What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Hot air seems pretty well informed to me !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:26:20:06:35 by CornishChief.

I predict that there will be no new Director of Rugby but a head coach & staff. Whether that head coach is already within the club or not I don't know.

Very pertinent questions. Any of the 'or' options would indicate to me that the club has lost real ambition and would suggest an amateur approach in this professional era. I too want answers and I want them before I decide whether or not to renew my membership and season ticket for next year. I know that in reality we have seen some good rugby and enjoyed much success this year, and Sandy Park is a good day out, but after 20 years of ups and downs - mostly ups - I have never felt so unhappy with the club.

Quote:

Geronimo Jim
I predict that there will be no new Director of Rugby but a head coach & staff. Whether that head coach is already within the club or not I don't know.

What do you see as the difference between a Director of Rugby and a Head Coach ?

"I Have never felt so unhappy with the club" I would agree with that statement.


Have we also created a beast by moving to Sandy Park, The conference side of things may be hit by the credit crunch but will do well. So are certain parties looking at some cash may be made here. Reduce the rugby side expenditure and then "hey we're in the money" and who cares about rugby anyway.
We are without a blue print for the future, and a team cannot be run by committee, get a decent DoR and bring back some belief in our much loved club.

here here to all of the above comments.

Tony Rowe may have been a great financial backer of this club but I personally do not want him and his board selecting our players...bring in a DOR for that please gents.

You aren't going to get a DOR.

For me this season has been a roller coaster, that's sport!

There is no doubt that I will be back and enthusiastic next season.I find it hard to believe that after 20 years of "mainly ups" someone would walk away. I wonder how quickly you will walk back if everything is rosy next season?

Clalan, I don't know your position in the club so you may actually KNOW there is no blueprint. I agree that at the moment we don't KNOW what the blueprint is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Reduce the rugby side expenditure and then "hey we're in the money" and who cares about rugby anyway. "

My understanding is that the budget is the same for next season as this, how many clubs can say that in the current climate.

Mabolza, there is a huge difference between a head coach & a DOR. A head coach coaches, apparently PD hardly coached at all (not his job). A DOR gets paid much more than a head coach and doesn't sit on the board but reports to it. A head coach liaises with the medical staff etc. a DOR (nominally anyway) runs that department.

A director in any organisation wields far more power and is harder to deal with when things get iffy than an employee.

That's just a quick few that I can think of.

There is no reason why a head coach reporting to the board can't be just as effective as a director for a club like ours. Some clubs have invented names for head coaches such as "High Performance Manager", they say a really good job title can save thousands in a salary!

Ok GJ sorry my words may have been a bit strong. Tony Rowe has said that 2.2 mill+ was the budget for next season.

But when Trust is lost which by many other posts including mine, looks like it has been. The conspiracy theories raise there head.
Maybe it will be made clear at the members meeting next week.
But until then all we can do as supporters who do love the rugby club is to Debate on here, and hope we get drip fed some news from the power that be.
On the bright side it may keep this board ticking over more than usual in the closed season.

So with all the if's and but's who will be taking the responsibility for us not getting to the GP next season, if that happens?

Who gets the credit if we are successful?

The waters are getting very muddy and clearly the idea of a members club and the original intentions/ concept of that was to prevent a take over. Clearly we are now in a process of walking into a new setup that will mean, if true, could be leading to more trouble ahead rather than the expectation of getting GP. Do we have a Paul Daniels or Tommy Cooper or do we have a David Copperfield or David Blane?

Unfortunately the expectation of getting answers on 6 May, to clearly some very hard questions, could mean a very long meeting or the requirement to look at how the members intend to take any proposals further.

Why is it unfortunate that it may be a long meeting? If you get the chance to discuss "real matters" instead of "real ale" you should be delighted.

Personally I doubt that you will get a lot of joy from the meeting. A forum is no more than a talking shop, the people with the power will have no obligation to act on ANYTHING that is said, positive or negative. For that you will need an EGM.

Quote:

GJ
You aren't going to get a DOR.

Is that fact, rumour or speculation?

YES!!!!

Take your pick!

No one has said it directly to me but at least one director is of the view that the post of DOR "is a waste of money".

You can come back and laugh at me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

Geronimo Jim
Take your pick!
No one has said it directly to me but at least one director is of the view that the post of DOR "is a waste of money".

You can come back and laugh at me if I'm wrong.

GJ has hit the nail on the head. DoR is viewed as a waste of money. PD was fired resigned to save money. There will be no new DoR.

Some interesting questions and responses, which pose more questions from me.

Quote:

Cornish Chief
Hot air seems pretty well informed to me !

