then an example should be set by those on the Board. At a minimum I would expect to read that the Directorate as a whole have increased their contributions by £250k.

Frankly, unless there is change in tack in our approach to fundraising we might as well pack up now. If, the £1m really is enough to enable a workable refinancing and the £1m really can be raised from wealthy supporters who have already given a green light to the idea, then can we please do without the constant "milking of the same cow" as someone correctly put it at the Forum, ie those of us who already contribute what we can afford. When I started my standing order 2 years ago, I expected it to be a short term requirement, not to go on for evermore.

 

[abee]

1) I wasn't aware that you had been sounded out to assist with developing management policies at the club.

2) In answer to your question, I think John Mac has done a job for us when we had limited options and no money, but we have come to a point where it is time to push on. Stephen Callen is an able accountant and for the £15k a year he is paid, very good value. Roy King is an employee of the club reporting to the C.E.O. When Andy Finch says he is impressed with the competence and dedication of the staff working at the club, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

1) Joe, I emphasise that I was approached by a third party well known to both of us and asked if I was prepared to bury the hatchet and to give some time to helping John Mac get things sorted. I thought that it was a start and agreed to give up some time. I was then advised that the official position was that everything was okay and that there was nothing that I could contribute (by that I took it to mean that the only way that I would be allowed anywhere near Griffin Park was over a sea of dead bodies........other than on match days of course......... ). That was okay with me but I thought that it was a pity.

2) Joe you are really brilliant mate.......I've gotta hand it to you and I'd like to see you with Jeremy Paxton......"In answer to your question......." and then you don't........... lol

I've got the picture........nobody was responsible for anything. By the way I have always stated that I too have been impressed with the competence and dedication of the staff working at the Club. My own belief was that it was the managers letting the staff down and not vice versa. I have learned that twenty dedicated staff can make a weak manager (but one whom they like personally) look good but one poor manager disliked by his staff cannot make his disgruntled staff enthusiastic or efficient. That was my take on what was happening at Griffin Park.

 

[keefor]

The single biggest limiting factor in fundraising is having sufficient people to undertake fundraising activities. Volunteers to organise campaigns, distribute literature, assist with mail-outs etc.,are vital to making progress.

Well the single biggest limiting factor in fundraising from me is the inept management and total failure to take responsibility for the mismanagement. That caused the 90% reduction in my s/o, not a lack of collectors, etc, etc.

 

[JoeBourke]

If BU will finally come up with a scheme that will enable those of us who have STOs to get something back from them, ie when the total you have donated gets to £1000 you get a share or something, then I for one will be more than willing to increase my STO from £10. As any STOs just go into a black hole labelled "supporters donations" and thats it, you never see your money again, then I'm afraid that is the limit of my benevolence for now. I'm sure others feel the same.

BU loan our money to the club but we dont loan the money to BU, we donate it. That doesn't seem equitable to me. If BU ever get their loan back where does it go?

I agree that if the same old same old approach to supporter fundraising that we heard from Steve Cowan at the last home match is to be regarded as our only hope then an example should be set by those on the Board. At a minimum I would expect to read that the Directorate as a whole have increased their contributions by £250k.

Frankly, unless there is change in tack in our approach to fundraising we might as well pack up now. If, the £1m really is enough to enable a workable refinancing and the £1m really can be raised from wealthy supporters who have already given a green light to the idea, then can we please do without the constant "milking of the same cow" as someone correctly put it at the Forum, ie those of us who already contribute what we can afford. When I started my standing order 2 years ago, I expected it to be a short term requirement, not to go on for evermore.

These are all good points, JTofBFC.

BU funding over the past two years has been to support losses arising as a consequence of the clubs interest costs. The S/O funds have been put in as loans for the simple reason that the majority shareholder is Altonwood. If majority control passes to Bees United and the balance sheet can be cleaned up at some point in the future, it may well be that the unsecured loans are waived.

