The Slowest Drip - by Cruncher
Even the slowest drip of information is welcome. Although it importantly highlights an issue that previously was all too quiet, it doesn't add to the knowledge we have, with the one piece of detail that the ground will remain with the club having already been let out of the bag by Digger. Have we been told that because it is already known information? Indeed maybe not, but telling us the one thing we know is not going to boost confidence that the club might be completely endeared with the need to enlighten us.
Words though are now being spoken, a giant step forward - just how significant a step we shall judge over the next few days as we hope for a big increase in detail. Though also welcome to hear, comment about a lack of future rent obligation on the club is optimistic intent more than detail, at this stage. And at least we have the plain words now that confirm that it is about borrowing money to create revenue streams that go to the stadium and football budgets, a definite improvement on gobbledygook about 'facilitation of the brand' and suchlike.
I hope the club now turn the drip into a flood of information, as well address questions however awkward. Martyn Starnes's reference to "extensive consultation over the last few years" lets us know that the club has had this project in mind for a long time. It also increases belief that it has been a long term objective to avoid other investors because they also would want the right to have a say on policy and direction.
Now is the time to be bold and sell the plan to the entire support with the same purpose that undoubtedly they have applied during those years of research and planning. Twelve acres of commercial security will appeal both to speculators and to advisers who can match the club up with financiers.
One thought about 'advisers' does strike me - with the experienced and renowned football-industry specialist Stephen Allinson on the Board, why does the club seek advice elsewhere?
The club needs investment to compete and grow, financiers deserve their profit but safeguards will be a key issue, both in general and in eventuality of future events such as the passing of ownership. With the club now admitting (as I see it) to a long term preferred policy of seeking out experienced commercial development backers, they would do us and themselves well to send a signal that the club will not have to yield too much of its value for the privilege.
I refer to this post from Das Boot on the Achieve by Unity forum: a plain-speaking plea for clarifying detail that will pave the way forward. As he concludes: "Once and for all Mr Fry and Co tell us all about your plans in full!"
Else, even the slowest drip such as myself will inevitably conclude that 'Achieve by Unity' is one of the assets to be sold off. But I don't want to sound a miserable git, because the club have begun to respond and credit to them for that.
Cruncher
Showing posts with label Digger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Digger. Show all posts
Friday, 27 August 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Club offers crumbs of comfort
After criticising both the club and the local press last week for the deathly silence over the Holdingsgate issue, it's a pleasant surprise to note that the entire back page of this week's edition of the Western Gazette is given over to an interview with Chief Executive Martyn Starnes regarding the club's plans.
As far as I can see at first glance two questions have been addressed, sort of. Firstly it's confirmed that the Huish Park Stadium itself is set to stay under the control of the football club and not the new Holding Company; secondly Starnes states that the Holding Company has 'no wish' to charge any rent to the football club for use of the remaining land. One might hope for something more substantial in writing then a vague claim of having 'no wish' to charge a rent, but it's better than the complete silence that we had before today.
Indeed, much detail is missing and the whole piece still has that patronising 'papa-knows-best' feel that Yeovil fans have unfortunately become accustomed to with its communications from the Board over the last few years. No mention is made of any valuation of the land, nor does the piece detail where the rights to any income generated on and from the site reside. Neither is there any mention of any safeguards to protect the club when, as is inevitable at some point in the future, control passes from the current main shareholders into other hands. Starnes does claim that the Board have undergone 'extensive consultation over the last few years' regarding the issue. Nice to know, but what a pity they didn't see fit to consult with the supporters during that time, either through the Achieve By Unity Fans Partnership (ha!) or the Customer Charter Meetings. As usual the club pay lip service to the idea of transparency whilst conducting their real business through a veil of secrecy.
Still, at least the Board has finally said something, at last, and at least the main local paper has raised the issue publically, at last. They haven't said enough and many questions still need answering but it's a start. Interestingly it seems that a 'detailed response' has been made to Guardian journalist Matt Scott's articles from last week, but as yet there's been no acknowledgement from the paper. I await Digger's next column with bated breath.
Back to the football and it occurs I'm still to provide my usual report on last Saturday's 0-2 home loss to Hartlepool United. So here goes: We were shit. There, that covers that. Okay, I'll expand a little on that. We were out-thought and out-fought. Hartlepool correctly identified our midfield as the weak link and swamped us there. We never got our passing game going, our wingers became more and more peripheral to the game and long before half-time we were already resorting to the long ball simply because we had no other options. It was a depressing and toothless performance, probably the worst I've seen under the current manager. He knows it, we know it and the players know it. I don't see any point in saying any more at this late juncture, suffice it to say that if we play like that again we will lose again. Hopefully it was a one-off and our triumphant march to an eventual 9th place as forecast by yours truly will resume this Saturday, away at Oldham. The bookies make the home side 5/6 favourites, the draw is priced at 5/2 and a Glovers win a tempting 10/3. Tempting, but not tempting enough. My fiver's going on the draw. Running total: -£9.25p.