Which bits are well informed?

Quote:

Geronimo Jim
Mabolza, there is a huge difference between a head coach & a DOR. A head coach coaches, apparently PD hardly coached at all (not his job). A DOR gets paid much more than a head coach and doesn't sit on the board but reports to it. A head coach liaises with the medical staff etc. a DOR (nominally anyway) runs that department

An interesting statement re PD and his role. Surely the title DoR or Head Coach doesn't alter the job description much? Whatever we want to call him I believe the Chiefs need someone who can direct the playing side. I think he needs to be someone of experience, with knowledge of the GP game, good contacts and able to mould the squad into an outfit to win promotion.

Quote:

Chader Exe
Unfortunately the expectation of getting answers on 6 May, to clearly some very hard questions, could mean a very long meeting or the requirement to look at how the members intend to take any proposals further

You may well be correct, it's likely to take some time to get answer to some very hard questions. I just hope they get asked! I'm interested in your last sentence re members. Will you expand on this? or does Geronimo Jim cover this?

Quote:

Geronimo Jim
Personally I doubt that you will get a lot of joy from the meeting. A forum is no more than a talking shop, the people with the power will have no obligation to act on ANYTHING that is said, positive or negative. For that you will need an EGM.

and

Quote:

Dark Horse
Are we going to see some 'names' or quality players added to the squad?
or - as the 'hot air' has it - we'll be happy to qualify 8th in the league using Academy players then bring in a bunch of 'name' players to win the play-off comp.

In my opinion this would be a really risky way of going about getting promotion. If we follow this strategy and win I'll willingly admit I was wrong BUT should it backfire I will expect those who made the decision to stand down.
I believe the Chiefs should be fielding a squad capable of beating every team it plays during the season, be that in the league or play-offs. It should be crystal clear from this year and previous attempts that unless we have a squad capable of beating the 12th or 13th GP side we ain't going to do it!

We clearly have the budget

Quote:

clalan
Tony Rowe has said that 2.2 mill+ was the budget for next season.

so let's use it to build the squad. If the Academy players are good enough they'll force themselves into contention and deserve their places.
Having said all this I will be there next season following the Chiefs through thick and thin but I'll be hoping to see something special. We have been building long enough it's now time to deliver.

P156...COME ON YOU CHIEFS....CHIEFS....CHIEFS....CHIEFS

I think GJ answers your question adequately for me.

Just to remind you that there is a significant number of members with no interest in the club being in the premiership

Dream on if you think you will get answers at the Members' Forum. It will be the usual defensive "spin".

Quote:

friendly brave
Just to remind you that there is a significant number of members with no interest in the club being in the premiership

I must admit it hadn't crossed my mind and this is the first time I've heard this view expressed. I'd be interested to know what constitutes a significant number though?

FB - if there are a number who dont want us to get to GP, then they should go back and watch their rugby at the County ground.

I therefore back the board on their decision, if it is about getting us to the GP. There has been no indication from Tiger that he doesn't want GP as well.

Clearly there is a split in the membership if FB is right - between the traditionalists and modernisers if FB is right. I know from many that I have discussed the matter with, they want GP rugby- however, many are concerned about how Tiger and the board are going about it. After speaking to many of the players if this club does not have the ambition to succeed and strive for the Premiership what is the point?

Maybe as according to the poll, many of the posters are members they should indicate whether they want Real Rugby or Real Ale!

Quote:

Moorsman

Quote:

friendly brave
Just to remind you that there is a significant number of members with no interest in the club being in the premiership

I must admit it hadn't crossed my mind and this is the first time I've heard this view expressed. I'd be interested to know what constitutes a significant number though?

And why bother being a memeber of the club if they have no ambition to see the club progress, you can still be a supporter of the chiefs with just a season ticket.

Quote:

Just to remind you that there is a significant number of members with no interest in the club being in the premiership

this view from friendly brave flummoxes me. i will freely admit that some of my more enjoyable playing and watching experience was at the very lowest level - if youd seen me play youd know precisely why i was down there - but if you support a club in a division do you not want to see them win? and a consequence of them winning is moving on up. i guess if i felt the way you do id be offski to watch a local club like saracens or somewhere where the sheer joy of playing is the single most important thing to the players and the spectators.

onwards and upawards is my view with the chiefs. european rugby is my dream, particularly as i am working towards the time where i can afford the time to do budget weekends in furrin places.

Quote:

Chief caps

Quote:

Moorsman

Quote:

friendly brave
Just to remind you that there is a significant number of members with no interest in the club being in the premiership

I must admit it hadn't crossed my mind and this is the first time I've heard this view expressed. I'd be interested to know what constitutes a significant number though?

