Question for Ben Hayes, AKA Henry Irvine,
Hi Ben,
I voted for you as Supporters Director, and by all accounts you've done a good job.Certainly I've appreciated your blogs here. I was surprised though to learn that on your watch, the position has been abolished. At this time, with a lot of changes in the Boardroom as well as in management positions, it seems the Supporters' Director is more vital than ever.
I don't know how many people here will be that interested, but I think you ought to explain who decided on this, what the reasons were, and how you responded. I have heard -perhaps you can confirm - that the club reasoning was that the change in legal responsibilities of a director made it too onerous to have an 'ordinary fan' as a director. Sounds a bit patronising to me. Are you aware of changes to company law during your time that would have given them grounds for this belief?
Cheers
Richard Hunt
0
Comments
That and the cardigans.
Mark Robson, Cory Gibbs et al.
The next step could have been Administration. Murray said so.
;o)
Ben/Henry is on Holiday currently. I don't know whether he has access to this site whilst he's away.
Ben is on holiday as of today for two weeks, so don't be disappointed in the obvious lack of reply. I have my own opinions, and did plan to right an article regarding it next week, and if i get time over the weekend, i'll bring it forward.
If you have views regarding the issue of supporter representation, it really would be good to hear them.
http://www.charltonlife.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=10696&page=1#Item_36
However I would argue differently, the various SD's that we have had have done their job with different degrees of success but the one thing they all have in common is that they are a conduit of communication for the fans to the Board. As CAFC pride themselves on being a "family club" with strong community links it seems a retrograde step to abolish the SD.
I think we need to hear from Henry, on his return, as to the reasons and if we feel that the reasons are not valid we should start a campaign to reinstate the position.
He was
You're right LL. It was the Valley Investment Plan, which was the last but critical financial component in the return the The Valley, raising about £1m from fans. Originally it was the VIP members that voted the SD in. Steve Clarke was the first and he stood for election against several others - I think they held a hustings which was very well attended. Then it pretty much became a succession of Supporters Club officials taking on the role (I think still based on VIP voting) before morphing into a vote among ST holders when the VIP scheme finished. Sue Townsend's election was the first by ST holders - from quite a lot of candidates, if I recall correctly, since any adult ST holder could stand with sufficient nominations. Turnout was paltry (I think well under 10%) and, though higher, I don't think the turnout at Henry's election was anything to write home about.
However the percieved lack of progress with the idea, or lack of communication on what progress there has been does not reflect well on the board. You could argue that this summer they have had more important things to deal with, but that doesn't really excuse ignoring it completely, which is what appears to have happened.
Steve, your views are being heard loud and clear. There are enough directors reading this board - they'd have to be blind not to know how you feel.
Of course the fact that shareholders vote at the meeting is all cosmetic as if the two leading share holders disagreed their shares dwarf the rest of us. On the other hand it would get brought right out in open and would also be intresting to hear why etc and who votes yay or nay.
I cant see it being dropped as a "liability issue" if this was the case make the position honary.
I should have copied & posted, I suppose - and can't be arsed to write it again. :o(
I'll make some food instead.
It's good, on here, because you do get the additional explanation as JOL says, but I'd struggle to think of times when the SD has really stood apart and said that they fundamentally disagree with a decision, which is where the role gets into adding real value. Maybe it happens, but for good reasons it doesn't filter through to us - and that could be the problem it's supporters director not another director, which may explain the very low turnouts. It's not something that I, as one of the rank and file fans, feel offers me any additional value, insight or voice.
I might be doing Hen and awful disservice here, but from outside of the boardroom that's the impression that I get. Maybe it's just a marketing thing.
However if the board are about to sell up I think abolishing the role now is a poor decision as we may need a fan in the future on a new board, that is supposing a new owner would want the role to continue.
Personally I feel Ben has been the best elected Director since the role first came in. Unlike the previous role holders he has actually achieved things especially during a time when the club has come in for more criticism (although justified) than any of the previous role holders would have had to put up with put together.