There is a possibility, although quite a remote one, that some existing Loan Notes or a part thereof, could be repaid in the distant future. BU are looking at introducing some incentives for Loan Note subscribers and there is the option of financing a £1k loan note over three years with the Co-op bank for a monthly paymert of around £30. Many of the current loan note holders also maintain regular standing order contributions.

One of the difficulties that arises with director loans is that it entrenches positions on the board. I don't believe that trust members would want to see board positions filled purely on the basis of personal financial means. It is something we have to bear in mind when calling for 'Director Loans'.

As I indicated earlier, verbal indications from wealthy investors are currently in the region of £500k. While this will hopefully increase over the next few months, it can certainly not be taken for granted that enough will come in to reach the sum needed of £1m.

I would wholly agree with the comments made at the forum that the fundraising should be targeted principally at engaging fans that are not currently involved, (particularly adult season ticket holders) and not rely on those that are already contributing.

The club will be relying on ongoing financial support from Bees United next season, to support it's operations. It is recognised that 'donor fatigue' will inevitably set-in after a period of time, and has to a degree already. The revenues expected from the G.P. Improvements in the season after next should allow for a reducing reliance of contributions from BU members and fans generally.

Having said that, I think we all recognise that football clubs are a like a giant sponge when it comes to soaking up funds. Future share issues may well be on the cards as part of a debt refinancing and/or move to a new stadium.

 

[abee]

If BU will finally come up with a scheme that will enable those of us who have STOs to get something back from them, ie when the total you have donated gets to £1000 you get a share or something, then I for one will be more than willing to increase my STO from £10. As any STOs just go into a black hole labelled "supporters donations" and thats it, you never see your money again, then I'm afraid that is the limit of my benevolence for now. I'm sure others feel the same.

Joe, there are some interesting points from JT.

Does Bees United presently track the donations by total to individuals. That is if a supporter starts off in January with £10 per month for six months and then ups his payment to £20 for the next six months does it show at the end of the year as total donations from X of £180 or do you not have the resources to do this and you can only see that X has a current order for £20 per month.

 

[Les Beeavinu]

As an observer, and very much an outsider, it seems to me that the single limting factor in fund raising still appears to be John MacGlashen. I can't comment on why that is, I am merely making that observation.

As he was instrumental in setting up BU in first place, his desire must be to see BFC continue and thrive. Surely therfore, he must realise that for that to happen he has to take a long hard look at his position. This isn't necessarily because of incompetence; that point could be debated until the cows come home, but merely the perception held.

I believe if he were to step aside, his reputation would be enhanced, and perhaps people could start thinking about moving forward instead of this constant self-destructive babble that surrounds the club.

I do however appreciate, that for him to do so would mean losing his paid empoyment and that is a difficult thing to ask anyone to do. He is an unenviable position, and one that I would not like to be in.

 

[JoeBourke]

Well the single biggest limiting factor in fundraising from me is the inept management and total failure to take responsibility for the mismanagement. That caused the 90% reduction in my s/o, not a lack of collectors, etc, etc.

Keithor,

This is also the single biggest factor that led to the appointment of a C.E.O. and the outline proposals for a restructuring of the board, in the Bees United governance review. The exercise of the option is the next step in instituting radical change.

The question was asked at the forum as to the impact of Southampton on BU membership and fundraising. The membership secretary advised that there had been some cancellations, but new applications had more than made up for this. Perhaps the impact cannot be accurately guaged until after the next annual renewal.

In terms of S/O contributions, the treasurer advised that they had peaked at around £6500 per month last year, but had started to decline early in the new year and were currently running at about £6000 per month - so there has been a net loss of £500 per month so far this year.

On the question of the Southampton ticket problems, John Mac replied that it was a major failure and acknowledged his responsibility, along with others, for the disastrous management of the whole affair.

 

[Bigbee]

As an observer, and very much an outsider, it seems to me that the single limting factor in fund raising still appears to be John MacGlashen. I can't comment on why that is, I am merely making that observation.

As he was instrumental in setting up BU in first place, his desire must be to see BFC continue and thrive. Surely therfore, he must realise that for that to happen he has to take a long hard look at his position. This isn't necessarily because of incompetence; that point could be debated until the cows come home, but merely the perception held.