And why bother being a memeber of the club if they have no ambition to see the club progress, you can still be a supporter of the chiefs with just a season ticket.

Just to remind you that there is a ( very ) significant number of season ticket holders who wouldn't be season ticket holders if the club did not have Premiership ambitions



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:28:08:28:26 by Mabolza.

I have heard it said by some that they would rather see us win regularly than being trounced weekly.

For me we need to move forward, to do that we have to be promoted, it's the next step.

Failure to show ambition will see the club wither & die, irrespective of the success or otherwise of Sandy Park the business venue.

There is one question that so far has not been asked and that is: how would we be so badly off if for whatever reason we lost SW Telecomms sponsorship?

Nobody would deny that SW Telecoms sponsorship was a significant factor in seeding the club's rise from Division 4 to Division 2, particularly in the way in which that firm employed a number of players and was generous with their training time. However we have once again failed to win anything this season for the 12th season in a row.

In other words the current system is not working.

3 Directors of Rugby (Paul Westgate got us into AD Prem2) and probably over a hundred players have come and gone in that time, literally millions of pounds have been spent on the playing side with nothing to show for it.

In any other business the people at the top would have been changed long ago either by the shareholders or the bankers.

Yet if anyone suggests such a radical solution the cry goes up "What would we do without the sponsorship?"

Well, so far as I can work it out on the figures made public or calculable we'd be at most 15% worse off until we found another sponsor, not 25% or 50 % worse off but just 15%.

SWT announced their new package at £1million over 3 years ie £333,333 per year. Presumably they were paying slightly less before, say £300,000.

The gate this season has been worth almost £1million less VAT. ie £860,000

We were told that £800,000 was going into the budget from the conference business.

The RFU puts £100,000 plus in and then there's the other sponsors, bar and food franchise etc.

The total of all the above is at least £1.8 million (at a rough estimate).

That would still be as much, if not more, than Pirates, Albion, Doncaster, Nottingham, Bedford are spending if the figures that are being quoted are to be believed.

In short, Exeter Rugby Club would still be a serious contender without South West Telecomms.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009:04:28:09:15:09 by Exeforever.

If Tony Rowe was required to step down and he then decided to take his sponsorship money with him the Title Sponsorship of Exeter Chiefs would be up for grabs.

The Club may not be able to secure as lucrative a deal as the SW Telecomms deal but it would improve the picture as outlined above by Exeforever. On the other hand if the Wetherspoons rumours are true a deal equivalent or perhaps better than the existing deal may be possible.

Interesting times indeed. However, it will take the members getting organised to remove the existing Board.

""particularly as i am working towards the time where i can afford the time to do budget weekends in furrin places.""

Camborne is 'furrin' and not that expensive.

EDF Trophy Winners 2007
B & I Cup Winners 2010

Quote:

Sancreed Pirate
""particularly as i am working towards the time where i can afford the time to do budget weekends in furrin places.""
Camborne is 'furrin' and not that expensive.

ok - rome, paris, biarritz, toulouse, dublin, camborne.

on the one hand (first five) there is culture, good food, chic women (ok, maybe not dublin).

on the other hand (the last one) you have pasties and singing.

tough choice, but on balance, weighing all things up, . . .

. . .i think camborne shades it.

book me a taxi, im there in autumn.

For me there is also the big concern in the current set up of a massive conflict of interest. Chief Exec & Chairman of Exeter Rugby Club equals Chief Exec & Chairman of rugby clubs main sponsor.

Do we really think other potential sponsors really get much consideration. I would have thought this is an element of pressure from the main sponsors board to retain that position for their own commercial reasons. The Rugby Club can be successful without the existing main sponsor but would the main sponsor be as successful without the connection with the rugby club?

However any alternative sponsorship deal with Wetherspoons or any one else may come with strings attached as well. At the end of the day these are commercial businesses looking to make money out of any commercial venture they get in to.

I agree with Exeforever that any life post SW Telecomms is likely to be positive.

If we did make the promised land (which for the first time I don't think we will) then the great financial support that TR and SW telecoms have given us will be small fry compared to deals we will need to survive.
I also believe that SW telecoms have had a very good deal out of advertising via chiefs, after all is there one piece of merchandise without their logo.

The board should actively look for other sponsors as well, maybe Wetherspoons would come on board when our current brewery contract expires (maybe us the customer would get a better deal on prices).

I will be there next season, I just hope there is a team worth watching, led by a head coach/DoR from outside the club at present.