As far as I can see at first glance two questions have been addressed, sort of. Firstly it's confirmed that the Huish Park Stadium itself is set to stay under the control of the football club and not the new Holding Company; secondly Starnes states that the Holding Company has 'no wish' to charge any rent to the football club for use of the remaining land. One might hope for something more substantial in writing then a vague claim of having 'no wish' to charge a rent, but it's better than the complete silence that we had before today.
Indeed, much detail is missing and the whole piece still has that patronising 'papa-knows-best' feel that Yeovil fans have unfortunately become accustomed to with its communications from the Board over the last few years. No mention is made of any valuation of the land, nor does the piece detail where the rights to any income generated on and from the site reside. Neither is there any mention of any safeguards to protect the club when, as is inevitable at some point in the future, control passes from the current main shareholders into other hands. Starnes does claim that the Board have undergone 'extensive consultation over the last few years' regarding the issue. Nice to know, but what a pity they didn't see fit to consult with the supporters during that time, either through the Achieve By Unity Fans Partnership (ha!) or the Customer Charter Meetings. As usual the club pay lip service to the idea of transparency whilst conducting their real business through a veil of secrecy.
Still, at least the Board has finally said something, at last, and at least the main local paper has raised the issue publically, at last. They haven't said enough and many questions still need answering but it's a start. Interestingly it seems that a 'detailed response' has been made to Guardian journalist Matt Scott's articles from last week, but as yet there's been no acknowledgement from the paper. I await Digger's next column with bated breath.
Back to the football and it occurs I'm still to provide my usual report on last Saturday's 0-2 home loss to Hartlepool United. So here goes: We were shit. There, that covers that. Okay, I'll expand a little on that. We were out-thought and out-fought. Hartlepool correctly identified our midfield as the weak link and swamped us there. We never got our passing game going, our wingers became more and more peripheral to the game and long before half-time we were already resorting to the long ball simply because we had no other options. It was a depressing and toothless performance, probably the worst I've seen under the current manager. He knows it, we know it and the players know it. I don't see any point in saying any more at this late juncture, suffice it to say that if we play like that again we will lose again. Hopefully it was a one-off and our triumphant march to an eventual 9th place as forecast by yours truly will resume this Saturday, away at Oldham. The bookies make the home side 5/6 favourites, the draw is priced at 5/2 and a Glovers win a tempting 10/3. Tempting, but not tempting enough. My fiver's going on the draw. Running total: -£9.25p.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Can you hear the Yeovil sing ...?
Cruncher is back with a follow-up to his blog of last week, 'Get over the hump'. Is there anybody out there listening?
Can you hear the Yeovil sing? I can't hear a ...
Well, you know the rhyme. Although there are some signs of warming up the vocal chords for a performance or two. Once the Board went for the ostrich technique, it was inevitable that they would invite more criticism and less trust. Just as it was clear that once Matt Scott was on the scent of the shareholders documents, that he would eventually find them. This is increasingly becoming a saga about inevitabilities; if the Board remain obstinate, there is no doubt Digger's spade-work will be followed up until eventually he starts up the JCB. The more you bury yer head in the sand, the easier it is to get yer arse kicked.
On motive, I remain open-minded. I do, however, see why the wider view may be falling the other way, largely due to the lack of explanation and debate. For all that is good at the club, silence and non-engagement unfortunately is a common theme, meaning a bolted-door policy over the years on other matters has now impacted on this single vital issue, to affect the benefit of doubt: one of the afore-mentioned inevitabilities.
As it happens, based on John Fry's long service and how the club is perceived in the wider football world, my instinct remains that there is good intention - though I sincerely wish the route avoided separation. I wish also that local and/or supporter investment had been sought as a preferential strategy, including accepting well-chosen new directors for their input and ideas as well as their money.
Apart from The Guardian, the press have been shy while supporters have been penned-in like sheep subdued by a wall of silence. On this issue, that has a proven as well as a potential risk, sheep don't stay penned-in for ever. The silence of the lambs has ended, the flock has broken free to find its voice with questions, and the club needs to find its own voice with comprehensive answers. Digger breaking through the topsoil does seem to have got the club reaching for the throat-spray. Let us hope that what they do say addresses the issues full-on, especially with regard to safeguarding the club and ensuring it benefits wholly from its own assets.
No-one wants development to be off-agenda, this small club needs to create revenue. The opportunity is there for the club to understand, then explain and engage, and then to achieve by unity. A lack of such action though will compound an opposite and divisive effect. With crowds having dwindled significantly compared to a few years back, that is relevant to the here-and-now, as well as the future. 'Achieve by Unity' is the club's motto, and (as the Guardian article highlighted) the Charter also demands debate on such issues.
