Boardroom Changes

[ProudSalopian]

Don't get too excited....

Joking aside, at least we have more than a two man board now

www.shrewsburytown.com/news/2024/september/05/an-update-from-the-chairman/

[staffordshrew]

Quite exciting though 😊

[blueboy48]

The appointment of Liam Dooley as a director suggests a longer term
Commitment to the club. That's a big plus for me.

[Deleted]

...he speaks !!..albeit in the third party ... which suggests that someone spoke for him 🙄

[kl8-2]

That is one of the best update from the chairman statements that I've ever read, well done Ronald Wycherley.

[pughywasfree]

"update from the chairman" was an interesting choice of words.


Can someone explain what these changes mean to us simple folk?

[Deleted]

We do get this...

"Attracting genuine investment and succession is the most important priority".

As the wait goes on.

[wookeywombat]

When was it written. "As we embark....." suggests before the season started.

[mattmw]

Not sure if other members of B&A who work more in the Commercial sector can answer this or not, but is it usual from the Chief Executive of the company to also be on the board as Liam Dooley now is and previous CEO’s were?

From the charity sector I’m more familiar with the chief executive as a paid member of staff who reports to the board, and is responsible for delivering the business objectives and mission of the charity. The board member of the charity are generally volunteers with particular skills and experience needed to govern the charity correctly - which includes performance managing the chief executive

I don’t quite get how things work with a paid staff member - all be it a highly paid one - is also a director of the company. It’s almost like you are both the employee and the employer which seems a bit odd in terms of accountability and performance managed of the CEO

No criticism of Liam Dooley who seems a good appointment and getting things done, just think with past “difficult issues” with past CEO’s some clear distance between them and the board might be more suitable to protect both the club and staff from any unfortunate incidents

[ssshrew]

Is CEO another name for a Managing Director as they were called in my day? If so they were definitely on the Board.

[cabanas2017]

Not wanting to teach anyone to suck eggs. A director is still an employee of the said company so any member of paid staff can be a director.

[venceremos]

Sept 5, 2024 16:42:50 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Not sure if other members of B&A who work more in the Commercial sector can answer this or not, but is it usual from the Chief Executive of the company to also be on the board as Liam Dooley now is and previous CEO’s were?

From the charity sector I’m more familiar with the chief executive as a paid member of staff who reports to the board, and is responsible for delivering the business objectives and mission of the charity. The board member of the charity are generally volunteers with particular skills and experience needed to govern the charity correctly - which includes performance managing the chief executive

I don’t quite get how things work with a paid staff member - all be it a highly paid one - is also a director of the company. It’s almost like you are both the employee and the employer which seems a bit odd in terms of accountability and performance managed of the CEO

No criticism of Liam Dooley who seems a good appointment and getting things done, just think with past “difficult issues” with past CEO’s some clear distance between them and the board might be more suitable to protect both the club and staff from any unfortunate incidents

It depends what kind of company you're looking at.  Someone whose job title includes the word " director" won't necessarily be a member of the board of directors.  

The majority of board directors of a significant sized company will usually be salaried employees.  The primary function of these directors is to run the company in the best interests of its owners - the shareholders.  Their role is therefore more strategic, setting out the way in which the company is to operate.  

As has been said, the term "CEO" has often replaced "Managing Director" as the head honcho's title (I blame Americans!) and it would be more common than not for that person to be a member of the board.

A company might also have non-executive directors, who are usually people with useful experience to bring to the board, but who won't be involved in the company's day-to-day management.

The chair of the board usually has no regular management role, but oversees the board and might have a casting vote in its meetings, for example.  Investors generally dislike companies where the chair is also the CEO, because that leaves too much authority in the hands of one person and there can be a conflict of interest between the two roles.

The structure of STFC has resembled a family business, with its chairman also being the majority shareholder and its senior employees having limited authority delegated to them - as we've seen in the past with few being allowed to join the board.  That's a recipe for succession being problematic.   
 
Having a board of four is certainly an improvement, although I doubt it will make much real difference; Montgomery is evidently Wycherley's man and, in the perhaps unlikely event there was ever a 2-2 split in a board vote, I'm sure Wycherley would have the final say.  It's only natural in that situation; who wouldn't do the same in his position?

I'm glad to read the commitment to overseeing a succession, because we all know this needs to happen.  In that case, this will be a temporary board structure, to be replaced when a new owner arrives.

