Co-owner and club director Geoff Moss has reiterated his stance at the club, after further rumours that a take over of Wrexham Football Club was firmly on the cards.
Read Moss - We’re Open To Offers at Rivals.net
Tag Archive for 'Geoff Moss'
Wrexham director Geoff Moss has denied reports that the club is set for a change of ownership in the coming weeks.
Read Dragons play down takeover talk at Team Talk
We have today sent the following letter to the Secretary of the Wrexham Supporters Trust.
To the Secretary Wrexham Supporter Trust
This letter is a follow up to Colin Bithell’s telephone call to yourself on Sunday.
I am writing to you, on behalf of the candidates listed below, to register our protest regarding the manner in which the WST AGM 2007 has been handled by the Board of the Trust. This is not done lightly, but we feel that, irrespective of whatever the results of the Board elections and the resolutions, democracy in the WST has not been served well. It is also our opinion that the Board have acted without thought to Rule 39 of the WST Constitution, which states:
“It is the responsibility of the Society Board, the Chair of the meeting and the Secretary to ensure that, at any general meeting:
a) the issues to be decided are clearly explained;
b) sufficient information is provided to members to enable rational discussion to take place;
c) where appropriate, members of the Executive Board, experts in relevant fields or representatives of special interest groups are invited to address the meeting.”
In outlining our concerns,I deal with these matters under separate headings for the sake of simplicity.
AGM Pack
The AGM pack sent out to members properly listed the Resolutions to be voted on at the AGM. However, in a departure from normal WST practice the Board has commented on all of the Resolutions, expressing the Board view on whether the membership should support or reject the proposal. Further, in an additional departure from the norm, with regards to two of those resolutions put forwards by ourselves (F and J) the Board have seen fit to explain, briefly, their reason for opposing the resolutions. In our view this action, together with the failure to allow us to put forward our reasons for the resolutions, is undemocratic and in breach of rule 39(b). It must be obvious, and as the board will be aware, it is quite possible that the number of proxy votes will exceed the number of members who attend the meeting in person. Without access to the internet those members who have sent in a proxy vote will have had no sight of a view alternative to that presented by the Board.
“Seconders” of the Resolutions
For certain of the resolutions proposed for consideration, the names of some members who seconded those proposals have been excluded. In some cases the names of twenty to thirty members are missing. The view of the Vice Chairman of the WST is that members, in effect, need not see any pre-vote show of support. This view is a departure from all previous AGM packs, which have listed ALL ‘seconders’ to ALL resolutions proposed. In our opinion the view of the Vice Chairman is also at odds with the Board’s own stance in relation to each resolution, where the Board’s members, in essence, have expressed a pre-vote show of support or of opposition.
WST Newsletter
Following the issuing of the AGM pack the Board of the WST issued a newsletter to the membership of the society that outlined the Board’s view on all resolutions put to the AGM. Within that newsletter the Board discuss the resolutions proposed by non-Board members (Resolutions F to K inclusive) and give reasons for supporting or opposing those resolutions. It is our contention that, in a Society purporting to be democratic, the proposer/seconders of those resolutions should have had the opportunity of responding to the Board’s concerns for the benefit of those members in receipt of that newsletter. Our request for that courtesy was refused by the Vice Chairman, on the basis that the Board may not consider that action to be in the WST’s best interests. That is a view that, quite frankly, astonishes us. Surely, in relation to resolutions validly proposed and seconded, it is for the membership to decide whether they are in the WST’s best interests, and that can only be done, under Rule 39, if the members are in possession of sufficient information. In our view the Board has failed to discharge its duty impartially under the WST Constitution.
Press briefings
We believe that the Board of the WST has abused its’ access to the local media in relation to the AGM. Within an article in the Evening Leader on May 27th, it is our contention that the Chairman of the WST made statements in relation to the Resolutions put forward by members which have no basis in fact. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the resolutions proposed by the membership will have any adverse effect upon the football club and it is something that we always bore in mind when formulating the Resolutions. Further, in stating within that article that the proposer/seconders of the members’ Resolutions HAVE foreseen that they are a threat to the existence of the football club but have chosen to ignore such a threat is an insult to many members who worked tirelessly on behalf of both the WST and the Club when it WAS threatened with extinction.
Board/Members Resolutions
We note, with some alarm, that the Board appears to have seen fit to involve Geoff Moss in their ‘campaign’. It is apparent, from the newsletter already referred to, that he was invited to consider resolutions F to K and express his view. The Board also expressed their view. Both these views were contained within the newsletter However, the persons who actually proposed those resolutions were not asked for to provide their views on their own resolutions!
As stated our request for such an opportunity was refused, meaning that the membership were able to read criticism provided by a non member of the WST yet were barred from reading an explanation for the Resolutions from the members of the WST who had proposed them.
It must be further noted, and commented upon, that the board met to discuss the Board Resolutions on 10th May, the closing date for submissions. Further, another meeting was held by the Board to discuss those Resolutions some four days after that closing date.