I believe if he were to step aside, his reputation would be enhanced, and perhaps people could start thinking about moving forward instead of this constant self-destructive babble that surrounds the club.

I do however appreciate, that for him to do so would mean losing his paid empoyment and that is a difficult thing to ask anyone to do. He is an unenviable position, and one that I would not like to be in.

good post , I think most of us would be happy to pay him more to stay away

 

[JoeBourke]

Joe, there are some interesting points from JT.

Does Bees United presently track the donations by total to individuals. That is if a supporter starts off in January with £10 per month for six months and then ups his payment to £20 for the next six months does it show at the end of the year as total donations from X of £180 or do you not have the resources to do this and you can only see that X has a current order for £20 per month.

abee,

records are maintained on excel spreadsheets. Not all donors are known - this happens where members forward S/O instructions directly to their bank, but don't advise or send a copy to BU. Some of it get's sorted when members paying by S/O query their membership subscription notice.

It's possible, but the tracking of cumulative S/O donations would add an administrative burden, as there would very likely be individual reconciliation issues and suspense accounts.

 

[abee]

As an observer, and very much an outsider, it seems to me that the single limting factor in fund raising still appears to be John MacGlashen. I can't comment on why that is, I am merely making that observation.

I don't think that it is John Mac personally and he probably has more supporters than detractors. I do believe however that it is the collective failure of the board to acknowledge mistakes and their "circled wagons" mentality that got up the noses of many supporters. It was refreshing to read that Andy Finch seemingly acknowledged at the Fans Forum that the organisation at Griffin Park is a shambles and of course it is easy and normal for him to do that as if he says that everything is hunky dory we would be asking why we are paying him then...... lol

John Mac's considerable error in my view was to persist with the "secret salary" nonsense. It will come out in the audited accounts anyway so why he stubbornly clung on to the rather sulky "I want the rate for the job and it's nobody else's business what I earn" line only John can explain. Another problem of course is that frankly none of us has any idea what he does, for how long he does "it" and what he is paid for doing "it". He is probably being unfair to himself. For all I know he may be working one hundred hours a week and be great at what he is doing but his public relations is crap. When John raised the bar by asking for the "rate for the job" ( I believe that was the expression he used) then of course the amiable and hard working amateur went out of the window and we were entitled to judge him by "rate for the job" professional standards. That's my take anyway. John and the rest of the BFC board are being nailed for not explaining to us their difficulties and problems but hiding behind the "everything is great......aren't we doing well" mantra. They made little or no attempt to tackle the criticisms (crikey if I were on the BFC board I would have invited the "usual suspects" on the GPG to pop in collectively to Griffin Park one evening or be my guest one at a time at home matches so they can see the problems at first hand have a glass of something or other with them and try and engage in some debate about what I was trying to do and how long it was gonna take me rather than the pathetic........"bruised at the criticism" and "don't read the GPG 'cos it makes me depressed" response which is not exactly leadership.

I have been in some tough spots in my career and when you have been faced with a very senior member of a Middle Eastern Royal Family threatening to toss you into jail and throw away the key then I am afraid that being "depressed" or "bruised" because of some flicks with a feather duster on an unofficial web site should I believe be water off a duck's back to the directors.

I remember Ronald Reagan when he was (I think) Governor of California who having said he wouldn't raise some tax or another then had to do it after being in the Governor's seat for a few months. He went on the telly and said "Gee, I'm sorry. I guess I just got the numbers wrong and I'll try not to make that mistake again". There's no answer to that is there without seeming surly and unsympathetic. If anyone tried to attack him on the decision to raise taxes the response of the vast majority was "Hey leave the guy alone. He's said that he's sorry and got the numbers wrong.........back off".

 

[eghambee]

Joe,

can you please confirm that Andy Finch is the C.E.O..

Small point i know, but at the infamous bias meeting Mr Hall said the role was a General Manager's role.
When challenged about it , he said that a C.E.O. was the same as a General Manager.

cheers

 

[JoeBourke]

Joe,

can you please confirm that Andy Finch is the C.E.O..

