|
|
| 'An agenda for the Trust' posted by Joff Wild on 15/06/2002 | I agree with most of what Anthony and
Mark say, I just hate the way they say it and I think it actually harms
their/our cause. For the last two days and at the meeting we were not
debating their opinions, we were debating the way these were expressed.
Believe me, when the debate becomes about personalities you alienate as many
people as you persuade, and the future of Spurs and the Trust is far too
important for that.
I suggested at the meeting that the Trust committee comes to the next get
together with a clearly defined strategy for where it is going and how it
plans to operate in the next 12 months. I think that should be the basis for
discussions that night and generally within the Trust as we move to the new
season. We need to look at what may happen to the club with regard to a
number of issues abnd work out exactly where we as a Trust stand on these.
We need to do this in a way which leaves no-one - the club, the directors,
the supporters in general, the outside world and, indeed, Trust members - in
any doubt as to what the Trust thinks. The Committee HAS TO be the voice of
Spurs fans because there is no other channel. That means being a voice in
discussions with Levy and Co. but also more generally. In my view, the Trust
needs to have defined views on the following at least:
1. The removal of benefits from members and ST holders
2. The ST price rises
3. The general ticket price rises
4. How the club is progressing under ENIC
5. Whether we believe the ENIC strategy for Spurs is correct and why we
think this
6. The redevelopment of WHL
I think that of those, points 4,5 and 6 are the most important. At the
moment no-one knows the Trust's views and that is damaging us, in my
opinion.
I would also say that we need to hold the club to what it has told us in the
past. So, for example, last year we were told that ST holders lost their 10%
discount because of the crap deal we had with Adidas. Buit the Adidas deal
is now over and the discount has not been restored, why is that? Also, I
have mentioned this before but last April I sat in a room with Bernie and
Steve Davies (of CaDDand formerly of TISA) and heard Buchler say in front of
Daniel Levy that this summer (ie las summer now) Glenn would have £10
million to £15 million to spend on players plus what he could raise through
sales. It turned out that over that summer our net spending was £0 but that
the subsequent purchase of Dean Richards put us, in the words of the
manager, over budget. Richards cost £8 milloin, £4 milloin of which has yet
to be given to Soton. Was Buchler telling fibs to us? He has to be asked.
In fact, if a newsletter is being sent out to all members in the next week,
could we not insert a one page questionnaire wit this asking members to give
their opinions on these six points. Hopefully, the Levy interview will give
us a more detauiled understanding of how the club intends to achieve its
stated ambitoin of Champions League football in, now, four years time. I
don't think it is unreasonable for the Trust to say openly whether we belive
that the Levy vision will get us there. I would also urge the Trust to
report when Levy refused to give an answer to any question and to tell us
whether he demanded copy approval before the interview could be published.
Both vital points.
A vote of the members will allow us to ascertain how people are feeling. It
will also allow us to develop a more effective strategy. It may give the
Committee confidence to be more pro-active in taking a stance on various
things. It will also show whether the views expressed so forcefully by Mark,
Anthony and others (including myself) are in the majority or not. And if we
did this with the newsletter it would surely be less expensive than
organising something seperately.
Finally, I would urge the Trust to look carefully at our website. I do
appreciate the huge amount of work Paul has done and his commitment to the
club and to the Trust should never be called into questions. However, I
wonder if it is doing the best job it can in getting over the Trust message
and what the Trust is doing. Also, the article by Keith Palmer is at least a
little one-sided in its construction and seems to argue that those who are
complaining about the Trust and the club are nothing more than moaners etc.
What disturbs me is that in putting them on the Trust website, the Trust is
kind of aligning itself withthe opinion that those who do not like what we
are doing are nothing more than fickle moaners who give the support in
general a bad name.
Anyway, that's enough I think. Hopefuilly, there are few things to think
about in the above.
All the best,
Joff
| | Back
|
|
