Below is a report from Hereford FC's AGM which was held last month. This report has been delayed pending clarification of a couple of points raised at the meeting.
Hereford FC held their Annual General Meeting on Wednesday January 26th, at Edgar Street, starting at 7.30pm.
Chairman Jon Hale took the meeting and he was accompanied by all the other directors namely Rob Crawford, Nigel Edmondson, Peter Churchus, Joanie Roberts, Tony Taylor and Mike Langford.
About 15 other shareholders were present
It was noted that both Jon Hale and Mike Langford had joined the board since May 31st, which was after the end of the club's accounting year.
There was just one question about the accounts which showed a £68,738 loss. The figure pertaining to other creditors was much higher than the previous year. This was explained by Peter Churchus who reported that, in essence the figure was inflated due to the receipt of monies from the FA Trophy Final, player bonuses and season ticket deferrals.
The
Board were given credit for substantially reducing the deficit during
the year under review when compared with the loss incurred during the
previous financial year.
The formal agenda items, including the annual accounts, auditors and auditors renumeration were approved by the meeting.
Following the formal business a large number of questions submitted in writing and in advance of the meeting were discussed, of which, there were about twenty that originated from three shareholders.
This included a request for more openness from the Board, specifically in relation to providing shareholders with a copy of the Profit and Loss Account, which had been provided in past years, in keeping with undertakings made prior to the vote on the formation of HFC.
The discussions around the point of communications and provision of information resulted in the Chairman stating that it was his intention to facilitate, probably, quarterly meetings to both update and listen to shareholders views.
Another question related to the recent Board decision to take the bars and catering 'in house'. Would the 'fixed' income received in the past be exceeded? The board were hopeful this would be the case. In particular, whilst event bookings were up, nevertheless, Covid was still affecting income on match days. This was not surprising given gates are lower than had been hoped.
The directors are working towards reducing their day to day work load. New systems have been introduced within the club that should make the day to day operational control of the club less onerous. The Board expressed the hope that, with the prospect of reduced day to day involvement, then supporters, who are in full time work, may be more inclined to join the Board.
A shareholder questioned whether the Board were fully compliant with the terms of the lease? Who within Herefordshire Council does the club deal with? It was confirmed that the Club is compliant with all lease requirements.
In answer to a further question - There are nine years remaining on the current lease to the stadium.
In reply to a question relating to the condition of the structure of the stadium, it was confirmed that structural surveys of the stadium are an annual requirement for securing the Stadium Safety Certificate, therefore, a full inspection is conducted every year by a qualified person. This is also useful in providing advance warning of any possible problems. The condition of the asbestos roof on the main stand being an example.
The income from streaming games was discussed. There was a useful financial return from streaming and supporters felt the company involved had a quality system and provided a very good service.
For the second year running no profit and loss account was available for shareholders to review. Even HUST board members not on the Club board are not allowed to see the figures. There was some criticism of the board for not being more open.
The justification put forward by FD Peter Churchus was that making the figures public gave player's agents too much financial information about the football budget to the detriment of negotiations. Some present disputed the merit of this argument. Following discussions, including suggestions from the floor, the Chairman stated the Board would explore ways of making more financial information available to shareholders.
In answer to a question from the floor - virtually all sponsorship deals had continued despite Covid.
There was a request for the AGM date to be brought forward so that the information in the accounts could be discussed sooner. The Chairman said the Board would work towards this and made mention of possibly holding the AGM in September each year, so that the AGM was closer to the end of the financial year to which the accounts referred and on which the Board was reporting.
There was a request from the floor for the Board to identify a specific date on which all future AGMs would be held. This would enable all shareholders to plan ahead for the AGM with certainty.
From the floor reference was made to a sentence in Rob Crawford’s Chairmans Report with regard to a contract with a company called Aspire. It is understood this was a £10K annual repeat contract, signed in 2019, with a company called Aspire. The nature of the contract was unknown but it has been suggested it may have been for the provision of some form of educational service.
A shareholder then asked "Is this about Andrew Graham claiming that Ken Kinnersley had signed the Aspire contract when he hadn’t?"
Two former directors immediately stated they could confirm that was correct.
Director Rob Crawford then informed the meeting that, “having had sight of the contract, I can confirm that the contract in question had not been signed by Ken”. He did not report which director had signed the contract in question.
It then became apparent it had taken over two years to set the record straight on this issue as the board refused a request to discuss the matter at last year's AGM, on the basis of 'boardroom confidentiality.'
Josh Gowling's budget this season was described as 'competitive'. It was noted he had recently spoken in the press about his budget.
It was also reported that the FA had concluded their very detailed enquiry into player contracts at Edgar Street.
Finally, the question of whether the may be a name change from Hereford FC to Hereford United was discussed. It was noted that the company name, Hereford United Football Club Ltd., had already been registered to another entity. The financial costs of effecting such a change was referenced as was how the Board would canvas the opinions of the supporters.
A view was expressed from the floor that any decision on name change should be determined by all supporters, the decision should not be limited to shareholders and HUST members, but all genuine supporters and that a verification system would be necessary to prevent multiple voting.
It was noted that the final decision on such a vote is in the hands of shareholders and that a 75% vote in favour would be required to effect any change.
The meeting ended at 9pm.