I also must confess that I have no idea what the two boards actually do (I'm not saying that they don't do anything, just that I have no idea about it). I don't know why we have two boards, I don't know which one gets the overriding final say, I don't know if any of them get paid for doing whatever it is that they do, but I know that loads of folks give up their time for free. The one thing I DO know about the whole thing is that quite a large portion of the fanbase are completely disillusioned with the whole structure. Whether that's because like me they just don't understand it (except they actually DO care), or whether it is infact rotten to the core as they say, I have no idea. That lots of folks aren't happy though is surely not a controversial opinion.
Under those circumstances, it's probably a good idea when making the fairly major appointments which have been made recently, to "read the room" (to quote my daughter). In the last couple of weeks we've appointed to the roles of Managing Director and Chairman. The way that both appointments have been made, and the people chosen for the roles, could scarcely it seems to me have been a redder rag to the bull of discontent. I wonder, did it have to be that way?
Let's start with the chairman. Here, I may as well declare an interest. I didn't know Mick Buckley until the fans forum last year, and I think he himself would probably accept that there he didn't have his absolute best night. His dog stories, his "changing the manager at this stage never works" and his "injury index" things were bonkers and nuts in equal measure. That said, his and the boards somewhat risky decision to stick with Johnnie Jackson has been a resounding success. It might have looked like a gamble at the time (because it was) but it worked. Mick and the rest of them deserve huge credit. I would personally have kept Mick on as chairman, I think he's a good bloke. I'm also sure that he has the best interests of the club at heart. I know not everyone agrees, but write your own blog if you feel that strongly about it.
Then Kris Stewart as managing director. I have absolutely zero knowledge of Kris, I don't even know what he looks like. I have no idea whether or not he is suitable for the role, but it's probably fair to say that some people have their doubts. That doesn't mean that he is a disastrous pick obviously, I'm just setting the tone as I see it here.
So what is the problem? Well, detractors would say it all looks a bit cozy. They'd say that the PLC board (led by Mick) appointed Kris, whereas the DTB & MD (Kris) appointed Mick. Whether or not that IS how it all panned out I have no idea, but that's how they'll see it. Unfortunately there has been nothing in the communication (nothing that I understand anyway) to disprove this theory.
Equally, at the aforementioned fans forum, as Mick talked about his dog and gazed whistfully into the distance, he said he was standing down in a few months (around about now in fact). There was no mention of him staying on there, and here there doesn't seem to be any mention of him standing down anytime soon. Kris as I understand it is in place until we find a new managing director, but once again there is no mention of how long that might take.
And all the while the club is plastered over the front pages of newspapers through a scandal of our own making. Someone appointed Danny into the MD's job, someone appointed the other members of staff involved too. Culturally it looks like we didn't quite get it right (it IS National understatement day isn't it?) and there is much to be done both there and in recruitment.
Detractors would talk about accountability, they'd ask who is responsible for that cultural misfire? They'd ask who pays for the recruitment which didn't work out? They'd ask if it was appropriate under the circumstances to make the appointments which we have made, to have kept the status quo. I'm not saying that I agree with any of that, I'm just repeating the stuff that people say in the Alex.
My take for what it's worth, is that we are in extraordinary circumstances and we HAD to do something. For Mick to step down now, while we have no MD (or DM in this case funnily enough), would have been reckless. I'm glad he stayed on. Equally, whether or not he's Simon Jordan, Kris stepping up so we have SOMEONE in there makes sense. BUT, there ought to be some open communication with the fans about how long these people are going to be in place, what our plans are going forward. There ought to be an internal and honest investigation (not led by those involved) to find out quite where we got it wrong both culturally and in our appointment processes.
And finally, most importantly, those who DO run the club have surely got to get MUCH better at bringing the club back to the fans. The communication has to be better, crucially not just in what they put out but also in that they have to listen MUCH better. It's no good writing people off as nutters just because we don't agree with them, it's no good clinging onto power like we're scared to let someone else have a say.
It's probably if we're honest, time to look at the DTB constitution. Someone said rule 62 or something had been broken last week, anything with 62 rules is too complicated. I'm 100% a "keep it fan owned" follower, and I accept that as a bandwagon jumping glory hunter I have less of a right to an opinion than most. I do though have a season ticket, a debenture and a bit of a clue about people. We can't keep bashing our heads together all the time, it's time to do stuff better.
No comments:
Post a Comment