Views from the Sieve

An update from last night's EGM.

http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324627

Would a Fan General Meeting be an FGM?

Mike the Dagger wrote:An update from last night's EGM.

http://www.fansfocus.net/dagenhamandred ... id=8324627

Bloody hell reading this I'll be amazed if this fulfilled the legal requirements of an EGM for such a fundamental change
No wonder the East Consortium pulled out
I suspect any legal challenge will initially centre on the Board not following proper procedure

Pie & Mash wrote:Would a Fan General Meeting be an FGM?

Let's hope that acronym never catches on...

I was at the meeting last night and would bet that your insider was most certainly an anti Tamplin voter. I say that because your article is most certainly slanted that way. I thought the meeting was well organised and run and gave the opportunity before the vote to ask lots of questions and for those in the consortium to introduce and inform the members of their backgrounds. Lots of information came out of the meeting and gave everybody the chance to then make an informed decision.

It strikes me as very poor form to make that decision based on meeting them for such a short period of time. Can't imagine they had more than 15 mins of airtime apiece. The members are stewards of the club for no personal financial gain and should require a lot more convincing to make a decision of this magnitude.

len wrote:I was at the meeting last night and would bet that your insider was most certainly an anti Tamplin voter. I say that because your article is most certainly slanted that way. I thought the meeting was well organised and run and gave the opportunity before the vote to ask lots of questions and for those in the consortium to introduce and inform the members of their backgrounds. Lots of information came out of the meeting and gave everybody the chance to then make an informed decision.

Len, I'm not naming my insider, and actually I don't know what their position is as they have kept it close to their chest. i actually thought they were pro investment prior to last night.

If you were for staying as we were, how would you have registered that in the vote?

Did you see the actual financial position presented?

Do you know how much actual money (cash not guarantees) Glenn Tamplin is investing?

I have been a member for many years and find it so contradictory that the people who want it to remain a member's club on the forum in the main could not be arsed to be members themselves but want to be involved now because a major decision has to be made. The other thing that I find annoying is lots seem to want us to be so much more professional at board level despite meagre crowds and yet when business people are willing to invest their own money and expertise into the club without possibly making anything from this some people are still not happy.I would say whatever majority decision is made eveybody should accept that and move forward in order to make the club stronger both on and off the pitch.

len wrote:I have been a member for many years and find it so contradictory that the people who want it to remain a member's club on the forum in the main could not be arsed to be members themselves but want to be involved now because a major decision has to be made. The other thing that I find annoying is lots seem to want us to be so much more professional at board level despite meagre crowds and yet when business people are willing to invest their own money and expertise into the club without possibly making anything from this some people are still not happy.I would say whatever majority decision is made eveybody should accept that and move forward in order to make the club stronger both on and off the pitch.

I agree that I am disappointed in myself that I am not a member and ought to have seen this coming. The last time I recall being prompted to become a member though was something like October 2004, despite being a season ticket holder most seasons since. It would be logical to send out invitations with the season tickets if it was something to be encouraged, no?

Cynics would say that having less Members, and letting the group of members that they do have grow older and less involved, makes them easier to herd along. Dave Andrews I know wanted a wider group of fans being Members, but since he moved on I don't think it has been publicised once.

I note that you have not answered, or even attempted to answer one of the direct questions I asked.

I would also add that more than 75% of those voting last night must have been satisfied with all the answers given and that there was plenty of time to ask any questions.

len wrote:I would also add that more than 75% of those voting last night must have been satisfied with all the answers given and that there was plenty of time to ask any questions.

And yet no answer to the direct questions.

A career in politics beckons Len.

len wrote:I have been a member for many years and find it so contradictory that the people who want it to remain a member's club on the forum in the main could not be arsed to be members themselves but want to be involved now because a major decision has to be made. .

How easy was it for people to become members though? I have been going to the Daggers for nearly 20 years (so not as long as many, but more than quite a few) and I honestly can recall maybe one advert/plea/promotional piece from the club in regard to becoming a member - i.e. what the criteria are, how you apply, the application/approval process, the responsibilities, duties and commitments of being a member etc. I'm sure that there would have been some Daggers fans that were not even aware that you could "become" a member, and thought instead that it was an elected-style (or honorary) role. If the club haven't been active in promoting awareness, how can you expect a large number to have signed up? I would actually be most interested to see the annual number of new members, season-by-season.

len wrote:The other thing that I find annoying is lots seem to want us to be so much more professional at board level despite meagre crowds and yet when business people are willing to invest their own money and expertise into the club without possibly making anything from this some people are still not happy.

This would imply that none of the board were business people or have any background in business at all, which would (a) be completely untrue, and (b) not a great reflection given that 4 of the board will be staying on under the new consortium!! Was our previous chairman, Mr. Bennett, not a "business person" then?

Since this investment was muted Thompson has been telling everybody who would listen that he has been trying to drum members for years!!!!!! What a load of crap Thompson. It was nice to attend a meeting where it was not the Steve thompson show for once. My bet is on Thompson to be the first out of the door under tamplin's 3 strikes rule.

I find it utter bollocks that people here are saying things along the lines of that they didn't know how to become a member, and that's why they did not become members.
So many constantly say that they were proud of our set up as a members club and then we go on to say how we all like the fact that at our club we see the board about and know them and can speak to them. So if someone wanted to become a member, it wouldn't be hard to drop Thommo an email or stop DTP in the bar after the game and speak to them to find out how to become one. If someone wasn't willing or smart enough to go out of their way to find out how to become something like a member, then they didn't really care that much about becoming one.

NBDag - Nowhere have I stated that I am not a member because I didn't know how to become one. Can you argue against my actual point that there has, for the last god knows how many years, been no attempt whatsoever by the club to increase its member base by actually promoting membership?