It is sad to note that, in a democratic Society, the first of those meetings has not been minuted and this, in our view, is in breach of clause B4 of the Board’s Membership Policy, which requires the vote taken by the Board on such matters to be included in the pack sent to WST members.
The only other alternative is that the Board has not voted on the Resolutions that it proposes, which is fanciful in the extreme. Further, by failing to comply with Clause B4 of the Policy the Board has failed to comply with the very thing it is asking the members to endorse at Resolution E!!
In short we feel that the organization and conduct of the 2007 AGM has fallen well short of the standards previously set by the WST. Taken separately the failures of the Board to properly and fairly run the process, as we have outlined above, are bad enough. The combined effect is many times worse, with the quashing of reasoned and fair debate and the effective disenfranchisement of the members who are not in attendance at the AGM and able to hear our Resolutions explained.
The failures we have highlighted leave us fearing for the future of the WST itself. In short, we feel that in this instance the Board has failed to discharge its duties to the membership of the Society and has prejudiced the outcome of the election and the voting on the resolutions. We feel that the only equitable solution would be to adjourn the AGM and allow us to properly respond to the partiality shown by the Board in relation to these important votes.
I await your response.
Lindsay Jones
Colin Bithell
Phil Wynne
Wayne Price
Len Willett.
Read A LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCE at A fresh approach
My name is Wayne Price, 35, based in Manchester and have been a fan since my dad took me to my first game, when we lost to Mansfield in May1977. If you need to put a face to a name, I was one of the guys who did the sponsored walk from The Racecourse to Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium for the LDV trophy final and won the first WST’s Fans’ extra mile award.
All those who have put themselves up for election have been invited to state what potential we think we would add to the WST board. I like to think I’d bring my business pragmatism to the board, as was suggested/inferred in the last joint statement by the Club & WST board. This is because I run my own web design and web marketing business in Manchester. As well as bringing business experience to the board, I’d liketo think I’d be bringing webmaster skills, marketing and communication experience as these are connected with what I do everyday. These skills could be used to help the WST in a number of ways, some of those I have suggested below:
Marketing experience
- To attract new members.
- To retain current members or memberships that have lapsed.
- To attract local businesses for the suggested WST consortium to takeover the club when Nev Dickens & Geoff Moss exit.
Communication experience
- To increase the feedback on the WST from members, fans and those who live in and around Wrexham.
- To simplify and increase the clarity of the WST message & aims.
- To increase the communication with local business for the suggested WST takeover consortium.
Webmaster Skills
- Increase the effectiveness of the web site.
- Increase the effectiveness of the internet communication between the Trust, its members, fans, local businesses and those who live in and around Wrexham.
- Increase the effectiveness of online fundraising.
I along with the other nominees Phil Wynne, Len Willett, Colin Bithell and Lindsay Jones support the current WST strategy of building a local consortium to bid for and run our club. However we feel that this strategy needs to be widened to include other stakeholders such as the local authority and other organisations. We believe that the key to the clubs future prosperity is the provision of a new stand on the Kop and that the WST must work in partnership with all stakeholders to bring this about. We believe we can bring new energy and ideas to assist the existing WST board members in their negotiations with the club owners and other parties, to ensure the club and the Racecourse is protected for the benefit of current and future generations of Wrexham AFC fans.
Read Wayne Price - Election Address and CV at A fresh approach
Resolution F
Members of the society cannot support any proposal to separate our club from its ownership of the Racecourse Ground and the Colliers Park training facility and call upon the Board of the Society to set up a sub-committee, drawn from the membership, to explore alternatives to this scenario.
If you look at a list of clubs that have lost ownership of their grounds it doesn’t fill you with much optimism.
Oxford United
Cambridge United
Chester City
York City
Brentford
Wimbledon
Boston United
None of these clubs could currently be described as a raging success and it may be harsh, but fair, to state that they all have uncertain futures.
The WST has had two formal meetings with the club this year.
The first meeting was on Feb 7th and the second was in early April. At each of these meetings the subject of splitting the ground from the club has been broached by the owners of the club.In the first meeting attended by Rob Griffiths, Lindsay Jones & Bruce Clapton the matter was raised by Mr Dickens.
Neville Dickens What if we offered you the club. After the deal went through and all the property side was sorted.
Lindsay Jones; What would the club own?
Neville Dickens; The players contracts
Lindsay Jones; Where would we play?
Neville Dickens; We could sort out a good lease.
Mr Dickens did not state who would own the ground although it is implied in his statement that Dickens & Moss would. However it is fair to say that the ground owner would definitely not be the club which would hold a lease granted by Messrs Dickens & Moss, the freeholders.
In the second meeting, attended by Peter Jones, Wyn Griffiths & Kevin Baugh, the possibility broached by Mr Dickens was followed up by Mr Moss. In fact he ventured a reason why, in his opinion, it would be a good thing for the ground to be separate from the club.
