No sinister ulterior motive

[Jobi1]

So the fate of the York City Supporters' Trust's 25% shareholding in the club is finally being put to a vote. Club chairman (and holder of the other 75% of the club's shares) Jason McGill thinks he deserves to be given YCST's stake, less 1 'golden share' that they will retain. This proposal was initially put to him a few weeks ago and he rejected it out of hand, so something has obviously changed behind the scenes, possibly due to the highly negative reaction towards him when that was revealed. He claims there's no sinister motive behind his desire to have these shares, but many are not so sure. He's contradicted himself too by effectively trying the argument before that the shares aren't really worth anything so YCST may as well give them up, which obviously begs the question as to why he's so keen to get his hands on them that being the case. His veiled threats that he needs the shares in order for him/his company to provide the funds necessary to see the club through to the move into the new stadium also don't really wash - at present all the money that he's previously generously put in (or foolishly squandered, some might say) is in the form of loans which he will get back upon the sale of Bootham Crescent being completed. Previous agreements mean he won't be due any money back in the event of insolvency, so it really isn't in his interests to let the club go under.

At present City are the worst full-time professional team in the country by league position, and can probably argue a good case for being the worst run off the field too given the astonishing spending and losses that have brought us to this position. McGill is at least appearing to show some humility and accept responsibility for the former, though is certainly denying the latter. Would you vote to give him the shares?

[NHH]

Never, a point of principle.

[My Name Is Ian]

What he said.

Why should they? He needs a more convincing reason than "because I want them."

His veiled threats that he needs the shares in order for him/his company to provide the funds necessary to see the club through to the move into the new stadium also don't really wash - at present all the money that he's previously generously put in (or foolishly squandered, some might say) is in the form of loans which he will get back upon the sale of Bootham Crescent being completed.

Ummm, no. He is running a business, and by any reasonable metrics he's doing a terrible job of it. If he can't get it operating solvently, then he should re-balance the books so that it can or GTFO of the club. I am sick to the back teeth of football club owners who refuse to take full responsibility for the financial management of their clubs, act as though they're doing everyone a favour when they're really only lining their own pockets and throwing their hands in the air when the numbers don't add up.

If he doesn't like it, other businesses are available. I've not seen the accounts, but I doubt that he's "given" York City shit, of consequence. He's lent to York City. The only circumstances under which I'd even consider voting in favour would be if he was undertaking to write off every penny that he's put into the club in loans, but I'd suggest there's about as much likelihood of that happening as there is of York winning the Champions League in the next ten years.

What's that you say? New ground?

I see.

[Jobi1]

I've not seen the accounts, but I doubt that he's "given" York City shit, of consequence. He's lent to York City. The only circumstances under which I'd even consider voting in favour would be if he was undertaking to write off every penny that he's put into the club in loans, but I'd suggest there's about as much likelihood of that happening as there is of York winning the Champions League in the next ten years.

This is one of the biggest points to consider. It's disappointing that in the Trust's own literature they have highlighted the fact that since 2006 when McGill acquired his current 75% stake from the Trust, he has put in £4.6 million, while the Trust have contributed £28,000. His contribution was indeed by way of loans, on which he is not charging interest (though I'm sure the tax benefits have gone some way to compensate for those 'losses'). In the overall shake-up, once BC is sold, he will get that money back but the Trust's £28k will obviously not be returned, so the dick-swinging comparison of values doesn't seem relevant. It's also sad that there's no mention of the six-figure sum the fans raised to save the club in 2003.

One of McGill's things over the last year has been that as 25% shareholders the Trust should contribute 25% of the funds needed to cover the running costs of the club. One might be more likely to entertain that argument if he wasn't running the club like a personal fiefdom (there effectively is no board of directors since he fell out with his sister and father), and not honouring various terms of the 2006 share transfer, including the provision for Trust representation on the club's board, which when challenged on I believe his response was "see you in court".

[My Name Is Ian]

The obvious counter to that would be for the Trust to say, "Okay, we'll put in 25% of the funding if we can make 25% of the decisions." 25% of the voting rights are obviously worthless if the other 75% are held by one other person. They wouldn't be able to do this, of course, but it would at least clarify the extent of this hypocrisy. And yep. If he's having his £4.6m back in full when Bootham Crescent is sold, they should get their £28,000 back in full. The fact that it's a tiny amount of money is an absolute irrelevance.

And all of this distracts from the major point here, which is that a football club - or any business - which is being run anything like successfully (or perhaps even properly) shouldn't require £4.6m in director loans in eleven and a half years just to keep it afloat.

[Jobi1]

So after weeks of rancour and recrimination, statements, accusations, innacuracies and posturing, the votes are in. McGill set this up as a vote of confidence in his chairmanship and if that's the case he's taken a bit of a kicking – 68% voted NOT to hand over the shares. The fact that there was a turnout of just 42% shows what a level of apathy there is around the club.

It'll be interesting to see what happens now. Will McGill make good on his promise to stop funding the club? This would likely mean laying off most of the staff (including players) and going part time. To be honest, that's possibly what should've happened last year anyway.

[Big Boobs and FIRE!]

At present City are the worst full-time professional team in the country by league position,

Basingstoke are full time an are in the Southern Premier, one step below.

However, this is a bit of an illusion as it just means they are college kids who can train in the mornings. They are therefore on less money than the previous, senior part-time players, so it is actually financially beneficial for the club to be full time.

Although they do just kicked off the park in games, so it hasn't been a roaring success on the field.

[Kevin S]

How are the Knights RL tied up in this? Are they up shit creek as well?

