Chertsey Defeat

Well Chertsey really did a number on us. Having battled to get in front twice we weren't able to see it out. Indeed we were wide open at the back. We are one sloppy pass away from conceding a goal. Bit of a worry when our passing is not that great.

It really is time for protesting at matches. A very lame ,"we want Jerry out' was heard. Stand behind the dugout and do it. Or sit in the stand and chant it.

I shared the feedback from last weekend with the Board and I will share emails coming in this evening. As Pete said in his email to society members last week the Board is concerned that we stay in the NLS and are considering next steps.

When the draw was made I thought this had the making of yet another exit to a lower level club given their recent goal tally compared to ours. And yet they looked there for the taking in the first half but yet another opposing keeper had little to do apart from flapping at our numerous corners. Our goal should have led to a spell where we went all out to kill them off but of course I should have known better. Their equaliser gave them confidence and even a second well taken goal by Batten wasn’t enough. He may not be the most cultured player but, god, do we need his attitude in the coming months.
Oh, and for the third time in the past week Grimes posted on social media from another match he was watching. Presumably he’s the latest departure.

Digger wrote:It really is time for protesting at matches. A very lame ,"we want Jerry out' was heard. Stand behind the dugout and do it. Or sit in the stand and chant it.

Understandable, but as James mentions above, the most effective way is surely to contact him. The Society have directors on the Board so members should also send complaints to its committee.

In my mind I have been hoping for better this season. I have considered injuries and new players needing time, but after this defeat, which I expected, it is time for change. It happens all the time in football. A fresh management team with fresh ideas. Jerry Gill has done some good work at City over the years but, the time has come for change. If Chertsey don’t get promoted this season we could easily find ourselves playing them next season in the league below.

The worrying thing for me is that players you can normally rely on are worse than they were, especially defensively. Lots of players look demoralised. It is difficult to see where or how we are going to improve.

I couldn't be at the game today (which in the eyes of some doesn't entitle me to an opinion...) but was able to catch up with the second half on BCIR, and once Chertsey got their second equaliser there seemed a certain inevitability about the outcome. It is so frustrating that we seem incapable of pushing on for the second goal when we go 1-0 up - I dread to think how many games we have drawn or lost that we might well have won if we had.

Like others, apart from his stubbornness I don't understand why Jerry persists with both Tillson and Russe in midfield, especially at the exclusion of Humphrey-Ewers - he has to bold and leave out one or the other  

I agree with 'City til were relegated', the time has come for a change and with the current run of results I think it would be the case whoever the manager was, irrespective of it being one who is apparently so divisive.

I note what James has said about feedback to the board, but isn't this where the idea that the club is owned by the fans falls down a bit. The Society is the majority shareholder and has the majority of directors on the board, but I get the impression that it is the non-Society directors who are making the key decisions. We still have 30 games to play so there is plenty of time to put things right, and perhaps today needs to see a line drawn and a new start although I won't be holding my breath.

James SLO wrote:I shared the feedback from last weekend with the Board and I will share emails coming in this evening. As Pete said in his email to society members last week the Board is concerned that we stay in the NLS and are considering next steps.

What is to consider?

comrade powell wrote:Oh, and for the third time in the past week Grimes posted on social media from another match he was watching. Presumably he’s the latest departure.

What happens if a defender is injured in a game? Maybe one of the non-striking strikers can drop into the back four.

Perhaps Jack Batten should play centre forward.

Concentrate on the league now. Get in the top 7.
Wasn't there yesterday but seams more tomfoolery. Annoyingly we have many problems, on and off the pitch. Such a shame as the club have been having biggest attendances since the 70s. Onto Tuesday. Maidstone are decent so we really need a point if possible to stop this ghastly run. UTC.

LB wrote: I note what James has said about feedback to the board, but isn't this where the idea that the club is owned by the fans falls down a bit. The Society is the majority shareholder and has the majority of directors on the board, but I get the impression that it is the non-Society directors who are making the key decisions.

This is an interesting point and I think somewhat unique to Bath City, in that the previous chairman (a non-Society director) remains in charge of football and finance. Now I have nothing but respect for Paul Williams and I'm not in any way questioning his judgement here, and also I have no idea how the board as a whole makes big football decisions like firing a manager (e.g. is it left to Paul, or does the whole board have to vote etc). But when Paul eventually retires, I would hope that the next director of football (and finance for that matter) is an elected Society director - again no judgement on him, it would just "feel" better for a fan-owned club, as your comment highlights.

That said, having an elected Supporter Liaison Officer sitting on the board as part of the fan-owned setup does mean that fans are guaranteed to have someone speaking for them on these issues at the highest level. The Society Committee also has a bit of informal influence when it comes to major issues like contract extensions etc, even if the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Society Committee and Club Board makes clear that operational matters are the preserve of the Club Board.

But of course, there's also no reason to think that the Society directors will automatically agree with the fans, Society members or the Society committee.

Does the Society have members who are willing/capable of filling the roles mentioned?
Probably not.
What is "MOU"?

2weirdtown wrote:Does the Society have members who are willing/capable of filling the roles mentioned?
Probably not.
What is "MOU"?

Sorry, "memorandum of understanding" - the agreement on who is responsible for what and how the two work together. It's available here: https://www.bathcitysociety.org/constitution--policies.html

It is true that very few of the Society directors (past and present) have been drawn from the ranks of existing Society members. They all have to become Society members in order to serve, but usually they hear about the position first and become members as a formality.

2weirdtown wrote:Does the Society have members who are willing/capable of filling the roles mentioned?
Probably not.
What is "MOU"?

With over 300 members, I believe, you would think that the capability is there but there doesn’t appear to be the will. There was a real sense of togetherness and enthusiasm leading up to and following the takeover but it seems to have been replaced by apathy. And several who have stepped up have not lasted very long before stepping down. Fans should be grateful that Nick Blofeld and Shane Morgan have been willing to continue after their terms had expired but it’s not a healthy state of affairs.

It’s about time we had a rethink on the mandatory stepping down as director rule, as all it seems to do is create vacancies we can’t fill, and remove people from their jobs when they’re the best person for it.

This view is nothing to do with any family relationships of mine either.

Ashley wrote:It’s about time we had a rethink on the mandatory stepping down as director rule, as all it seems to do is create vacancies we can’t fill, and remove people from their jobs when they’re the best person for it.

This view is nothing to do with any family relationships of mine either.

Well in practice it doesn't actually create vacancies as the directors just carry on when no-one else comes forward! So far I think the only person who has actually stepped down because of this rule is Ken Loach stepping down from the Society Committee.

It's not just City that are struggling to find volunteers. A charity called NCVO published a report last year which showed a national decline in volunteering rates:

https://www.ncvo.org.uk/news-and-insights/news-index/key-findings-from-time-well-spent-2023/

Another barrier I observed when I was managing the Bath City Foundation is that the football world can feel somewhat closed off to outsiders—particularly fans who are eager to get involved. Obviously some people cope with it all fine but personally I found it difficult to navigate all the hierarchies within the industry without having experience as a player or in coaching.

Shane Morgan was also time expired at Committee.

At Board level Nick and Shane are expired but staying on til we find replacements