I wish Wycherley would say something about the Scandinavian takeover that didn't happen.  There have been so many rumours about it that I think it's disrespectful to supporters, not to mention minority shareholders (unless they've had something private), not to clear the air.  Details aren't needed, just a clarification of (a) whether there was ever an approach, (b) if so, did that lead to an offer being made and (c) if there was, why couldn't a deal be completed?  There can't be any need for specific commercial confidentiality if nothing was agreed and, if there was anything still too commercially sensitive when a buyer is still being sought, then just say that terms couldn't be agreed and leave it at that.

We deserve to be treated as grown ups.   

[servernaside]

It looks like none of them have the wherewithal to either buy out RW's stake, or invest significant funds of their own in the enterprise.

[Chief Inspector Swan]

For some months now, I have personally considered Duncan Montgomery the vice-chairman in all but name. To have it formally confirmed like this leaves me more elated than I would be at a 3-0 derby win at the weekend.

[kl8-2]

Well said Chief Inspector, the past seven days have been monumental days in the history of Shrewsbury Town. The signings of STFC legend Alex Gilliead, midfield enforcer Funso Ojo and now the news that Dunc Montgomery has been confirmed as vice chairman mean these are great days to be a Shrewsbury Town fan.

FLOREAT SALOPIA.

[darkshrew]

I've never worked for a company where the CEO and CFO were not on the Board - they are the most senior executive directors.

[mattmw]

Sept 5, 2024 18:22:45 GMT 1 venceremos said:

Sept 5, 2024 16:42:50 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Not sure if other members of B&A who work more in the Commercial sector can answer this or not, but is it usual from the Chief Executive of the company to also be on the board as Liam Dooley now is and previous CEO’s were?

From the charity sector I’m more familiar with the chief executive as a paid member of staff who reports to the board, and is responsible for delivering the business objectives and mission of the charity. The board member of the charity are generally volunteers with particular skills and experience needed to govern the charity correctly - which includes performance managing the chief executive

I don’t quite get how things work with a paid staff member - all be it a highly paid one - is also a director of the company. It’s almost like you are both the employee and the employer which seems a bit odd in terms of accountability and performance managed of the CEO

No criticism of Liam Dooley who seems a good appointment and getting things done, just think with past “difficult issues” with past CEO’s some clear distance between them and the board might be more suitable to protect both the club and staff from any unfortunate incidents

It depends what kind of company you're looking at.  Someone whose job title includes the word " director" won't necessarily be a member of the board of directors.  

The majority of board directors of a significant sized company will usually be salaried employees.  The primary function of these directors is to run the company in the best interests of its owners - the shareholders.  Their role is therefore more strategic, setting out the way in which the company is to operate.  

As has been said, the term "CEO" has often replaced "Managing Director" as the head honcho's title (I blame Americans!) and it would be more common than not for that person to be a member of the board.

A company might also have non-executive directors, who are usually people with useful experience to bring to the board, but who won't be involved in the company's day-to-day management.

The chair of the board usually has no regular management role, but oversees the board and might have a casting vote in its meetings, for example.  Investors generally dislike companies where the chair is also the CEO, because that leaves too much authority in the hands of one person and there can be a conflict of interest between the two roles.

The structure of STFC has resembled a family business, with its chairman also being the majority shareholder and its senior employees having limited authority delegated to them - as we've seen in the past with few being allowed to join the board.  That's a recipe for succession being problematic.   
 
Having a board of four is certainly an improvement, although I doubt it will make much real difference; Montgomery is evidently Wycherley's man and, in the perhaps unlikely event there was ever a 2-2 split in a board vote, I'm sure Wycherley would have the final say.  It's only natural in that situation; who wouldn't do the same in his position?

I'm glad to read the commitment to overseeing a succession, because we all know this needs to happen.  In that case, this will be a temporary board structure, to be replaced when a new owner arrives.

I wish Wycherley would say something about the Scandinavian takeover that didn't happen.  There have been so many rumours about it that I think it's disrespectful to supporters, not to mention minority shareholders (unless they've had something private), not to clear the air.  Details aren't needed, just a clarification of (a) whether there was ever an approach, (b) if so, did that lead to an offer being made and (c) if there was, why couldn't a deal be completed?  There can't be any need for specific commercial confidentiality if nothing was agreed and, if there was anything still too commercially sensitive when a buyer is still being sought, then just say that terms couldn't be agreed and leave it at that.