[Jobi1]

The Knights are doing remarkably well actually, considering the state they were in a couple of years back. They finally managed to rid themselves of their horrendous owner a year or so ago, and are once again putting out a positive image, with loads of publicity, offers, engagement etc. With a friendlier board in place they've finally done the sensible thing and began to build a good working relationship with the football club (Knights merch being sold in the City club shop, deal for season ticket holders of each club to be able to get into the other's game next week for a fiver, etc.) and there seems to be a lot of positive feeling about them. Also appear to be much more upwardly mobile on the pitch than the football club too, which helps. The only tie-in they have really is in terms of sharing Bootham Crescent currently and will obviously move to the new stadium too when that opens; they aren't linked in any way to the football club ownership, so none of this really affects them, other than obviously the potential of being left homeless (again) in the worst case scenario of the football club going under and the stadium being mothballed or even completely abandoned.

[Jobi1]

...and the toys are out of the pram. Club up for sale with immediate effect.

[Kevin S]

Well played, YCST. Get the wanker out.

[Jobi1]

Well played, YCST. Get the wanker out.

Interestingly, the local press are already reporting that there are apparently two interested parties.

[Jobi1]

So Jason McGill has had a hunt around in the bottom of his pram and found a few more toys to chuck out, resigning with immediate effect and appointing a new board which includes his minion 'auditor' who he's been sending to ruffle feathers at Trust meetings and in the media and also Dave Penney, which is all kinds of weird as he is now in theory higher than the person he should really be reporting to. So now from having one owner doing everything by himself and no board, we now have a board and nobody apparently in any kind of executive control. Jason's previous promises of not leaving the club in the lurch don't look quite so valuable now.

The other big news in the statement is of course that with one bland sentence tucked away in the middle - With immediate effect CEO, Jackie McNamara, is leaving York City Football Club. - thus ends one of the weirdest and embarrassing episodes in the history of the club.

[blameless]

With immediate effect CEO, Jackie McNamara, is leaving York City Football Club

Check the little bastard's pockets on the way out.

[Lang Spoon]

Fucking Jackie hung on that long? Brazen wee shite.

[Lang Spoon]

A 2 bit Craig Levein. Fuck sake, like finding out Christian Dailly is in fact a total bastard. Used to really rate Jackie. Probably above his potential and actual ability. Total scumball in mgmt but.

[Jobi1]

Fucking Jackie hung on that long? Brazen wee shite.

Honestly, he was in that CEO role for 16 months and we never found out what it was he was actually doing (apart from collecting a fairly handsome wage), beyond the vague "responsible for the day-to-day running of the club". While one could argue that a business is not beholden to publicly disclose its job descriptions, I think given the circumstances in this case it might have been prudent just for PR reasons to give some kind of indication at least.

[blameless]

Fucking Jackie hung on that long? Brazen wee shite.

If you could mine the copper from Jackie Mac's brass neck then Thistle, Dundee United and York would be three of the richest clubs on the planet.

[Jobi1]

Very sad (yet in no way surprising) news today as City's often outspoken but utterly dedicated SLO, Phil Howden, has lost his job, the news delivered to Phil by McGill's little minion on this new board. Phil has worked tirelessly and passionately in his role, and genuinely has been the only person in recent years trying to maintain some kind of meaningful relationship between the fans and the club, and this decision is not being well received, it's fairly safe to say. He also took on responsibility for editing match highlights, coordinating ticket sales and developing an initiative in the last year of a new supporters' bar in the ground that was giving fans a nice alternative way to get a drink and a bite to eat at matches and making a few hundred quid per game for the club (every little helps); no idea who's left to pick up these kinds of functions now.

Phil was known to support the "no" vote over the share transfer issue (though was always at pains to be positively disposed towards McGill, and even defended McNamara from the worst of the abuse he got from fans), so it's not hard to see from what quarter strings are being pulled, even if that quarter supposedly no longer has anything to do with the day-to-day running of the club.

[NHH]

Blimey. There's a blast from the past. I was at University with Phil Howden.

[Jobi1]

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, yesterday's deadline to purchase McGill's 75% shareholding came and went without any offers. The indication that 'both shareholders have been approached to determine what additional funds are to be made available by each party in connection with constructing a workable budget for the 2018-19 season' one would imagine consisted of McGill shouting at the Trust 'JUST GIVE ME THAT F**KING 25%'. At this point it seems we're probably more likely to be participating in the AGM Cup than the play-offs next season. What a way to say goodbye to Bootham Crescent.

EDIT: And the Trust responds, seeming to indicate they are looking to bring the club back into a fan ownership model. I'd like to think this could work, but the last time we went down this route the supporter base was galvanised and fighting to save the club. Right now the fans have never been more distant and disenfranchised.

[Jobi1]

And there it is, Papa Smurf returns as chairman. The losses will continue to mount, there is now zero chance of coming out of the Bootham Crescent sale with any equity to benefit the club, but hey he's a hero isn't he? Saved the club, AGAIN! I'd probably get angry if the whole thing wasn't so tragically predictable.

[Jobi1]

Digging this thread back up because the gloves are off again for the latest round in this absolute circus that is York City. This has just gone out to Trust members (I think I know which way I'll be voting)...

On the 24th August 2021, the Supporters' Trust received a formal request signed by a number of members to convene a Special General Meeting to debate and vote upon the following motion:

"We move that the Supporter’s Trust board makes a public declaration of no confidence in the boards of York City Football Club Ltd and its subsidiary companies."

As such, the Trust board has made the necessary arrangements for a Special General Meeting to be held in accordance with the Society Rules.

The SGM will take place on Thursday, 16th September.

[Jobi1]

Trust statement following the passing of the no confidence vote: https://www.ycst.org.uk/statement-sgm-no-confidence-vote/

[Sean of the Shed]

That's pretty overwhelming. The most shocking thing about that is that there is still 9% who still have faith in the current board despite all the overwhelming evidence laid before them.
Are they all anti-vaxxers as well?