Under Tisdale, Tagg and Perryman will we .

[IndoMike]

Les, whilst you have kindly responded to my posts re FITC and OTR, you seem to have ignored this one, any chance of an answer ? Or are you claiming "the fifth" ?

You're lucky. He steadfastly refuses to ever reply to my posts even when directed specifically towards him.

 

[richard_portland]

Lez's post sums up exactly the sort of complacent, nonsensical attitude that led us to near destruction just a couple of years ago.

He has willfully altered the facts to suit his version of events which is something his heroes have also learnt to do.

The idea that Tisdale is some replaceable God is completely ludicrous and long-term incredibly damaging.

As for our injury crisis that is so frequently mentioned as fact. Below I've listed the side when we drew 0-0 at home to Grimsby on October 8th:

Pym, Sweeney, Croll, JMT, Woodman, Wheeler, James, Taylor, Holmes, Simpson, Reid with Stacey, Grant and Watkins on the bench.

Actually if you look at the match squad for those matches in October and November it is more or less the same side that we finished the season with. The obvious notable absence was Troy Brown and Sweeney later went on to get injured most of our main players were available for most of the season. I get that lots of players obviously picked up knocks and still played but this happens at all clubs throughout the season. It was a very convenient excuse for some poor performances and the poor start of a lot of our summer signings.

Agreed.

Important to remember we won five out of eight away matches while we had our very poor run of home results.

 

[GrecianLez]

Les, whilst you have kindly responded to my posts re FITC and OTR, you seem to have ignored this one, any chance of an answer ? Or are you claiming "the fifth" ?

It's my view on the whole thing.. if I was Sor 'Tis I would bugger off.

In regards to a new deal I've heard nothing or seen anything that would suggest there is any negotiating happening

I remember the days when we were all bereft at the fact we nearly lost him to Swansea I recall.. we celebrated that we held on to him and protected our asset

We gave him a bloody good deal and not one person disagreed with it..

It has been said that we promised him a decent playing budget for league one which we never got close to giving him..

But anyway I digress a little..

My main worry with all of this is and it is a major worry that we (the trust) are stepping from ownership into the realm of fans actually running the club by referendum!!

We elect a group of people democratically to be trustees of our ownership. We then entrust them to hire a board to actually run the club. That board is there hire, fire and ultimately drive success on and off the pitch..

Personally how I see the trust board should of set targets for Tisdale and the club board to hit.. if they weren't hit then the club board should of then discussed the contract.. not fan power doingbit!! You just drag the boardroom table in front of the big bank and fight it out jon snow style amoungst the fans who wouldn't necessarily know the full in andbouts if commercially sensitive information.

One other point I'll say is this.. I've been to many fans forum and never is Tisdale attacked or berated like he is on here or SM.. why??

Anyways I like to play the loyal fan on here to generate the debate a little. Massage the other side.. I don't think it's a bad line to have occasionally let out. I like Tisdale.. don't always agree with his choices tactics and play but I do trust him to do the best job he can with the resources given him.

We own our club.. we don't run it!! Let's keep it that way


IndoMike apologies if I don't respond to you.. I never realised I didn't.. I'll make an effort in future..

Yes I like Tisdale and loyal supporter of him. Remember I've only followed city 25 plus years and never have I been more proud of a manager as I am of him. A proper chap. We do things proper on and off the pitch.. I've seen some ****e over the years but we're not managed like in the 90's or early 2000.. now that was awful footie

 

[IndoMike]

It's my view on the whole thing.. if I was Sor 'Tis I would bugger off.

In regards to a new deal I've heard nothing or seen anything that would suggest there is any negotiating happening

I remember the days when we were all bereft at the fact we nearly lost him to Swansea I recall.. we celebrated that we held on to him and protected our asset

We gave him a bloody good deal and not one person disagreed with it..

It has been said that we promised him a decent playing budget for league one which we never got close to giving him..

But anyway I digress a little..

My main worry with all of this is and it is a major worry that we (the trust) are stepping from ownership into the realm of fans actually running the club by referendum!!

We elect a group of people democratically to be trustees of our ownership. We then entrust them to hire a board to actually run the club. That board is there hire, fire and ultimately drive success on and off the pitch..

Personally how I see the trust board should of set targets for Tisdale and the club board to hit.. if they weren't hit then the club board should of then discussed the contract.. not fan power doingbit!! You just drag the boardroom table in front of the big bank and fight it out jon snow style amoungst the fans who wouldn't necessarily know the full in andbouts if commercially sensitive information.

One other point I'll say is this.. I've been to many fans forum and never is Tisdale attacked or berated like he is on here or SM.. why??

Anyways I like to play the loyal fan on here to generate the debate a little. Massage the other side.. I don't think it's a bad line to have occasionally let out. I like Tisdale.. don't always agree with his choices tactics and play but I do trust him to do the best job he can with the resources given him.

We own our club.. we don't run it!! Let's keep it that way


IndoMike apologies if I don't respond to you.. I never realised I didn't.. I'll make an effort in future..