Small point i know, but at the infamous bias meeting Mr Hall said the role was a General Manager's role.
When challenged about it , he said that a C.E.O. was the same as a General Manager.

cheers

egham,

to set your mind at rest, herewith the gospel acording to Martin Allen:

http://www.brentfordfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/NewsDetail/0,,10421~669696,00.html

and 'Who's Who'

http://www.brentfordfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/WhosWho/0,,10421,00.html

 

[JTofBFC]

If Andy Finch said at the BU meeting (or even inferred it) that the admin was a shambles I must have totally missed it. It seemed to me he was heaping praise on "his team" and I got very little drift of criticism other than his throwaway comment that "reporting lines need clarification". My inverted commas, can't recall his exact words.

 

[eghambee]

egham,

to set your mind at rest, herewith the gospel acording to Martin Allen:

http://www.brentfordfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/NewsDetail/0,,10421~669696,00.html

and 'Who's Who'

http://www.brentfordfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/WhosWho/0,,10421,00.html

As ever Joe, i thank you.

I can rest easy now.

 

[Luton Bee]

John Mac's considerable error in my view was to persist with the "secret salary" nonsense. It will come out in the audited accounts anyway so why he stubbornly clung on to the rather sulky "I want the rate for the job and it's nobody else's business what I earn" line only John can explain. Another problem of course is that frankly none of us has any idea what he does, for how long he does "it" and what he is paid for doing "it". He is probably being unfair to himself. For all I know he may be working one hundred hours a week and be great at what he is doing but his public relations is crap. When John raised the bar by asking for the "rate for the job" ( I believe that was the expression he used) then of course the amiable and hard working amateur went out of the window and we were entitled to judge him by "rate for the job" professional standards. That's my take anyway. John and the rest of the BFC board are being nailed for not explaining to us their difficulties and problems but hiding behind the "everything is great......aren't we doing well" mantra. They made little or no attempt to tackle the criticisms (crikey if I were on the BFC board I would have invited the "usual suspects" on the GPG to pop in collectively to Griffin Park one evening or be my guest one at a time at home matches so they can see the problems at first hand have a glass of something or other with them and try and engage in some debate about what I was trying to do and how long it was gonna take me rather than the pathetic........"bruised at the criticism" and "don't read the GPG 'cos it makes me depressed" response which is not exactly leadership.

The biggest failing of both John and Bees United has been it's inability to unite Bees fans behind it. Right from the very start of John being involved on the board (i'm thinking of the S106 article in the Derby FA Cup programme), the decisions taken and style of communication has been all wrong. By now BU should have been able to move us forward and get all Bees fans involved in the manner in which you suggest.

Jusk ask yourselves dear reader which position you prefer, abees' suggestion about trying to engage and win over the dissentors or the head in the sand attitude displayed by a large number of the BU board.

 

[PJ]

1. I don't think that it is John Mac personally and he probably has more supporters than detractors. I do believe however that it is the collective failure of the board to acknowledge mistakes and their "circled wagons" mentality that got up the noses of many supporters. It was refreshing to read that Andy Finch seemingly acknowledged at the Fans Forum that the organisation at Griffin Park is a shambles and of course it is easy and normal for him to do that as if he says that everything is hunky dory we would be asking why we are paying him then...... lol

2. John Mac's considerable error in my view was to persist with the "secret salary" nonsense. It will come out in the audited accounts anyway so why he stubbornly clung on to the rather sulky "I want the rate for the job and it's nobody else's business what I earn" line only John can explain. Another problem of course is that frankly none of us has any idea what he does, for how long he does "it" and what he is paid for doing "it". He is probably being unfair to himself. For all I know he may be working one hundred hours a week and be great at what he is doing but his public relations is crap. When John raised the bar by asking for the "rate for the job" ( I believe that was the expression he used) then of course the amiable and hard working amateur went out of the window and we were entitled to judge him by "rate for the job" professional standards. That's my take anyway. John and the rest of the BFC board are being nailed for not explaining to us their difficulties and problems but hiding behind the "everything is great......aren't we doing well" mantra.