I noticed Denison Till and their belief in asset-separation alongside understanding of 'football difficulties' a couple of months ago, when searching around to find more clues in general. I made and repeated a general enquiry that was not responded to, though accept an explanation given. Since Digger's disclosure that the club is consulting with them I contacted them again, combining my initial general points with YTFC relevance.
Consultant Andrew Lindsay (while understandably and politely expressing his unavailability to comment specifically or to continue a dialogue) sang the praises of the Yeovil directors, as he had done to Digger, confidently assessing the Yeovil Board as ranking high on integrity and commitment to both club and community, in his many years of experience; also re-assuring (without detail) that the proposed route was both safe and wise; and he viewed the current Yeovil business model as notably superior to how most lower league clubs were run.
All well and good. Now it is time for the Yeovil Board to sing the praise of their own proposals, and that will inevitably have to include detail. The Capital Glovers Open Letter was a fair and respectful open-minded approach, which I would ask the club to note as reflecting the general view of a great many of us. I know that others are making similar approaches and seeking other routes of help and advice - as is the inevitable outcome when explanation goes AWOL. If that compounded further, the collective opinion would strongly suspect that satisfactory explanation was not possible - the worst scenario.
This is not a stand-off from uninformed (oh the irony) supporters, but a plea from a realistic support that wants to be allowed to share a vision that they want proven as an exciting way forward they can take part in. Sing up.
Cruncher
Can you hear the Yeovil sing? I can't hear a ...
Well, you know the rhyme. Although there are some signs of warming up the vocal chords for a performance or two. Once the Board went for the ostrich technique, it was inevitable that they would invite more criticism and less trust. Just as it was clear that once Matt Scott was on the scent of the shareholders documents, that he would eventually find them. This is increasingly becoming a saga about inevitabilities; if the Board remain obstinate, there is no doubt Digger's spade-work will be followed up until eventually he starts up the JCB. The more you bury yer head in the sand, the easier it is to get yer arse kicked.
On motive, I remain open-minded. I do, however, see why the wider view may be falling the other way, largely due to the lack of explanation and debate. For all that is good at the club, silence and non-engagement unfortunately is a common theme, meaning a bolted-door policy over the years on other matters has now impacted on this single vital issue, to affect the benefit of doubt: one of the afore-mentioned inevitabilities.
As it happens, based on John Fry's long service and how the club is perceived in the wider football world, my instinct remains that there is good intention - though I sincerely wish the route avoided separation. I wish also that local and/or supporter investment had been sought as a preferential strategy, including accepting well-chosen new directors for their input and ideas as well as their money.
Apart from The Guardian, the press have been shy while supporters have been penned-in like sheep subdued by a wall of silence. On this issue, that has a proven as well as a potential risk, sheep don't stay penned-in for ever. The silence of the lambs has ended, the flock has broken free to find its voice with questions, and the club needs to find its own voice with comprehensive answers. Digger breaking through the topsoil does seem to have got the club reaching for the throat-spray. Let us hope that what they do say addresses the issues full-on, especially with regard to safeguarding the club and ensuring it benefits wholly from its own assets.
No-one wants development to be off-agenda, this small club needs to create revenue. The opportunity is there for the club to understand, then explain and engage, and then to achieve by unity. A lack of such action though will compound an opposite and divisive effect. With crowds having dwindled significantly compared to a few years back, that is relevant to the here-and-now, as well as the future. 'Achieve by Unity' is the club's motto, and (as the Guardian article highlighted) the Charter also demands debate on such issues.
I noticed Denison Till and their belief in asset-separation alongside understanding of 'football difficulties' a couple of months ago, when searching around to find more clues in general. I made and repeated a general enquiry that was not responded to, though accept an explanation given. Since Digger's disclosure that the club is consulting with them I contacted them again, combining my initial general points with YTFC relevance.
Consultant Andrew Lindsay (while understandably and politely expressing his unavailability to comment specifically or to continue a dialogue) sang the praises of the Yeovil directors, as he had done to Digger, confidently assessing the Yeovil Board as ranking high on integrity and commitment to both club and community, in his many years of experience; also re-assuring (without detail) that the proposed route was both safe and wise; and he viewed the current Yeovil business model as notably superior to how most lower league clubs were run.
All well and good. Now it is time for the Yeovil Board to sing the praise of their own proposals, and that will inevitably have to include detail. The Capital Glovers Open Letter was a fair and respectful open-minded approach, which I would ask the club to note as reflecting the general view of a great many of us. I know that others are making similar approaches and seeking other routes of help and advice - as is the inevitable outcome when explanation goes AWOL. If that compounded further, the collective opinion would strongly suspect that satisfactory explanation was not possible - the worst scenario.
This is not a stand-off from uninformed (oh the irony) supporters, but a plea from a realistic support that wants to be allowed to share a vision that they want proven as an exciting way forward they can take part in. Sing up.
Cruncher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