I think some people are forgetting what has been achieved by a (mainly voluntary) board of directors lead by Tony Rowe. Exeter went through a very complex property transaction of selling one ground, buying another, building a magnificent stadium and facilities on time (compare to Wembley) and close to budget (compare to Wembley). In addition, the conference business generates around £0.8m pa and is a very successful but hard business and it doesn't run itself. This would never have been achieved without the ambition, dedication and drive of Tony Rowe ably supported by his board. Exeter are lucky to have such experienced business and financial expertise on a voluntary basis who must have worked full time for at least a couple of years to achieve where we are now.

SW Communications have been generous and supportive sponsors and the club would not be where it is now without their financial support and generosity of time. There may come a time (in the Premiership) where a nationaly known name offers a better deal and when SW Comms may need to take a secondary sponsors role. However, we should not forget those who helped so much on the way up.

I'm not saying that all this over rules everything as healthy debate and criticism brings out better solutions but let's give some credit and some balance. There are several clubs which have come unstuck in the professional era - to name two at random - Richmond and Moseley who had their ground pinched from behind their backs by some who did not show the same loyalty of the Exeter board.

Keep the debate going but, onwards and upwards and "Always Loyal" - get behind the efforts of the club.

"always loyal"

not sure what the players whose contracts have been cancelled would think of that motto...

Quote:

windtalker
"always loyal"
not sure what the players whose contracts have been cancelled would think of that motto...

they are professionals and accept the risks and rewards of the profession

its "always loyal" not "always blindly loyal"

Quote:

Country Member
I think some people are forgetting what has been achieved by a (mainly voluntary) board of directors lead by Tony Rowe. Exeter went through a very complex property transaction of selling one ground, buying another, building a magnificent stadium and facilities on time (compare to Wembley) and close to budget (compare to Wembley). In addition, the conference business generates around £0.8m pa and is a very successful but hard business and it doesn't run itself. This would never have been achieved without the ambition, dedication and drive of Tony Rowe ably supported by his board. Exeter are lucky to have such experienced business and financial expertise on a voluntary basis who must have worked full time for at least a couple of years to achieve where we are now.
SW Communications have been generous and supportive sponsors and the club would not be where it is now without their financial support and generosity of time. There may come a time (in the Premiership) where a nationaly known name offers a better deal and when SW Comms may need to take a secondary sponsors role. However, we should not forget those who helped so much on the way up.

I'm not saying that all this over rules everything as healthy debate and criticism brings out better solutions but let's give some credit and some balance. There are several clubs which have come unstuck in the professional era - to name two at random - Richmond and Moseley who had their ground pinched from behind their backs by some who did not show the same loyalty of the Exeter board.

Keep the debate going but, onwards and upwards and "Always Loyal" - get behind the efforts of the club.

I'm sorry but most of the above is irrelevant or plain untrue. If I gave you £14 million pounds and asked you to engage sufficient experts to build me a stadium I would not expect to still be in dispute with the original contractor or the solicitors 4 years later. So far as we are aware that is still the situation, if it isn't nobody has publicised the fact. I would also not expect to get shafted by the council over vehicular access after announcing that planning permission had been obtained for the plans that I had shown the membership and which they had voted for,IIRC nobody voted for the sow's ear of buses, suspension bridge and remote parking that we have ended up with.

Second you can't say who else would have sponsored the club if SWT hadn't. It is just as possible that we would have ended up with a sponsor who provided as much if not more. As I have already pointed out SWT provides no more than 15% of the club's income.

Moseley, Richmond, London Scottish and Wakefield didn't have their grounds pinched by anybody. They voluntarily sold their assets to fund professionalism when it started and when the support and success didn't follow they lost those assets. It was the members as well as the board at Exeter who didn't want to go down the road of selling the ground and who therefore deserve the credit for us having the County Ground to sell.

It also wasn't the members but the board who told us at least 8 years ago that we would have premiership rugby within 5 years, so where exactly is it?

One point on which I would agree with you is that the board is to be complimented on the success of the business side of the organisation. The board was appointed to run that aspect of the club and not appointed to interfere in the day to day running of the Rugby side of the club, yet the current belief is that members of the board are now recruiting players, if true this should be unacceptable.

The city motto, which used to appear on the club's jersey, would be more accurately translated as "Always Faithful" its current translation by the club can be seen as a way of implying that any criticism is in some way disloyal. Well in the words of Woody Guthrie (almost) "this club is my club, this club is your club" it is not the fiefdom of anyone other than the membership corporately, the total lack of success since 1997 indicates to a growing number of members and supporters that it isn't doing "what it says on the tin".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009:05:01:10:08:10 by Exeforever.