3. They made little or no attempt to tackle the criticisms (crikey if I were on the BFC board I would have invited the "usual suspects" on the GPG to pop in collectively to Griffin Park one evening or be my guest one at a time at home matches so they can see the problems at first hand have a glass of something or other with them and try and engage in some debate about what I was trying to do and how long it was gonna take me rather than the pathetic........"bruised at the criticism" and "don't read the GPG 'cos it makes me depressed" response which is not exactly leadership.

1. Agree 100% abee. The single biggest weakness of the board full stop is their communications (or lack of).

2. Absolutely. Why any salaries are "secret" is beyond me. The actual salaries - if transparently communicated - would more than likely lead to less stick for the directors, as some of the quoted sums on here do the said directors no favours.
Whether this is due to obstinacy or anything else is anyone`s guess; I for one do not understand this approach. I`ve personally made this point in the past but it fell on seemingly deaf ears.

3. Agree again.
Its back to communications abee. If someone attacks me i`ll fight fire with fire. Our board doesnt take this approach and whilst some of the stick is well deserved and merited, much of it could (and should) be counter-balanced with explanations and a "come and have a pint and a chat" approach. It isnt and to coin a phrase from Bish we have the "bunker mentality" at GP.

I dont see eye to eye with JM. I havent spoken with JM since the infamous "Black Monday" of the Soton week when I got a few things off my chest - views I shared with BU and which I dont wish to put on here.
What I`d like to say though is that I for one will always be grateful to JM for his work in getting us (Bees fans) to a certain point.
JM - and all his family - are all Brentford through and through (copyright Larry ) and the last thing i`d personally want to see is JM getting grief/abuse at GP. He`s done a hell of a lot of good for this club and supporters, I respect that and I hate seeing "one of our own" castigated to such an extent.

Speaking generally, at a club like BFC the support is far more intense and intimate than at a bigger club. Supporters cant be dissed like perhaps they are at clubs with 30,000+ crowds and a waiting list for over priced season-tickets, the price of which resemble telephone numbers. Its commonsense at GP that is often lacking with regard to PR/customer service/press releases re our "infamous army of racists" etc. So many own goals its unbelievable.
I havent met Mr Finch and have no idea if he is the man to turn things round or not.

 

[abee]

If Andy Finch said at the BU meeting (or even inferred it) that the admin was a shambles I must have totally missed it. It seemed to me he was heaping praise on "his team" and I got very little drift of criticism other than his throwaway comment that "reporting lines need clarification". My inverted commas, can't recall his exact words.

JT.........I was not at the meeting and I commented from memory on Nurse Betty's note (copied below) and Joe Bourke did not dissent.

Andy Finch

Said his key priority was to reorganise the office team and to establish a customer service ethos. Lot of basic things can be improved and he is impressed by the team with which he has to work. He says there will need to be some "jiggery pokery with roles and goal" and he thinks the reporting structure and accountability have gone to hell in a handbasket (my words, not his).

"Shambles" was my word but it seems fair enough to me based upon Andy's reported comments and bearing in mind the small size of the team.

 

[abee]

I dont see eye to eye with JM. I havent spoken with JM since the infamous "Black Monday" of the Soton week when I got a few things off my chest - views I shared with BU and which I dont wish to put on here.
What I`d like to say though is that I for one will always be grateful to JM for his work in getting us (Bees fans) to a certain point.
JM - and all his family - are all Brentford through and through (copyright Larry ) and the last thing i`d personally want to see is JM getting grief/abuse at GP. He`s done a hell of a lot of good for this club and supporters, I respect that and I hate seeing "one of our own" castigated to such an extent.

I didn't know that Pete and I'm truly sorry. Who would have thought that it would come to this and I well remember the "Life After Ron" meetings back in.........when was it 2001.

