Webber to go this week.

[corbs 147]

I think you’ve made a fair point Big O. Our custodians are in a conundrum. Often criticised for being too benign and loyal (e.g appointments such as Gunn, Adams) they’ve brought in more ruthless outsiders (McNally, Webber). As mentioned I’m no fan of the last 2 names, but on balence the appointments worked for our club. 
 

I won’t loose any sleep over Webber, a capable ambitious guy, whose time to move on has come. I do worry about what happens now, and about the way the club looks after all its staff, the proverbial “tea lady”; in the end they matter more. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Do you know why Webber did not feel that the CSF was a suitable vehicle for his charity work @nutty nigel?…why did he have to set up his own when such a worthy option was on the table in front of him?…

Parma 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 hour ago, Big O said:

I personally don’t quite get the Webber witch hunt that is going on but he clearly does have a way of riling people (especially journalists) if he has now fallen out with the local media and the Nick Ma****er fella who once seemed to be firmly in the know.

Overall, if he does now leave then his tenure has to be classed as a success. The club is in a demonstrably better position than what he inherited and whilst people can call him a fraud etc but that is pretty indisputable.

I noticed one of the TNC boys state he has failed twice in his objective but I personally think this view is narrow minded. Would anyone with the available resources been able to enable Farke to have kept us up in that first season. This year has not been great, that clearly needs to be reviewed but ended up losing 2 of our best 3 players (Emi and Skipp) and also got zero from Cantwell. That is some loss. Yes we have spent some money but net spend is what c£15-20m? Hardly massive premier outlay.

Hindsight with transfers tells a different story but I think we all would have been happy with Gibson and Dimi at the end of last year (albeit everyone now slates the Gibson signing, I didn’t see much of that in June 2021), I think everyone expected Kabak to be better, Rashica was seen as a coup, as was Gilmour. PLM was an experienced midfielder who had played at a good level and they either didn’t get thr desired CDM or Normann hasn’t quite worked out. I fully agree with everyone else the Sargent and particularly Tzolis signings were odd! These signings overall coupled with the losses have left us in a bad place but I don’t think there was a lack of logic or ambition, they just haven’t worked out.

naturally all things have a shelf life and it might be time for Webber to go but this vitriol built up against him is OTT in my opinion. 

I think it’s fair to ask would anyone keep us up but by the same token if the question was could anyone have made a better effort at it then the answer is undoubtedly yes they could. That for me is what causes the doubts. It’s not just that we have failed again, it’s that the failure (both in recruitment terms and on the pitch efforts) has been so poor because it the strategy this season (including in my view selling Emi) was just completely wrong. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

17 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Do you know why Webber did not feel that the CSF was a suitable vehicle for his charity work @nutty nigel?…why did he have to set up his own when such a worthy option was on the table in front of him?…

Parma 

Quite. This is something that has slipped under the radar a bit. In fact with Zoe being a trustee of the CSF (with the trustees duties that brings) I think it’s really quite surprising. 

[Nuff Said 5,079]

10 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Do you know why Webber did not feel that the CSF was a suitable vehicle for his charity work @nutty nigel?…why did he have to set up his own when such a worthy option was on the table in front of him?…

Parma 

That’s a bit of a low blow Parma. Everyone has charities they support, and those they don’t/can’t. So everyone could be criticised for those they bypass. My own personal view is that I’d like to see the most basic need supported and the maximum bang for my buck, so I tend to give to aid for poor countries, war relief and things like that. The sponsored charity at my work has been a Childrens’ Wish for some years now. I could argue it’s a waste when thousands of pounds are raised to send one (very ill, normally terminally) child and their family to Disneyland, but I don’t, I respect everyone’s right to give their money where they like. 

[Nuff Said 5,079]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I think it’s fair to ask would anyone keep us up but by the same token if the question was could anyone have made a better effort at it then the answer is undoubtedly yes they could. That for me is what causes the doubts. It’s not just that we have failed again, it’s that the failure (both in recruitment terms and on the pitch efforts) has been so poor because it the strategy this season (including in my view selling Emi) was just completely wrong. 