We deserve to be treated as grown ups.   

Thanks for the explanation very informative and helpful.

So in the set up Town now have how would things like Dooley’s wages and performance and any employment issues be addressed reviewed and set? Assume any discussions the board have on his employment would he have to leave the meeting and the decision is taken by the remaining board?

The boards clearly not big enough to have a sub committees to deal with issues like HR!

[staffordshrew]

Sept 5, 2024 19:17:33 GMT 1 Chief Inspector Swan said:

For some months now, I have personally considered Duncan Montgomery the vice-chairman in all but name. To have it formally confirmed like this leaves me more elated than I would be at a 3-0 derby win at the weekend.

Suddenly things seem so much better.

[Pilch]

in the last 6 days, we managed to unexpectedly bring in 2 more players, get rid of an unwanted one, manage our biggest win for a long time, get a timely update from the new hands on CEO and now more updates from the chairman .


and we still moan

[dachshund]

I remember when I was a young lad on the terraces at the Meadow, I could only dream of days like this

[dachshund]

Sept 5, 2024 20:35:25 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Sept 5, 2024 18:22:45 GMT 1 venceremos said:

It depends what kind of company you're looking at.  Someone whose job title includes the word " director" won't necessarily be a member of the board of directors.  

The majority of board directors of a significant sized company will usually be salaried employees.  The primary function of these directors is to run the company in the best interests of its owners - the shareholders.  Their role is therefore more strategic, setting out the way in which the company is to operate.  

As has been said, the term "CEO" has often replaced "Managing Director" as the head honcho's title (I blame Americans!) and it would be more common than not for that person to be a member of the board.

A company might also have non-executive directors, who are usually people with useful experience to bring to the board, but who won't be involved in the company's day-to-day management.

The chair of the board usually has no regular management role, but oversees the board and might have a casting vote in its meetings, for example.  Investors generally dislike companies where the chair is also the CEO, because that leaves too much authority in the hands of one person and there can be a conflict of interest between the two roles.

The structure of STFC has resembled a family business, with its chairman also being the majority shareholder and its senior employees having limited authority delegated to them - as we've seen in the past with few being allowed to join the board.  That's a recipe for succession being problematic.   
 
Having a board of four is certainly an improvement, although I doubt it will make much real difference; Montgomery is evidently Wycherley's man and, in the perhaps unlikely event there was ever a 2-2 split in a board vote, I'm sure Wycherley would have the final say.  It's only natural in that situation; who wouldn't do the same in his position?

I'm glad to read the commitment to overseeing a succession, because we all know this needs to happen.  In that case, this will be a temporary board structure, to be replaced when a new owner arrives.

I wish Wycherley would say something about the Scandinavian takeover that didn't happen.  There have been so many rumours about it that I think it's disrespectful to supporters, not to mention minority shareholders (unless they've had something private), not to clear the air.  Details aren't needed, just a clarification of (a) whether there was ever an approach, (b) if so, did that lead to an offer being made and (c) if there was, why couldn't a deal be completed?  There can't be any need for specific commercial confidentiality if nothing was agreed and, if there was anything still too commercially sensitive when a buyer is still being sought, then just say that terms couldn't be agreed and leave it at that.

We deserve to be treated as grown ups.   

Thanks for the explanation very informative and helpful.

So in the set up Town now have how would things like Dooley’s wages and performance and any employment issues be addressed reviewed and set? Assume any discussions the board have on his employment would he have to leave the meeting and the decision is taken by the remaining board?

The boards clearly not big enough to have a sub committees to deal with issues like HR!

It’s pretty straightforward to remove a non-shareholding director based on performance or for any other common reason. A couple of extra forms, nothing more.

[Pilch]

Sept 5, 2024 21:04:45 GMT 1 dachshund said:

I remember when I was a young lad on the terraces at the Meadow, I could only dream of days like this

and today,  you dream of Micky Moore failing and town losing ?

tell us something we dont know ;-)

[blueboy48]

I just saw the new appointments to the board as good news and never thought it would be queried on quite technical grounds. My limited knowledge tells me that all directors are employees of the limited company. That includes Roland himself in the club's case.

