DT Election 2003 - Questionnaire

Are you a member of WISA? If not, why not?

Yes, although once the protests against Franchise are resolved, I will probably resign. In future I don't think it will be right to be on the DT or AFCW Board and a member of WISA, if the “Independent” part of the name is to be lived up to.

Why should WISA members vote for you?

Because of my track record. I have been a driving force for the purchase of the ground, raising money, implementing proper procedures to monitor our success and leading teams of expert volunteers to ensure we get things done. Over the last 18 months I have given my total commitment to making this venture a success and I believe that I bring much-needed business expertise to the board. And, finally, I detest everything about Franchise and am determined that we will achieve what Charles Koppel said couldn't be done, i.e. build a stadium for Wimbledon in South London. I could not be more committed to our cause.

How much time can you commit each month to DT duties (excluding AFCW activities?).

As much as is needed. I don't really differentiate between some activities (for example, when I am helping to raise funds it doesn't matter whether it is officially for AFCW or the DT – so long as we repay the debt). Having said that, over the last year, I have devoted about 30 hours per week to the trust and the club. In the end, however, it is not how much time that I put in, but what I can achieve and I am very proud of my achievements to date.

What role would you perform on the DT board?

I have practical business experience that is generally lacking in the current board. We are responsible for overseeing a medium sized business and desperately need such skills. I also bring strong tax, legal and risk management skills and a determination to get things done.

Would you undertake any additional activities in AFCW?

Not over and above what I currently do, namely Finance and Operations

Did you support the recent share issue enthusiastically, with reservations, or were you unhappy with the idea?

The Finance Working Group did an enormous amount of research about the best way to raise money. The share issue was not based on a whim or a prejudice, but on many hours of research, including two surveys of fans' attitudes. The FWG team who did the work are a very talented group of members and it was our unanimous view that the share issue was the best way to raise the necessary money. We also recruited “doubters” to the group in order to make sure that we had a rigorous challenge.

After coming to those conclusions, based on all that work, then of course I was enthusiastic. I shall be interested to read the views of the current DT board about this, since the entire board, less one person who did not attend (and is no longer a board member) and one who did not vote at all, voted in favour of the issue after hearing the evidence.

Finally, I believed that we had the sanction of the members to go ahead and so we did – and it has been a great success, well in excess of any comparable issue by any other club.

Do you favour a register of interests to record any benefits (financial or otherwise) Trust members gain from their dealings with the Trust or PLC?

I'd prefer to receive assurances that all work that is paid for by the DT and its subsidiaries has been awarded after being put out to tender, except for the smallest jobs. Keeping such a register would be complex, intrusive into people's private lives and their business practices and almost impossible to police. Remember that there are already legal requirements to disclose transactions between the directors and the company.

I am troubled by the constant calling for disclosure of what people take out of the club with rarely a call for recognition of what they put in, often at no charge or “at cost”.

What personal qualities (apart from professional skills, and a capacity for hard work) do you have that the DT Board needs?

I have practical experience of running a business and I have used this to ensure that the Trust and the club have avoided a significant number of pitfalls over the last 18 months. I work well in teams, motivating them by building consensus (ask any member of the Finance WG or the Safety WG). I have no airs and graces about doing whatever is needed to succeed, whether it is working all the hours that God sends or scrubbing the toilets (ask the people who painted and cleaned the stadium).

Please list all financial benefits that you have received in the past through dealings with the Trust or Plc.

I am disappointed with this question as it seems to me to be aimed at disadvantaging some of the candidates to the benefit of others. Furthermore, it supports, inadvertently or otherwise, the incorrect impression that someone who earns money from the trust or club must stand down from the board. The wording of the guidance on the election rules is not helpful in this matter and implies some things that I believe are incorrect.

In practice, so long as a board member discloses that he or she has an interest in a particular matter and does not participate in the debate or vote on it when it is discussed, then that is all they must do. This is very different from the message that anyone would infer from reading this question.

Having said that, I have not been paid a penny by the Trust or the Club and I don't want to be paid.

You didn't ask how much unpaid effort, time, sweat and money we've put into the club and trust, which I think is a great pity.

What do you think of the Trust's performance and achievements so far?

I am answering this in terms of the board members, rather than the entire membership of the Trust. The board does not do things as a group but, quite rightly, it operates in working groups, led by board members.

There have been impressive achievements re Football in the Community and in the development of a rigorous analysis of the stadium options open to us. There have been some shining examples of fund raising, such as the Comedy Evening and Dogs Night but, overall, a total of £60,00 in 18 months is a long way away from what I think we should have aimed at and achieved.

Finally, a small number of the board did almost all the work on the stadium purchase and the share issue as well as running the football club.

The board as a whole has reviewed and commented on the work done on buying Kingsmeadow, the business results of the football club, and the share issue. However, it has not:

•  Researched and defined what it is trying to achieve and then consulted members about it

•  Published clear roles and responsibilities for its board members and made them publicly accountable for them

•  Appointed individuals to concentrate on its critical objectives, for example, building links into the community, raising funds (astonishingly, when we are bleeding cash to the Khoslas, there is no board member who is in charge of promoting and supporting fund-raising activities)

•  Appointed someone to be responsible for building relationships with Merton and Kingston councils

•  Held a general open meeting for members

•  Demonstrated why the roles that board members fulfil require them to be board members (note that Roger Dennis, who does masses of good things for the Trust, resigned from the board as he said he didn't need to be a board member to achieve them)

•  Allocated its board members in line with what the Trust needs to do – otherwise, how can we explain that despite there being 4 members of the board on the Legal and Constitutional group, it was recently felt necessary to co-opt another member of the L&C group to the board?