I think that’s the crux Jim (or one of the cruxes, if that’s possible). Yes, someone else *could* have kept us up, or made a better effort, but it’s not true that someone else *would*. Some of us see what Webber has achieved in his time here and believe he’s in credit, others believe his results are below par. I find it hard to see how anyone could think the latter, given our (lack of) resources and where we were when we came on board, but that’s what debate is for.

I guess there is then the argument that Webber has done well (the second crux?), but he’s now stale and it’s time to move on, which is clearly a more credible idea. But let’s not confuse the two.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

5 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I think that’s the crux Jim (or one of the cruxes, if that’s possible). Yes, someone else *could* have kept us up, or made a better effort, but it’s not true that someone else *would*. Some of us see what Webber has achieved in his time here and believe he’s in credit, others believe his results are below par. I find it hard to see how anyone could think the latter, given our (lack of) resources and where we were when we came on board, but that’s what debate is for.

I guess there is then the argument that Webber has done well (the second crux?), but he’s now stale and it’s time to move on, which is clearly a more credible idea. But let’s not confuse the two.

I'm not sure he's much in credit any more but equally I also agree his overall results are not below par. If you want to use the golfing analogy he's had 4 rounds of 64, 73, 69 and 75 in my view over the last 4 seasons, but the last one has been a real blow to the confidence. 

But when an employee is not showing full commitment and indeed is showing destructive tendancies in terms of his interaction with the fanbase then there is arguably a decision to be made for both parties. I don't know whether behind the scenes he's feverishly working away to bring in players this summer to try and put things right. All I am saying is that whilst the "I will put up with him being a t**t sometimes because overall he's good for the club" balance was clear cut previously, now its more in the balance for me. 

[king canary 7,558]

4 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I think that’s the crux Jim (or one of the cruxes, if that’s possible). Yes, someone else *could* have kept us up, or made a better effort, but it’s not true that someone else *would*. Some of us see what Webber has achieved in his time here and believe he’s in credit, others believe his results are below par. I find it hard to see how anyone could think the latter, given our (lack of) resources and where we were when we came on board, but that’s what debate is for.

I guess there is then the argument that Webber has done well (the second crux?), but he’s now stale and it’s time to move on, which is clearly a more credible idea. But let’s not confuse the two.

I think he has undoubtedly improved things overall within the club. I think when it comes to results though I can see why people are frustrated- the two Premier League seasons have been embarrassingly poor and both times we've seen teams without significantly more resources than us massively out perform us.

[Nuff Said 5,079]

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I'm not sure he's much in credit any more but equally I also agree his overall results are not below par. If you want to use the golfing analogy he's had 4 rounds of 64, 73, 69 and 75 in my view over the last 4 seasons, but the last one has been a real blow to the confidence. 

But when an employee is not showing full commitment and indeed is showing destructive tendancies in terms of his interaction with the fanbase then there is arguably a decision to be made for both parties. I don't know whether behind the scenes he's feverishly working away to bring in players this summer to try and put things right. All I am saying is that whilst the "I will put up with him being a t**t sometimes because overall he's good for the club" balance was clear cut previously, now its more in the balance for me. 

Fair

[jaberry2 549]

God I hate Chris Sutton, he is such an utter helm. Who does he think he is!? Sexybennett.

[Monty13 2,229]

34 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

That’s a bit of a low blow Parma. Everyone has charities they support, and those they don’t/can’t. So everyone could be criticised for those they bypass. My own personal view is that I’d like to see the most basic need supported and the maximum bang for my buck, so I tend to give to aid for poor countries, war relief and things like that. The sponsored charity at my work has been a Childrens’ Wish for some years now. I could argue it’s a waste when thousands of pounds are raised to send one (very ill, normally terminally) child and their family to Disneyland, but I don’t, I respect everyone’s right to give their money where they like. 

It’s pretty clear from the Times interview that the charity was an afterthought to his personal ambitions to climb. Why he needed to create a new one rather than support an existing one seems a legitimate question.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

35 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

That’s a bit of a low blow Parma. Everyone has charities they support, and those they don’t/can’t. So everyone could be criticised for those they bypass. My own personal view is that I’d like to see the most basic need supported and the maximum bang for my buck, so I tend to give to aid for poor countries, war relief and things like that. The sponsored charity at my work has been a Childrens’ Wish for some years now. I could argue it’s a waste when thousands of pounds are raised to send one (very ill, normally terminally) child and their family to Disneyland, but I don’t, I respect everyone’s right to give their money where they like. 