The responsibilities of a director can appear to be onerous. My experience at a semi-professional club was interesting. When the club became a limited company, the committee members became directors overnight. Everyone enjoyed the the title of 'Director' but very few of us accepted the financial responsibility that went with it. Many did not and the reality was that it could not be enforced.
However, when it was rumoured that a developer wanted to buy the ground for housing, the directors stood to make a significant killing. Suddenly, all directors were equal and we had a queue of potential new directors interested in investing.

All I'm saying is that there are different ways to run a company so don't get bogged down in theoretical technicalities.

The issue now is to arrange the succession. It needs to happen soon to bring some certainty to the club's future but that doesn't mean it should be rushed or sell to just anyone. RW has proved himself a very good custodian of our club. He has clearly worked hard these last two years to get good people in. He has dug deep into his is own pocket to finance the club through very difficult times.

Yes, we need new owners but in the meantime I'm happy the club is in good hands..

[Dale]

Sept 5, 2024 15:20:39 GMT 1 @gainsparkshrew said:

...he speaks !!..albeit in the third party ... which suggests that someone spoke for him 🙄

I’d imagine Roland wouldn’t know how to switch a computer on.

[mattmw]

Sept 5, 2024 21:06:03 GMT 1 dachshund said:

Sept 5, 2024 20:35:25 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Thanks for the explanation very informative and helpful.

So in the set up Town now have how would things like Dooley’s wages and performance and any employment issues be addressed reviewed and set? Assume any discussions the board have on his employment would he have to leave the meeting and the decision is taken by the remaining board?

The boards clearly not big enough to have a sub committees to deal with issues like HR!

It’s pretty straightforward to remove a non-shareholding director based on performance or for any other common reason. A couple of extra forms, nothing more.

I get that non shareholding directors can be removed through a simple process, my point is more about how performance and behaviour of board members is reviewed and where accountability sits. 

Based on reports/rumours much discussed in here it appears a former non-shareholding director was not acting in the best interests of the club and business for some considerable time, but the remaining board members were either unaware of what was happening or unable to act, and led to record losses for the club which are still being felt. That was taking place in what seems to be the same board structure thats just been announced. The structure was in place to remove them but was only taken after the damage to the finances was done

At a time when exteral investment is being sort for the club, I'm just a little suprised a different operating model at the board level which seperates the non-shareholding board members from paid staff would have been looked at, to give new investors assurances that the appropriate checks and balances are in place to protect any investment they make, and stop over spends happening before they get out of control/

[Pilch]

Sept 6, 2024 6:01:20 GMT 1 Dale said:

Sept 5, 2024 15:20:39 GMT 1 @gainsparkshrew said:

...he speaks !!..albeit in the third party ... which suggests that someone spoke for him 🙄

I’d imagine Roland wouldn’t know how to switch a computer on.

You mean the guy who used to work for Sankeys and one day noticed an old vending machine had been skipped because it was broke and deemed unserviceable , asked if he could have it , fixed the circuit board on it and one thing led to another , all this before we had computers

[chirkshrew]

Yep,good plasterer too....turn his hand to anything...well done Roland...

[dibblydobbly]

Sept 6, 2024 7:26:05 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Sept 5, 2024 21:06:03 GMT 1 dachshund said:

It’s pretty straightforward to remove a non-shareholding director based on performance or for any other common reason. A couple of extra forms, nothing more.

I get that non shareholding directors can be removed through a simple process, my point is more about how performance and behaviour of board members is reviewed and where accountability sits. 

Based on reports/rumours much discussed in here it appears a former non-shareholding director was not acting in the best interests of the club and business for some considerable time, but the remaining board members were either unaware of what was happening or unable to act, and led to record losses for the club which are still being felt. That was taking place in what seems to be the same board structure thats just been announced. The structure was in place to remove them but was only taken after the damage to the finances was done

At a time when exteral investment is being sort for the club, I'm just a little suprised a different operating model at the board level which seperates the non-shareholding board members from paid staff would have been looked at, to give new investors assurances that the appropriate checks and balances are in place to protect any investment they make, and stop over spends happening before they get out of control/

Apologies but your post is not entirely accurate:

The previous CEO was never a Board Member at Companies House

Making the new CEO a Director is a plaudit for his actions so far and crucially makes him more responsible for the running of the club and its financial position, and therefore the consequences of his actions. It is a different model.

