The Club1872 Crossroads

[Bluedell 5,329]

Two new resignations now, due to, they claim, James Blair taking all control unto himself, including the accounts. Blairites blasting back with counterclaims.

The Blairites may feel there is good reason for supporting him but he can't unilaterally override the rest of the board. It's undemocratic and makes a mockery of the elections, and also puts into question his position of company secretary of the club.

 

New elections need to be held as soon as possible, with Blair standing down.

[Gaffer 1,665]

Damn phone. I keep deleting my own message.

 

Two new resignations now, due to, they claim, James Blair taking all control unto himself, including the accounts. Blairites blasting back with counterclaims.

 

Another day, another clusterf...

 

I can't link to the joint statement but here's a follow up:

 

This is the twilight zone again. Who is this resigning board director? I couldn't see from the twitter link (I'm not great with twitter - sorry). I only ask because I want to make sure I don't inadvertently vote for this person in future.

 

A single board member cannot take control, unless the others allow it. Why don't they arrange a board meeting, either with or without him, and then propose an action to remove him (if they have that power) or take the vote to the membership. That's how you deal with situations like this rather than resign. I may be unfair here (and perhaps not for the first time), but it seems to me that we have appointed a weak and inexperienced bunch of people onto the Club 1872 board. Having them resign is perhaps a good means of saving time in weeding out the weak.

 

Actually, I acknowledge that I've used terms such as weak and childlike in these posts, but perhaps inexperienced is a better term to use. I really think we need to appoint our board members and then get them some support and training. I'd be happy if some of the money went into this.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Gaffer

[stewarty 1,876]

This is the twilight zone again. Who is this resigning board director? I couldn't see from the twitter link (I'm not great with twitter - sorry). I only ask because I want to make sure I don't inadvertently vote for this person in future.

 

A single board member cannot take control, unless the others allow it. Why don't they arrange a board meeting, either with or without him, and then propose an action to remove him (if they have that power) or take the vote to the membership. That's how you deal with situations like this rather than resign. I many be unfair here (and perhaps not for the first time), but it seems to me that we have appointed a weak and inexperienced bunch of people onto the Club 1872 board. Having them resign is perhaps a good means of saving time in weeding out the weak.

 

Actually, I acknowledge that I've used terms such as weak and childlike in these posts, but perhaps inexperienced is a better term to use. I really think we need to appoint our board members and then get them some support and training. I'd be happy if some of the money went into this.

 

Agreed-this really is an important point. I would argue though that this goes hand-in-hand with the need to have directors appointed for more than one year. Why go to the trouble of investing in the development of a Board so that it has the skills and resources to execute their role, if there's no guarantee that the organisation will benefit from this investment for any more than a couple of months? I would accept though that not every Director would need the same amount of training.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I got the email from club1872 about the vote for reinstatement of Joanne and Laura, I voted yes. My thinking is better those two in sorting out this clusterf@ck, than outside watching it continuing.

[Bluedell 5,329]

From FF:

 

"As a company limited by guarantee James Blair is the guarantor and according to the organisations memorandum and articles can make any decision he wants regardless of what the other directors want."

 

I don't believe this was ever disclosed to members.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Double post

Edited May 17, 2017 by Oleg_Mcnoleg

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Great post gaspard, and one that I can relate to, on so many of your points. The problem is that if all fans had this attitude, we would have no club. The only reason DK put his money in was to save his club. There is no investment in a club in Scotland so any money has to come from the fans. We can't even rely on any material sponsorship money.

 

With that said, I think the one key point where I strongly agree with you is on the issue of representation of the fans by Club 1872. I agree that trying to harmonise the fan base, with its multiplicity of opinions, is a real challenge. Perhaps the Club 1872 requires more of a presidential figure and election. It's just an idea, but then we would have something similar to Real Madrid and Barcelona where one single person creates his manifesto and all others around him/her supports in that if elected.

 

What appears to be the case is our inability the function as a team or committee. Under those circumstances a president or dictator is the way to go. That's capitalism at its finest. ;-)

 

I'm mostly putting this down to teething problems. I can understand the irritation many feel but chucking it in completely/refusing to join doesn't really help anything. None of this can't be resolved, at least if board members stop fucking resigning and members stick with it, engage, and hold those elected to account. Five quid a month gets you votes in the next round of elections in which you'll have a chance to stop this crap happening again.

The current board is evidently too small to do everything. It's also evidently allowed personal grudges to fester which might have been dissipated on a larger board. It might be better if folk stood for some specific posts within the organisation (chair, treasurer, membership, coms, etc).

There can be a proper discussion about the conflict of interest rules, for eg, which is where this mess originated, and they can be tightened. That might exclude those taking a wage from the club from standing if that's the prevailing opinion. Even if it isn't, folk are free to vote against anyone who does and for those who aren't. The underused blog section of the website can be used by members to make their cases for action or change.

For those worrying about how we'll deal with fan ownership, it's completely pointless at this stage as it's a pipe dream. At the moment it's about having some influence on and oversight of the club and this shambles doesn't detract from the desirability (even necessity?) of that.

It's still early days for C1872. I said at the time I wasn't sure the merger was worth the aggro and wasn't overly concerned that RST and RF were engaged in a similar activity: more the merrier, as far as I was concerned. But it's happened and C1872 is what there is and it's important. Some daft spats shouldn't distract from that.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Oleg_Mcnoleg

[plgsarmy 111]

From FF:

 

"As a company limited by guarantee James Blair is the guarantor and according to the organisations memorandum and articles can make any decision he wants regardless of what the other directors want."

 

I don't believe this was ever disclosed to members.

 

In my experience James has never done that. He has been trying to facilitate the return of Laura and Joanne since three days after they resigned and before it was made public. Obstacles were constantly put in his way. He wanted to poll members as it was a key decision.

[Gaffer 1,665]

In my experience James has never done that. He has been trying to facilitate the return of Laura and Joanne since three days after they resigned and before it was made public. Obstacles were constantly put in his way. He wanted to poll members as it was a key decision.

 

From what I am reading, he's the only one that appears to be using the correct governance structures to resolve issues. If others disagree with him, perhaps they need to start doing the same.

[AM89 0]

Well, couldn't have timed the article much worse tbh! Was hoping that everyone could pull together for the greater good and start fixing some of the basics to give C1872 a strong foundation that could be built upon on and beyond the next elections.

Cannot believe that we're now in a situation where the board effectively has one director.

I still remain supportive of the core aims and believe that C1872 can work but it simply can't survive much more of this nonsense.