Geoff Moss suggested that in the long term it would be advisable to separate the ownership of the club and stadium, as this is advisable so that the ground could not be claimed against as an asset of the club in case of future problems. WST Minutes
We feel that this is a bizarre reason for taking a £9.5m asset out of a business. The loss of the clubs only real asset would actually make the club even more vulnerable to these “financial problems”.
The main issues we see are as follows.
- A business with a short trading record and without any assets would be seen as a high risk proposition and would therefore be unlikely to attract substantial investment. The investors we are hoping to attract would be more willing to put money into a club that owned its own ground than one that didn’t.
- A business without any assets on which to secure an advance would be unlikely to obtain credit on favourable terms, if at all. A lenders first consideration is always the borrowers ability to repay the loan.
- A business without assets or access to affordable finance would need to be run in an excessively cautious manner to ensure that it did not exceed its overdraft.
- In effect the club would be “living out of the till” and vulnerable to fluctuations in day-to-day trading.
- Furthermore, if one day the club needed to move there would be nothing to sell to fund our new Stadium. Consider Shrewsbury Town who have just sold the Meadow and used the proceeds of the sale to build a new ground. By losing the ground we would no longer have that option.
- We would become a tenant, probably paying rent, on a ground that we now own.
- It is unlikely that the club would receive the full market value for the ground. Who would write a cheque for £9.5m? The council definitely wouldn’t and neither would the current owners. After all they already own the land.
Our concerns are also shared by the WST Treasurer Mark Williams. At the WST members meeting on 30/4/2007 he commented on the suggestion as follows.
Mark Williams advised that if the club did not own the ground, it would not be able to use it to secure any borrowing to fund any expansion plans in the future. Provided the share issue was set up correctly, the ground would be protected from selling outside the club. WST Website
Bruce Clapton , Chairman of the WST, also outlined retaining control of the ground as a key element of the WST bid when he told the same meeting that a key element of the Trust investment plan would be.
“The future ownership of the Racecourse to be protected and to remain within the full control of the club.”
He then went on to state that, all investors regardless of location would have to agree to all the principles of the investment plan.
The WST is actually asking investors to sign up to the principle that the club should retain control of its ground. It is difficult to see how this can be achieved without retaining ownership.
In light of these comments it is a bit disappointing that the Board of the WST is now actually opposing this resolution.
It is easy to see the dangers in following such a strategy but not so easy to see the benefits to the club. In fact, like Mark and Bruce, we think that taking ownership of the ground out of the club will have serious consequences for the clubs financial situation and future prospects.
Consider this as a possible scenario.
- The squad is cut to the bone because the wages to turnover has to be kept to less than, for example, 45% because we need to create a financial reserve against any potential fall in revenue.
- Several injuries reduce the squad further but the manager is not able to bring in loan signings or permanent signings to make good the shortfall because of the financial restraints.
- With a weakened team the results deteriorate and so do the gate receipts leading the club to the limits of its overdraft.
- A spell of bad weather over the Christmas period leads to a cash flow crisis at the club which may lead to wages and other bills not being paid. This may be an overly pessimistic view of what might happen but it all could happen. How would an asset-less club deal with the situation?
After planning for the development has been approved the land that the Racecourse Stadium occupies will still be worth in the region of an estimated £9.5m. That is a lot of money and would explain why the clubs owners are loathe to sell any of their shares in the club and thus dilute the value of their asset.
By splitting the ground from the club the owners are able to protect the value of their holding and would then be free to offer shares in the club or in fact to sell it.
Resolution F calls for a sub-committee to be set up to explore alternatives to the ground splitting scenario. We would hope that this sub committee would be able to find a solution that met the financial needs of both the club and its owners.
WST board position
This resolution has been opposed by the board of the WST as follows.
“The board cannot support this resolution in this form due to the potential restrictions it may place on the Trusts stated constitutional aims regarding the achieving of the best long term security for the club and its ground, as stated in resolution A.”
In responding to this we are going to quote ex WST board member Simon Johnson;
“Without wishing to understate the importance of WST, we haven’t got any input into whether the club sells its assets or not. We have no options to keep open and nothing to be prepared for because we are not involved. All we can do at present is be a watchdog for fans’ interests and that means telling the club’s owners what we think is best for the long-term future of the club.The only reasons I have heard in favour of selling the ground (from a fan’s perspective) is that it might protect it from an asset-stripper. That implies a scenario in which an asset-stripper has been allowed to take over the club. Surely we should be trying to stop that rather than trying to mitigate it? I thought D&M wouldn’t allow that to happen.”
We agree, the decision to split off the ground from the club is entirely one for the owners of the club and that we as fans can only hope to influence that decision by using our collective voice.
Please support Resolution F.
Read Resolution F: Our reasoning at A fresh approach
Featuring Brian Carey, Geoff Moss, Neil Roberts, Chris Llewellyn, Michael Proctor, Ryan Valentine, Anthony Williams, Steve Evans and Boston manager Steve Evans.
Read Wrexham 3 Boston United 1 at Supporters Association Podcast