There are valid sticks with which to beat Webber but this doesn’t strike me as one of them.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Do you know why Webber did not feel that the CSF was a suitable vehicle for his charity work @nutty nigel?…why did he have to set up his own when such a worthy option was on the table in front of him?…

Parma 

PurpleCanary     3,120

•  
  •  

Posted 12 minutes ago

   49 minutes ago,  Nuff Said said: 

That’s a bit of a low blow Parma. Everyone has charities they support, and those they don’t/can’t. So everyone could be criticised for those they bypass. My own personal view is that I’d like to see the most basic need supported and the maximum bang for my buck, so I tend to give to aid for poor countries, war relief and things like that. The sponsored charity at my work has been a Childrens’ Wish for some years now. I could argue it’s a waste when thousands of pounds are raised to send one (very ill, normally terminally) child and their family to Disneyland, but I don’t, I respect everyone’s right to give their money where they like. 

There are valid sticks with which to beat Webber but this doesn’t strike me as one of them.
 

@Nuff Said @PurpleCanary

Please be careful of assuming everything starts with a polemic viewpoint. 

I asked a Socratic question, with no pre-conceived ideas other than to wonder why - as @Jim Smith as noted - the CSF was not an obvious vehicle, particularly with his wife as a trustee.
 

Nobody had mentioned it. It would seem an obvious choice ‘to help the people of Norfolk’. 

I love the CSF as a charity - coversely to ‘low blow’ or ‘stick to beat’ -  for me I was interested in the reason not to support it. Hence why I asked @nutty nigel

Parma 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

I may add - and I am not pretending to be Mother Theresa - that I ask pertinent Socratic questions very much because I think that there may be an answer. 

The rhetorical is somewhat rhetorical. 
 

If that is a bit sharp for you, or challenges your loaded position, then it is doing its job. 

I am just as likely to ask such questions of one ‘side’ as the other. You will rarely find me painting myself in a single colour. 

Parma 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

12 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

There are valid sticks with which to beat Webber but this doesn’t strike me as one of them.

You don't think its a bit strange/comment worthy though Purple, parrticularly when viewed in tandem with the "i'm ready to walk out the door" rants?

You have Zoe Ward, our most senior club executive employee (recently promoted) and a trustee of the CSF. According to all interviews (and indeed their website) the idea to raise money for charity from his climb and to set up a charitable foundation to help young people in the local community came from her after he decided he was going to do the climb. Perhaps there is a legal reason we are not aware of why it was better to set up a new charity to do this rather than use the existing one of which she is a trustee (which does pretty much exactly what the Summit Foundation says its going to do) but one can't help feeling its slightly strange/indicative of wanting to distinguish themselves from the club. These are our two most senior/key executive employees after all, entrusted with pretty much running everything at Carrow Road. I don't know if its an ego thing, legal thing or simply he knows his departure is on the cards but I don't see why its not something that can be discussed. 

Whilst I guess you can argue that any money going to these sorts of causes is a good thing, you could also argue that a charity effectively competing for the same donations in our local business community (for example through dinners hosted at Carrow Road) is a competitor.

It would be interesting to know how it is all viewed by those within the CSF. 

"The Community Sports Foundation is Norwich City FC's official charity We use the power of sport to support and inspire our community. Our charitable objectives are driving inclusion for people with disabilities, boosting mental health and wellbeing, and supporting disadvantaged people to raise their aspirations."

"The Summit Foundation’s aims are simple, help our little corner of the world to get better and let the youth of today educate and provide a better way for the people of tomorrow.

Society is in a challenging place and it’s never been harder for young people to find direction, we need to show young people that their aspirations can be achieved irrespective of their background. It’s hard for young people to break the poverty cycle, by encouraging better wellbeing, through nutrition, sleep and exercise, we can help create better educational attainment and better opportunities.

We also aim to inspire brighter futures and build the confidence in young people to take that step on their own journey. Some of our fundraising activities will also focus on encouraging children to achieve."