John sadly went into his shell and he is not naturally a "knock 'em down and drag 'em out" bareknuckle streetfighter. Honestly I was only ever trying to toughen him and his colleagues up as it seemed to me that if John and the board got "depressed" and felt "bruised "at the comments on the GPG then how on earth were they ever gonna extract the best deal from Noades and Waddington........two blokes who know exactly how many hairs they've got up their asses.

I think that John said it all when he commented that he felt "if we were nice to Ron then he would see us alright". That is paraphrased but the gist of John's negotiating stance. I always believed that Noades only respected a "mine's bigger than yours" opponent and frankly what have we got back from Noades. Sweet **** all as far as I can see. He wants his £250k loan back I believe from the cup revenue, and he expects Bees United to raise £1million in short order and this may be "our last chance to take the club into supporter ownership or face the lottery of Griffin Park being sold". Not my words.........Bees United's.

So Noades gets half of his bank deposits back but truly the million or so that he seems prepared to leave in as a loan is the profit that he made from his tenure at BFC and taking into account the group taxation relief that Altonwood obtained, the inflated salaries paid to Noades, Hargraves and a few others........(I know what a lot of the people Noades brought in were getting as I saw the management accounts whilst on the Bees United committee).......the charges from Altonwood Services, the inflated rent charged for training at Streete Court and on and on. Deduct from that lot the original cost of the BFC shares (£850k) and what Noades is leaving in is the monies that he is in front. If he is never repaid then he will still have broken even.

I am not aware that Noades has given ground on any significant point whatsoever in his negotiations with Bees United......he doesn't give a toss for Brentford Football Club nor its supporters and he relies upon emotional blackmail that the grass roots fans will dig as deep as they can to keep the club alive. This is where John Mac and I diverge...........

 

[JTofBFC]

Is it not finally time to wake up to the fact the the bucket shaking approach doesn't work.

There seems to be a general objection on the BU committee to even entertaining a share issue (along the lines of the one that saved us in 1967). I don't know why, all I know is that I have had correspondence about this more than once over the years with BU and it has always been considered that it wouldn't work.

Some people have suggested that BU can't raise funds by shares because it is an "Industrial and Provident Society" by constitution. All I would say to that is change it then. Others have suggested we cant raise funds this way because Noades owns the club. Simple answer to that, you get people to subscribe for shares and when the option is exercised and he is effectively "bought out" the shares are issues in the supporters owned club. Any other shareholders, eg Lange, Herting, BU, and all those from 1967 get to keep their shares on a pro-rata value. All the share subscription is to do is to buy out Noades holding. Others say you can get a Loan Note and get a loan from the Co-op to buy one. Well who wants to open an account with the Coop just to do that. Perhaps BU can give the stats on how popular this option has been .............but I think we know the answer already.

It can work, see the link below to show that AFC Wimbledon a much smaller outfit than us managed it. They overcame these obstacles rather than using them as a convenient excuse to maintain the small time fundraising efforts.

We could do it to if there was the will there and those who close their eyes to this obvious means of getting us out of the mess open them finally. We will not get out of a £4.5m debt by £10 per month donations and bucket shaking. If we need to raise £1m by September then we have to get the mass supporter base involved by giving them something for their money. If those of you at the meeting the other night demanding that the "loyal fans" who aren't one of the 550 with a standing order get involved, then let them get involved and give them something tangible for their money.... a share in the football club they support.

http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/news....section_id=2&op=archive&monthID=6&yearID=2003

(see the news article from 20th July 2003 under this link)

 

[Luton Bee]

With shareholders would come accountability, so that rules that idea out straight away.

 

[abee]

Is it not finally time to wake up to the fact the the bucket shaking approach doesn't work.

We have never had a "target"........that is the problem JT. A vague "keeping the club alive" brings on giving fatigue in short order because as you state there is no end to it is there???