•  Reported on the financial state of the Trust to the board on a regular basis. Until last week, the board had never had an analysis of how much money has been raised by members and fans (and how much is in the pipeline)

So, we have a lot of opportunities to improve

What changes would you propose, if any, to the way the Trust operates?

See the above answer. The board needs to have a clear statement, agreed with the members, of what it is trying to achieve and then individuals need to be appointed to be responsible (and accountable) for making sure that these things get done. Board meetings need to be better focused; there have been about 25 3 hour meetings in the 17 months since I joined and while 5 or 6 of those were necessary for the share issue and stadium purchase I can't honestly see what the others achieved.

We must hold open meetings to listen to members on a regular basis

I would welcome stronger challenge to what I report on. The quality of challenge has dramatically improved since Brian Goodwin was co-opted and while this can make me uncomfortable, I welcome it. I would also like the challenge to be constructive rather than negative.

Finally, I'd really like to be asked by the board “how can we help?”.

How could the Trust board improve its communication with members?

•  Hold open meetings regularly, at convenient times and locations, even if this means holding several meetings at different locations

•  Make the subject of the meetings clear in advance

•  Publish minutes of the board and the working groups, promptly

•  Meet the fans and members by walking the terraces at matches and by carrying out volunteer roles, not sitting in the bar and the lounge. I have regularly done this and ran the “late turnstile” about a dozen times last season

When considering candidates for board member positions for the Club, what characteristics would you look for?

•  Good business sense. We need to run this business as profitably as possible so as to fund the football club – that is why we are here

•  Drive

•  Leadership and communication skills

•  Total commitment to the ethos of the trust

•  Time – those people who believe that a £1m turnover business can be run totally by volunteers are not being realistic

Should directors of DT subsidiaries (E.g. AFC Plc) be allowed to take up elected posts on the DT Board?

This question starts from an assumption that I don't accept, which is that the members have decided what they want the DT board to do. It is 18 months since the football club was set up and yet since then the DT board has never had a detailed discussion about what our strategy should be, how we should operate and how we should agree this with the members.

There are some major decisions to be made, such as should the board's role be strategic or operational; should the roles of the DT board, the PLC and the club be somehow merged; what should be referred to members and what should be left to appointed managers, etc. etc?

Some candidates (and, in my view, the existing board) see themselves getting into the details of what the football club does. If this is how it is to be run, then I think the PLC board needs to be present and the answer to the question is “yes”.

However, if the board has a strategic and advisory role (as well as safeguarding the assets of the stadium and club) then I don't think members of the PLC board need to be on both and my answer is “no”.

BUT, the DTB has never asked the members what they think and want.

It bothers me that there are a lot of people who have already decided that the answer to this question is “no” but I struggle to understand how they can be so certain before any debate and before the members say what they want the board to do. So I am standing for election because I want to say my piece in the debate and to ensure that the debate is held and heard, not pre-decided by people who see it as a way of “reducing the power of the club”.

I will be blunt. It is not that the football club is too powerful; it is that the current DT board is too weak. So vote for someone different and stronger, don't spend time undermining and rubbishing the current board.

How do you currently understand the duties and relationship of the DT Board in relation to the AFC Wimbledon PLC, AFC Wimbledon Ltd., and AFC Stadium Ltd. boards?

The current board agreed, in a proposal that was discussed and voted on in May 2003 (but never published to the membership), that the role was oversight and strategic.

Should the Trust membership have the final say on the big issues, like where the club has its home ground or selling shares in the club?

The PLC is set up so that its directors cannot do anything like that without the agreement of the DT Board, so, yes, it makes sense that the members should have sign off over key issues. We should ask the members what they want these to be.

Should Trust members have the right to propose motions at the AGM and other general meetings?

Yes, but only with reasonable notice so that members can't be “ambushed” at the meeting. (The current constitution is such a mess that only 20 members are needed to comprise a quorum at such a meeting. That needs fixing.)

What ideas do you have for paying off the rest of the debt on the purchase of Kingsmeadow?

Several. First, we need to make someone on the DT Board responsible for leading and co-ordinating efforts in this area. The lack of a named person with this responsibility is a major failure by the old board (and yes, I am one of that board – it is a collective failure on our part) and the absence of reporting to the board and members on how much we've raised, and where from, is totally unacceptable.

Second, we are having a push before the end of the year to raise more money from the share offer – we think there is more money to be raised from that.

Third, we should seek ways to reduce the interest cost and use the saved interest to repay the capital. The Finance Working Group is currently preparing some proposals for consideration by the DT on borrowing money a lot cheaper, both from fans/members and from institutions. It is very hard, however, for football clubs to borrow from banks so the SG plans are to be much more innovative in who we approach in future. We can't name them yet, but they are reputable and have a strong interest in community matters, which is in line with our objectives.

Fourth, we should approach sponsors who are willing to put in substantial amounts of money in return for a long-term deal with us. This should include ground naming rights (and of course Asda isn't acceptable) or similar.

Last, we are now implementing plans to make more money from the stadium itself, with a clear budget and a small amount of money available to spend on upgrading the facilities and marketing into the local community. There are working groups involved in this already. At the same time, we are keeping a close watch on spending to avoid unnecessary expenditure.

Are there any situations in which the Trust could, or should, relinquish control of AFCW?

I can't think of any.

Do you see Kingsmeadow, The Fans Stadium as a temporary or permanent home for AFC Wimbledon ?

I am not sure. The excellent research that was done by the Stadium Working Group showed that even if we could find land in Merton, we would be very lucky to get planning permission to build a stadium on it and, if we could, it would probably take many years (at least 5 years and possibly as many as 10, with no certainty of success). We must continue to search in Merton and re-build relationships with the council and residents, but at the moment it is hard to see where the answer might come from. But that is no reason not to try.

More important, we should ask the members what they want and explain what it might entail.