 

[Nuff Said 5,079]

13 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Please be careful of assuming everything starts with a polemic viewpoint. 

TBF, it’s not an unreasonable assumption on this board 😉

[komakino 272]

9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

You don't think its a bit strange/comment worthy though Purple, parrticularly when viewed in tandem with the "i'm ready to walk out the door" rants?

You have Zoe Ward, our most senior club executive employee (recently promoted) and a trustee of the CSF. According to all interviews (and indeed their website) the idea to raise money for charity from his climb and to set up a charitable foundation to help young people in the local community came from her after he decided he was going to do the climb. Perhaps there is a legal reason we are not aware of why it was better to set up a new charity to do this rather than use the existing one of which she is a trustee (which does pretty much exactly what the Summit Foundation says its going to do) but one can't help feeling its slightly strange/indicative of wanting to distinguish themselves from the club. These are our two most senior/key executive employees after all, entrusted with pretty much running everything at Carrow Road. I don't know if its an ego thing, legal thing or simply he knows his departure is on the cards but I don't see why its not something that can be discussed. 

Whilst I guess you can argue that any money going to these sorts of causes is a good thing, you could also argue that a charity effectively competing for the same donations in our local business community (for example through dinners hosted at Carrow Road) is a competitor.

It would be interesting to know how it is all viewed by those within the CSF. 

"The Community Sports Foundation is Norwich City FC's official charity We use the power of sport to support and inspire our community. Our charitable objectives are driving inclusion for people with disabilities, boosting mental health and wellbeing, and supporting disadvantaged people to raise their aspirations."

"The Summit Foundation’s aims are simple, help our little corner of the world to get better and let the youth of today educate and provide a better way for the people of tomorrow.

Society is in a challenging place and it’s never been harder for young people to find direction, we need to show young people that their aspirations can be achieved irrespective of their background. It’s hard for young people to break the poverty cycle, by encouraging better wellbeing, through nutrition, sleep and exercise, we can help create better educational attainment and better opportunities.

We also aim to inspire brighter futures and build the confidence in young people to take that step on their own journey. Some of our fundraising activities will also focus on encouraging children to achieve."

 

It's a shame the club seems more interested in Community Projects than success on the pitch. This may sound cynical, but you could argue that by doing such projects, it deflects the inadequacies of the club in general. I'm not against them, for from it, but the more successful we are, the more we can do, but the club priorities are questionable. 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

22 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

PurpleCanary     3,120

•  
  •  

Posted 12 minutes ago

   49 minutes ago,  Nuff Said said: 

That’s a bit of a low blow Parma. Everyone has charities they support, and those they don’t/can’t. So everyone could be criticised for those they bypass. My own personal view is that I’d like to see the most basic need supported and the maximum bang for my buck, so I tend to give to aid for poor countries, war relief and things like that. The sponsored charity at my work has been a Childrens’ Wish for some years now. I could argue it’s a waste when thousands of pounds are raised to send one (very ill, normally terminally) child and their family to Disneyland, but I don’t, I respect everyone’s right to give their money where they like. 

There are valid sticks with which to beat Webber but this doesn’t strike me as one of them.
 

@Nuff Said @PurpleCanary

Please be careful of assuming everything starts with a polemic viewpoint. 

I asked a Socratic question, with no pre-conceived ideas other than to wonder why - as @Jim Smith as noted - the CSF was not an obvious vehicle, particularly with his wife as a trustee.
 

Nobody had mentioned it. It would seem an obvious choice ‘to help the people of Norfolk’. 

I love the CSF as a charity - coversely to ‘low blow’ or ‘stick to beat’ -  for me I was interested in the reason not to support it. Hence why I asked @nutty nigel

Parma 

Parma, in that case you shouldn't have asked the question in such a obviously loaded fashion:

Do you know why Webber did not feel that the CSF was a suitable vehicle for his charity work @nutty nigel?…why did he have to set up his own when such a worthy option was on the table in front of him?…

"...why Webber did not feel..."...why did he have to..."  "...such a worthy option on the table in front of him..."