Secondly as has been discussed before, on this board, and was made clear to shareholders at the last AGM, there is separation of commercial activity from bank and cash access, so that those driving the business forward have no access to the funds of the business. That provides a crucial brake on any future attempts to manipulate the system but also means they can get on with what they are good at.

Lastly, we could never run as a business forever using a free part time FD, brought in when we were in crisis, once the ship was stabilised, and the new Head of Finance had shown what he could do, it is only right that he becomes Director of Finance and the temporary one moved away to  give him space to operate freely. Kudos to Andrew Crane for a job clearly well done. 


Shoot me down if you want, but there are very appropriate checks and balances in place now, previously discussed here, and proper oversight of the financial position.

Anyway, it is a bit early for any more on this topic

Fingers toes and a few other things crossed for Saturday

[mattmw]

Sept 6, 2024 8:15:55 GMT 1 dibblydobbly said:

Sept 6, 2024 7:26:05 GMT 1 mattmw said:

I get that non shareholding directors can be removed through a simple process, my point is more about how performance and behaviour of board members is reviewed and where accountability sits. 

Based on reports/rumours much discussed in here it appears a former non-shareholding director was not acting in the best interests of the club and business for some considerable time, but the remaining board members were either unaware of what was happening or unable to act, and led to record losses for the club which are still being felt. That was taking place in what seems to be the same board structure thats just been announced. The structure was in place to remove them but was only taken after the damage to the finances was done

At a time when exteral investment is being sort for the club, I'm just a little suprised a different operating model at the board level which seperates the non-shareholding board members from paid staff would have been looked at, to give new investors assurances that the appropriate checks and balances are in place to protect any investment they make, and stop over spends happening before they get out of control/

Apologies but your post is not entirely accurate:

The previous CEO was never a Board Member at Companies House

Making the new CEO a Director is a plaudit for his actions so far and crucially makes him more responsible for the running of the club and its financial position, and therefore the consequences of his actions. It is a different model.

Secondly as has been discussed before, on this board, and was made clear to shareholders at the last AGM, there is separation of commercial activity from bank and cash access, so that those driving the business forward have no access to the funds of the business. That provides a crucial brake on any future attempts to manipulate the system but also means they can get on with what they are good at.

Lastly, we could never run as a business forever using a free part time FD, brought in when we were in crisis, once the ship was stabilised, and the new Head of Finance had shown what he could do, it is only right that he becomes Director of Finance and the temporary one moved away to  give him space to operate freely. Kudos to Andrew Crane for a job clearly well done. 


Shoot me down if you want, but there are very appropriate checks and balances in place now, previously discussed here, and proper oversight of the financial position.

Anyway, it is a bit early for any more on this topic

Fingers toes and a few other things crossed for Saturday

Thanks for the extra info and outline - is reassuring and clarification on BC not actually being listed in Companies house, in the fog of everything thought he had been registered but obviously not

Is something happening Saturday 😆

[Pilch]

Sept 6, 2024 11:29:52 GMT 1 mattmw said:

Sept 6, 2024 8:15:55 GMT 1 dibblydobbly said:

Apologies but your post is not entirely accurate:

The previous CEO was never a Board Member at Companies House

Making the new CEO a Director is a plaudit for his actions so far and crucially makes him more responsible for the running of the club and its financial position, and therefore the consequences of his actions. It is a different model.

Secondly as has been discussed before, on this board, and was made clear to shareholders at the last AGM, there is separation of commercial activity from bank and cash access, so that those driving the business forward have no access to the funds of the business. That provides a crucial brake on any future attempts to manipulate the system but also means they can get on with what they are good at.

Lastly, we could never run as a business forever using a free part time FD, brought in when we were in crisis, once the ship was stabilised, and the new Head of Finance had shown what he could do, it is only right that he becomes Director of Finance and the temporary one moved away to  give him space to operate freely. Kudos to Andrew Crane for a job clearly well done. 


Shoot me down if you want, but there are very appropriate checks and balances in place now, previously discussed here, and proper oversight of the financial position.

Anyway, it is a bit early for any more on this topic

Fingers toes and a few other things crossed for Saturday

Thanks for the extra info and outline - is reassuring and clarification on BC not actually being listed in Companies house, in the fog of everything thought he had been registered but obviously not

Is something happening Saturday 😆

nuclear meltdown predicted in the Shrewsbury area between 3pm and 5pm with fall out and fall outs expected for weeks