Yes I like Tisdale and loyal supporter of him. Remember I've only followed city 25 plus years and never have I been more proud of a manager as I am of him. A proper chap. We do things proper on and off the pitch.. I've seen some ****e over the years but we're not managed like in the 90's or early 2000.. now that was awful footie

Ok Lez. No obligation, of course, but...thanks

 

[geoffwp]

I enjoyed your post Geoff, but alas it seems maths are not your forte. For example many a match day thread hits thirty or more posts in under 24 hours. Here to help !

Yeh. Completely forgot the match day threads. I put it down to an overheated brain.

 

[Edward]

Lez

Shareholders always have the ultimate control: it is their business and their investment merits that privilege. Yes, boards are appointed to look after the day-to-day management but any board is subservient to the shareholders and I am not certain all the individuals at the club have shown sufficient deference to this hierarchy.

In my experience, shareholders are usually pretty accepting if the company is being run well (or even if it is being run badly but the share price is increasing) and they have no interest in micro-managing the business. That said, there is nothing more likely to trigger their engagement than excessive executive pay. And if you combine that issue with poor performance, you have the background to AGM votes and shareholder revolts.

I would wager the current directors appointed by the club (rather than the Trust-appointed group) have far more business-savvy than their predecessors and simply wouldn’t tolerate the offer of a two-year rolling contract to any employee, not least one who’s value is not certain and is entirely dependent upon recent results. If experience tells us anything, no football manager is guaranteed to be a success long into the future. It was a foolish act.

The issue is not how the rolling contract was ended: it was why it was ever granted in the first place. The shareholders had to act.

You might think that is unreasonable but there is little evidence that the club is being run by referendum. A governance agreement which laid out the working arrangements between the Trust and the Club was published and I assume it still being followed. If I recall correctly, it wouldn’t allow the granting of such a contract without shareholder approval. It was hopefully a 'one-off' disaster.

 

[GrecianLez]

Lez

Shareholders always have the ultimate control: it is their business and their investment merits that privilege. Yes, boards are appointed to look after the day-to-day management but any board is subservient to the shareholders and I am not certain all the individuals at the club have shown sufficient deference to this hierarchy.

In my experience, shareholders are usually pretty accepting if the company is being run well (or even if it is being run badly but the share price is increasing) and they have no interest in micro-managing the business. That said, there is nothing more likely to trigger their engagement than excessive executive pay. And if you combine that issue with poor performance, you have the background to AGM votes and shareholder revolts.

I would wager the current directors appointed by the club (rather than the Trust-appointed group) have far more business-savvy than their predecessors and simply wouldn’t tolerate the offer of a two-year rolling contract to any employee, not least one who’s value is not certain and is entirely dependent upon recent results. If experience tells us anything, no football manager is guaranteed to be a success long into the future. It was a foolish act.

The issue is not how the rolling contract was ended: it was why it was ever granted in the first place. The shareholders had to act.

You might think that is unreasonable but there is little evidence that the club is being run by referendum. A governance agreement which laid out the working arrangements between the Trust and the Club was published and I assume it still being followed. If I recall correctly, it wouldn’t allow the granting of such a contract without shareholder approval. It was hopefully a 'one-off' disaster.

can't argue with most of that but we are on a slippery slope and before we know it we'll be picking the team on an online vote!!

 

[malcolms]

can't argue with most of that but we are on a slippery slope and before we know it we'll be picking the team on an online vote!!

****** me Lez.... "Can't argue with much of that"...... Your mid life meltdown yesterday was diametrically opposed to the views you now say "you can't argue with"

 

[IndoMike]

I think Lez has forgotten the raison d'etre of his own website, which is to discuss and debate all things Exeter City. Regarding Tisdale, for example, of course there is a wide range of opinions, but the Trust is not obligated to act on any specific opinion.

 

[Antony Moxey]

Lez

Shareholders always have the ultimate control: it is their business and their investment merits that privilege. Yes, boards are appointed to look after the day-to-day management but any board is subservient to the shareholders and I am not certain all the individuals at the club have shown sufficient deference to this hierarchy.

In my experience, shareholders are usually pretty accepting if the company is being run well (or even if it is being run badly but the share price is increasing) and they have no interest in micro-managing the business. That said, there is nothing more likely to trigger their engagement than excessive executive pay. And if you combine that issue with poor performance, you have the background to AGM votes and shareholder revolts.

I would wager the current directors appointed by the club (rather than the Trust-appointed group) have far more business-savvy than their predecessors and simply wouldn’t tolerate the offer of a two-year rolling contract to any employee, not least one who’s value is not certain and is entirely dependent upon recent results. If experience tells us anything, no football manager is guaranteed to be a success long into the future. It was a foolish act.

The issue is not how the rolling contract was ended: it was why it was ever granted in the first place. The shareholders had to act.

You might think that is unreasonable but there is little evidence that the club is being run by referendum. A governance agreement which laid out the working arrangements between the Trust and the Club was published and I assume it still being followed. If I recall correctly, it wouldn’t allow the granting of such a contract without shareholder approval. It was hopefully a 'one-off' disaster.

Are we shareholders though? The Trust is, and we're members of that Trust, but does that make us shareholders too? If so, how many have I got and what are they worth?