A genuinely Socratic question would have been phrased neutrally. Yours was not.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 minutes ago, komakino said:

It's a shame the club seems more interested in Community Projects than success on the pitch. This may sound cynical, but you could argue that by doing such projects, it deflects the inadequacies of the club in general. I'm not against them, for from it, but the more successful we are, the more we can do, but the club priorities are questionable. 

I'm not sure that is the case to be honest. The CSF is legally a separate entity from the Club and whilst the club does help it (provides players for events and some funding etc plus I think maybe office space) and has trustee representatives it doesn;t contribute to it massively in a financial sense and there are different people running the charity.

If anything, you might argue that the club likes to present itself as a model "fan funded community club" but does not always act accordingly in terms of things like ticket prices, away membership schemes, fan representation on the board etc. There is a good article on this on the ACN site this week. 

[Mengo 820]

6 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

You don't think its a bit strange/comment worthy though Purple, parrticularly when viewed in tandem with the "i'm ready to walk out the door" rants?

You have Zoe Ward, our most senior club executive employee (recently promoted) and a trustee of the CSF. According to all interviews (and indeed their website) the idea to raise money for charity from his climb and to set up a charitable foundation to help young people in the local community came from her after he decided he was going to do the climb. Perhaps there is a legal reason we are not aware of why it was better to set up a new charity to do this rather than use the existing one of which she is a trustee (which does pretty much exactly what the Summit Foundation says its going to do) but one can't help feeling its slightly strange/indicative of wanting to distinguish themselves from the club. These are our two most senior/key executive employees after all, entrusted with pretty much running everything at Carrow Road. I don't know if its an ego thing, legal thing or simply he knows his departure is on the cards but I don't see why its not something that can be discussed. 

Whilst I guess you can argue that any money going to these sorts of causes is a good thing, you could also argue that a charity effectively competing for the same donations in our local business community (for example through dinners hosted at Carrow Road) is a competitor.

It would be interesting to know how it is all viewed by those within the CSF. 

"The Community Sports Foundation is Norwich City FC's official charity We use the power of sport to support and inspire our community. Our charitable objectives are driving inclusion for people with disabilities, boosting mental health and wellbeing, and supporting disadvantaged people to raise their aspirations."

"The Summit Foundation’s aims are simple, help our little corner of the world to get better and let the youth of today educate and provide a better way for the people of tomorrow.

Society is in a challenging place and it’s never been harder for young people to find direction, we need to show young people that their aspirations can be achieved irrespective of their background. It’s hard for young people to break the poverty cycle, by encouraging better wellbeing, through nutrition, sleep and exercise, we can help create better educational attainment and better opportunities.

We also aim to inspire brighter futures and build the confidence in young people to take that step on their own journey. Some of our fundraising activities will also focus on encouraging children to achieve."

 

Jim. Thanks for this and I know you have mentioned this in the past and it was mainly bypassed. Your comments are very worthy and I echo them. It's early in the morning in 🇧🇷 so when I wake up and get a coffee I look forward to joining in. 

I am pleased to see that PARMA has in his post 📫 asked NUTTY  if there was a reason that the CSF was not used as a vehicle for his charity work. 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 minute ago, Mengo said:

Jim. Thanks for this and I know you have mentioned this in the past and it was mainly bypassed. Your comments are very worthy and I echo them. It's early in the morning in 🇧🇷 so when I wake up and get a coffee I look forward to joining in. 

I am pleased to see that PARMA has in his post 📫 asked NUTTY  if there was a reason that the CSF was not used as a vehicle for his charity work. 

 

I would add that he (or indeed they) are entitled to raise money for or not raise money for whatever causes or charities they want and of course if they want to set up their own charity for the future then fine. Any money raised is a good think if it ends up going to the right places. But if we are debating current levels of commitment to the club in the context of the recent interview/situation then I think you need to look at the big picture and I don't think you can just ignore the fact that they've gone out of their way to reate a new charitable foundation when an official club formed/partner foundation already exists which does pretty much the same thing. That says something to me. 