Cutting a deal with Noades back in 2003 and then launching a "buy Griffin Park for £4million" campaign by way of a new company launched (with safeguards to ensure continuing ownership of the asset)with an open ended share issue and with a specific purpose would I believe have substantially raised the monies by now. Bees United of course will respond by saying that is all very well but supporters monies were needed to cover the cash losses which brings me back to an old gripe of mine..........the continued "...aren't we doing well, we are breaking even now at the operating level" .......which was, is and always will be meaningless tripe especially as if you move on to the small print we have still to er........cover interest costs of what up to £300k per year.

We needed someone at the helm who sold to fans the idea that Noades is never gonna be allowed to kill our club.........this is what it is gonna take and this is how we are going about it. There is only one mission and that is taking back Griffin Park from Altonwood........It should have been us against Noades.....in the Agincourt sense........instead Bees United allowed two articles in the official programme early in their tenure one from Eddie Rogers and the other from Graham Haynes telling us how great Noades was. The point was and is that we were at war from 2002/3 onwards but never sold it to the fans as such. When I write "at war" I don't mean in the sense of covering Noades house with graffiti and scratching his car but in emphasising how we got here and how we were gonna get out of it. We will never be beaten and Griffin Park is never gonna be sold because we are gonna raise the £4million and this is how we are gonna do it.

Instead we were fed the diet of how wonderful everything was, is and will be and we spread ourselves too thinly in the desperate rush to get some good news, any good news out in front of the fans to try and show that something, anything was going on.

I for one do not subscribe to the distraction of "renting a pub and doing it up". It takes away from the mission. Likewise the proposed Griffin Park improvements. Yes, work on it but don't make it more important than it is. The GP improvements should always have been secondary to the task of taking Griffin Park back.........not as a news item to try and confuse the average supporter that movement equals action......it never does.......

We needed a charismatic voice to get the job done and we finished up with........oh Jesus.......apologies to all........there I go again.

JT you are absolutely spot on. Some of us tried to shift the emphasis and strategy from 2003 onwards but just got shouted down. Too late now and we are in the position where Bees United has to tell us that if we don't raise a million in short order "it may be the last chance to take the Club into supporter ownership and avoid the lottery of Griffin Park being sold (from under our feet")

I suppose that there will be a batch of postings telling me why it couldn't be done for this reason and that reason but I don't believe that there are any that could not have been overcome given the will and a driving force in OUR club.

Too late now and as you have said before JT........"I'm a nightmare to work for............".........

 

[JTofBFC]

Too late now and as you have said before JT........"I'm a nightmare to work for............".........

I think I actually said "you must be a nighmare to work for". Fortunately, I've never had the "pleasure". Having said that, I know it isn't going to happen, but from a fans point of view, I would far rather have had you at the helm of our campaign than the current incumbents. It wasn't to be.

I don't subscribe to your suggestion that it is too late. Obviously the close season is totally the worst time to raise funds and I think the crowd recation to the "same old same old" rallying call from Steve Cowan at the Sheff Weds game summed up for me how everyone is bored with the current approach. Without disrespect to him, even Steve didn't seem to have the same enthusiasm himself.

A change of tack is needed and if a proper share issue were to be organised and launched at the fisrt home game , I still think that the £1m at least could substantially be raised, providing some of the wealthier fans are prepared to take part in a significant way.

Its really up to BU if we are going to carry on till September with the tired approach or do something to change things and get the supporters involved.

 

[Ronan]

Ronan,

At the BU forum, the trust Chairman advised that we were confident of raising at least £500k. That is based on verbal indications already given by wealthy fans. So while the target is a big ask, it is not impossible.

Taking kids out of the equation, there are around 4000 adult home fans regularly attending games. Half of these (about 2000) are season ticket holders. Bees United currently has around 1200 adult members i.e. approx 60% of the adult season ticket holders or 30% of the adult fan base.

Of the 1200 adult BU members, a little over half (about 550) make monthly S/O donations.

Not everyone, even most, are in a position to commit funds to the club and of those that are, the majority have already done so. So reaching the £1m target is heavily reliant on both participation from a small group of wealthy investors and developing interest from fans not currently members of Bees United,

I don't know that I would categorise it as needing a miracle, but challenging - definitetly. The single biggest limiting factor in fundraising is having sufficient people to undertake fundraising activities. Volunteers to organise campaigns, distribute literature, assist with mail-outs etc.,are vital to making progress.

