I agree Keith, it's not right. That said though, there are some talented volunteers in there! But seriously, some of those volunteers would cost an arm and a leg to employ, if they were being paid.

Yes

No?

Think you have mis-understood were im coming from, im on about off the field and how both clubs generate money nothing else, what i m told is they both have people who work there sphericals off generating cash for the clubs or is that not the case ?

Your original comment, that I responded to, mentioned nothing about generating cash. I'm certain both (all) amateur clubs have dedicated people who do all sorts of jobs for the love of those clubs. That's partly the situation we have at Centurions at the moment. It's not 'right', but it's all we can do, with the cash available. By the way, there are also employees at our club, working their 'sphericals' off in the cause of cash generation - there just aren't enough of them, and there isn't a clearly set-out route for them to follow. That's not 'right' either, and many people have made excellent suggestions on here, about the way forward. It remains to be seen whether the 'right' people come in and are able to sort it out.

Slightly earlier in the thread, the analogy you drew, was with the way Wigan do things. (in relation to employing the 'right' people) I would suggest that isn't the 'right' comparison to make, with Leigh nor, in my opinion is it 'right' to compare the way things are run, with East/Miners.

Those volunteers are the life blood of the club that is not and as never been in dispute and those involved at that level should be looked after and praised to the hilt IMHO.

I raise the Wigan analogy as it is something that has been praised by many as the way to run a club and aim for self funding where ever possible and one in which, i know was also acknowledged by Leigh as well.

Things arent right all through the club, so i ask you this question,

Would you have appreciated your CEO to have a small re-muneration albeit results driven or at least expenses covered so to ensure that he remained focused on driving the club forward rather than just steering through choppy waters only to end up back in them ?

Now he has walked away from the problems and earlier in the threads the guy was highly praised for doing summat for nowt, he was there to make some serious strategic decisions on the business and push them through and he hasn't delivered, so i am baffled why the praise for what is seemingly bad management ?

The volunteers have flogged there guts out for the club and again seemingly to have it all thrown back in there face.

I read on here something about Keith Freer, seems to me hes the only one with any gonads to hang around at that level take the tough decisions and help dig the club out of the mess its in and that to me sounds like someone with the true club at heart whether people like him or not its irrelevant hes doing what he should be doing as director and rolling his sleeves up.

Remuneration for our former CEO was never an issue. Nor was he charged with focussing on driving the club forwards. He was there, purely and simply to help stabilise the ship, which, to an extent he has done, whilst in some areas he has moved things forward, along with other employees of the club, and volunteers. (e.g. Cost cutting, improved communications, youth structures/player pathway, player welfare, relationship with the RFL, relationship with LSV, relationship with Wigan Council, retail outlet....) In many ways, the financial issues of the past two years are small ones, but what hasn't been addressed, is the inherited debt of two years ago which, of course, has to be sorted.

However, if you are asking whether funding should have been devoted to increasing our income streams, then my personal opinion is yes. We can only cut costs so far, without wiping out our playing budget, and that would be totally counter-productive. In the most simplistic terms, financially there are two things to do - cut costs, (which has been achieved) and boost income. (where we have failed) There are active plans to increase income, from totally new income streams but, at the end of the day, we have to get more bums on seats, and convince people out there, (both old and new) that there are benefits to sponsoring our club.

Who else has offered to do the job? Who is offering to do the job now that Trevor is gone?

This job is without pay and everybody and his dog has an opinion on how you should do it, but few want to get involved. Lets advertise the job and see how many people want it. Trevor has been pilloried and abused because he was in the role. I wouldn't go near the job, not to be attacked by abusive idiots who know nothing. If I believed I was a capable CEO I'd be somewhere else making some money for myself.

Allan Rowely was our paid CEO for a long time - I would ask some serious questions about his tenure, and I would demand good things from any paid CEO. Trevor on the other hand was a volunteer fulfilling a vital function at the club. Could he have handled it better? Undoubtedly! But there wasn't anyone else to do it better, because nobody offered.



I'm one of those volunteers and I'm really not sure why I should feel that anything has been thrown back in my face. I'll have saved the club approx. £2500 over two seasons by providing my services for free to the club in place of a commercial service. I have done my part to help, as best as I have been able to.

I'm not aware of any other volunteers who feel that has happened either, Michael.

Merger. It's obvious!!

CEO serving a BOD of a company (semi professional RL club) i would imagine sub 900k turnover should be no more than 10-15 hour week part time post.

I know just the man for the job