[Nuff Said 5,079]

18 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I would add that he (or indeed they) are entitled to raise money for or not raise money for whatever causes or charities they want and of course if they want to set up their own charity for the future then fine. Any money raised is a good think if it ends up going to the right places. But if we are debating current levels of commitment to the club in the context of the recent interview/situation then I think you need to look at the big picture and I don't think you can just ignore the fact that they've gone out of their way to reate a new charitable foundation when an official club formed/partner foundation already exists which does pretty much the same thing. That says something to me. 

The fact that it says something to you when you don’t have anything like the full picture says something to me. To be clear, that you’re jumping to conclusions to support your position without sufficient evidence.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Do you know why Webber did not feel that the CSF was a suitable vehicle for his charity work @nutty nigel?…why did he have to set up his own when such a worthy option was on the table in front of him?…

Parma 

Maybe he knew that when he climbed back down from the summit of Everest he would no longer have any connection with Norwich City .

[Nuff Said 5,079]

14 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Maybe he knew that when he climbed back down from the summit of Everest he would no longer have any connection with Norwich City .

Or maybe that he has a particular local charity that the CSF don’t work with and he wanted some money to go to them. Like I said, it’s all speculation.

 

Although I think we can be pretty sure that the more we debate this, the less money he’s likely to raise.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

2 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Do you know why Webber did not feel that the CSF was a suitable vehicle for his charity work @nutty nigel?…why did he have to set up his own when such a worthy option was on the table in front of him?…

Parma 

I wondered that and have no idea. Especially as Zoe is a trustee! 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

4 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Or maybe that he has a particular local charity that the CSF don’t work with and he wanted some money to go to them. Like I said, it’s all speculation.

 

Although I think we can be pretty sure that the more we debate this, the less money he’s likely to raise.

It is strange that he chose not to do his laudable charity work through the CSF... imo he wanted to show what he could do on his CV. He clearly is not that bothered about NCFC or it's connections. 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

I may add - and I am not pretending to be Mother Theresa - that I ask pertinent Socratic questions very much because I think that there may be an answer. 

The rhetorical is somewhat rhetorical. 
 

If that is a bit sharp for you, or challenges your loaded position, then it is doing its job. 

I am just as likely to ask such questions of one ‘side’ as the other. You will rarely find me painting myself in a single colour. 

Parma 

Posters can draw their own conclusions to what is set before them. I did add that Zoe is a CSF trustee but I doubt that's a reason why he didn't choose the CSF. To get a definitive answer he'd have to be asked the question.

[Greavsy 2,412]

Why would @nutty nigel as a fund raiser for CSF know (or need to know) why someone else (albeit a trustees husband) chose not to raise funds for the CSF.

Why not email Zoe or Stuart directly to ask? or the summit charity which im sure has a contact us page?

Edited April 27, 2022 by Greavsy
typo

[shefcanary 2,377]

I have worked in the charity sector for many years.  At Board level, there is always a raised eyebrow and some strong questioning (as you would expect with strong corporate governance) when a senior executive is known to be doing a charitable event / activity that does not benefit their own charity, especially if that charity does not have the values of the employer.  It is an unwritten rule that senior executives (who set the example for junior employees and supporters of the charity) should apply themselves in all their activities first to the charity that employs them, subject to a truly unarguable personal position that warrants such support.

Now the Club is not the charity here, but it has supported the CSF which publicly is seen as the charitable arm of the club (I know that is not the case legally but we are talking perceptions here).  It does strike me that the outcomes the CSF is seeking are similar if not the same as the Summit Foundation that has, as I understand it, not yet been properly and fully set up! If the Board were on the case I believe at worst they would have seen this as a missed opportunity, but most of them  should be absolutely fuming under their breath!

I therefore think again this is another example of a lack of corporate governance within the Club, with its values not being clearly lived by either the Board or the executives.  When Webber asked for the leave to pursue his mountainous goal, the Board should have made it a pre-condition that this met with the values of the club.  This would have lead all to the conclusion, fine, go ahead Stu but please do it in a way that the club can get some reflected glory if only through the support it would bring for the CSF.   

But the lack of clear governance has lead to an even bigger row and is quite rightly seeing questions raised by some of our more worldly contributors on this page which should be reflected more widely amongst supporters of both the club and the CSF.   

[yellow_belly 226]

Just read about the Summit Foundation.

But what is Mr 90% holding in his hand?