It has been more or less the same small group of hardcore dedicated activists that have maintained bucket collections and fundraising efforts over the past three years. That they may get a little tetchy with critics at times, is probably as much to do with battle fatigue as anything else.

The point however is that everyone can help, whether it is the giving of time, money or new and innovative ideas - all are equally important.

Ok thanks, so if we reach, say, £600,000, what then? What will our position be, and what will happen to our contribution? Is it strong enough to negiotiate the Altonwood problem, or is £1,000,000 needed for that? If we don't reach our target, will anything lower be acceptable? And when will the £100,000 be put in by Eddie Rogers that I heard he was goingto inject, and to where? Being the chairman of BFC, and not BU, would he inject it straight into the club, and from what I've heard; more or less into Ron Noades' pocket? I just need someone to clear a few things up, I would like to understand our situation right now, but I am unsure of how much help I could give, verbally or money wise, as I'm only 14.

 

[abee]

I think I actually said "you must be a nighmare to work for".

Correct........apologies.......

I said that it was too late as it is too late to change the tack and focus in my opinion. Bees United had the ball and they chose where to run with it.

For me rather than forking out an alleged £400 every week for two days of service from Lynda Worthy (what ever happened to her by the way) the monies would have been better spent on hiring a professional fundraiser to "think out of the box" rather than the..... "Your mission Lynda is to increase the home gates for our last few home matches including Bristol City, Tranmere and the play-offs if we manage to get there.......this tape will self destruct as soon as abee reads this crap on the official website......."


There are plenty of things that could and should have been done.

One thought was a "Keep Brentford FC in Brentford"........with the local firms plus of course supporters involved whereby monthly salaries are rounded down by the firms payroll department (of course with prior approval) to the next lowest £10.....i.e. if the salary is "£1091.56 net the employee is credited £1091.00 and the £1.56 is swept into a suspense account and passed on at intervals to the Griffin Park acquiring company........nobody would even miss it........crikey I could have signed up eighty persons in Paris alone........using the same er........methods of persuasion that enabled Martin Allen to get the players to sign up for Bees United.........

The average monthly "take" would be £5 per member and it should not have been beyond our wit to sign up 5000 yielding what.........£300k p.a. Get the local papers involved.........with interviews with the big companies in and adjacent to Brentford.........it's not easy but then few things that are easy are worthwhile........

As for me.......memories are short......Bee H and I were the devils incarnate until a few months ago........

 

[Luton Bee]

As for me.......memories are short......Bee H and I were the devils incarnate until a few months ago........

How do you know that your not both sill viewed that way?

 

[Carri Bee Un]

I would like to understand our situation right now, but I am unsure of how much help I could give, verbally or money wise, as I'm only 14.

Probably one of the more moving posts I've ever read on here.

Borrow some money from your mum buy some bleach and burn the phrase "die you ****" into noadesys golf course.

 

[JTofBFC]

abee,

Well OK, I'm sure you're right about the "could and should have been done" stuff. How about some "what we still can do " stuff.

Are you confident that we can raise £1m (or indeed that £1m will be sufficient to turn Noades head). If so, are you confident we can raise that sum from a combination of wealthy supporters and small supporters donations which will undoubtedly dry up during the close season.

If you're not, do you think a share issue now has any merit? Or indeed more chance of getting near the £1m at least than the current methods which obviously aren't generating any enthusiasm amongst the rank and file supporters. We might even get more than £1m which would be handy as the £1m figure doesn't seem to have any substance to it other than a finger in the air calculation of what might "help our negotiating position".

 

[abee]

How do you know that your not both sill viewed that way?

lol lol

My wife beat you to that one actually.

My yardstick has always been the number of abusive PM's and emails received........I remarked to my wife six months ago that they had tailed off and she pointed out that of course they had.......I had disabled the facility........ which took the wind out of my sails.........