Shrimperstrust
Supporting SUFC
Contingency Planning
Having created a business contingency plan many years ago, I knew how complex potentially this could be. The key was in deciding what constituted a disaster and agreeing on a level of detail that was manageable but effective.
Over several committee meetings, various scenarios were considered and examples researched. Eventually we settled on the view that there was only one real scenario that we needed to cover, namely:
Southend United call in administrators / cease trading in an unplanned manner (or similar).
We could see no other scenario where this plan would be required.
The plan is actually two documents; the first is a small practical plan to cover establishing the invocation and some early actions and the second a series of contact details (this contains personal data).
The practical plan contains a few obvious steps and then a series of prompts that might be required depending on the circumstances.
The idea is that, exactly as alluded to in the recent thread on ShrimperZone, that fans would pull together in the event of a disaster and our job would be to facilitate that. We don’t have a given right to do this - anyone could - but we felt it was part of what our members would expect. We do not have the answers to the universe of questions people have, nor are we more clever than anyone else, we have simply done our best as 15 (currently) individuals to put together a practical plan that, should the worst happen, would hopefully enable us to get through the first few days after a disaster had occurred.
I have no idea what would happen after that, but if anyone feels that this plan should go deeper and cover more scenarios and could help us with that we’d be only too glad to hear from them whether a Trust member or not.
We also doubt we’d be the only party involved in the aftermath of a disaster. The Trust does not have the funds, nor the representation of the majority of fans, but we are probably the largest organised with banking facilities and a formal organisation albeit of enthusiastic volunteers. We’ve done our best in our thinking about this plan and would obviously do so in the event of a disaster. Do I feel comfortable we have everything covered? No I do not, but then again, I feel we've exhausted our own expertise at this point.
Specifically in relation to the thread on SZ
P.Y’s comments were perhaps a fraction wide of the mark: the plan is not secret, but some contents are private, i.e. personal telephone numbers of people not connected to the committee.
I hope this note gives an idea of the effort we have put in on this plan and, contrary to some personal views, I do welcome comment and criticism provided it’s constructive – simply saying the same thing a number of times and not responding to questions is not constructive or clever and is only likely to alienate.
I’d like to end by saying the Trust is a bit of a misnomer; whilst it is easy to criticise, the reality is the Trust is weak. It does not have enough money, but why is this? It’s because actually it’s just 15 people doing their best, they don’t always make the decisions or do the things everyone wants, but those decisions and actions are their best effort at the time.
As above the Trust is made up of 15 equal individuals; there is no power with one or two individuals. In my role as Chairman, of course I will try to direct as I think fit as anyone can and does. Everything of note is voted on at committee and I am often outvoted, and that is healthy in my opinion. Of course the downside is that sometimes it can take longer to make a decision.
Responding to an active social media vehicle is tough because information is required instantly (usually) - the perception is we have been bad at this and I personally take that on board. I would prefer all committee members to post their own thoughts - most don’t for their own reasons but that is not a directive. This is just my view at present, the recent thread highlighted this issue in no uncertain terms, which we have discussed at our last committee meeting on Monday night and will consider carefully as already stated.
Paul FitzGerald
Trust Chairman
pfitz666@aol.com
Having created a business contingency plan many years ago, I knew how complex potentially this could be. The key was in deciding what constituted a disaster and agreeing on a level of detail that was manageable but effective.
Over several committee meetings, various scenarios were considered and examples researched. Eventually we settled on the view that there was only one real scenario that we needed to cover, namely:
Southend United call in administrators / cease trading in an unplanned manner (or similar).
We could see no other scenario where this plan would be required.
The plan is actually two documents; the first is a small practical plan to cover establishing the invocation and some early actions and the second a series of contact details (this contains personal data).
The practical plan contains a few obvious steps and then a series of prompts that might be required depending on the circumstances.
The idea is that, exactly as alluded to in the recent thread on ShrimperZone, that fans would pull together in the event of a disaster and our job would be to facilitate that. We don’t have a given right to do this - anyone could - but we felt it was part of what our members would expect. We do not have the answers to the universe of questions people have, nor are we more clever than anyone else, we have simply done our best as 15 (currently) individuals to put together a practical plan that, should the worst happen, would hopefully enable us to get through the first few days after a disaster had occurred.
I have no idea what would happen after that, but if anyone feels that this plan should go deeper and cover more scenarios and could help us with that we’d be only too glad to hear from them whether a Trust member or not.
We also doubt we’d be the only party involved in the aftermath of a disaster. The Trust does not have the funds, nor the representation of the majority of fans, but we are probably the largest organised with banking facilities and a formal organisation albeit of enthusiastic volunteers. We’ve done our best in our thinking about this plan and would obviously do so in the event of a disaster. Do I feel comfortable we have everything covered? No I do not, but then again, I feel we've exhausted our own expertise at this point.
Specifically in relation to the thread on SZ
P.Y’s comments were perhaps a fraction wide of the mark: the plan is not secret, but some contents are private, i.e. personal telephone numbers of people not connected to the committee.
I hope this note gives an idea of the effort we have put in on this plan and, contrary to some personal views, I do welcome comment and criticism provided it’s constructive – simply saying the same thing a number of times and not responding to questions is not constructive or clever and is only likely to alienate.
I’d like to end by saying the Trust is a bit of a misnomer; whilst it is easy to criticise, the reality is the Trust is weak. It does not have enough money, but why is this? It’s because actually it’s just 15 people doing their best, they don’t always make the decisions or do the things everyone wants, but those decisions and actions are their best effort at the time.
As above the Trust is made up of 15 equal individuals; there is no power with one or two individuals. In my role as Chairman, of course I will try to direct as I think fit as anyone can and does. Everything of note is voted on at committee and I am often outvoted, and that is healthy in my opinion. Of course the downside is that sometimes it can take longer to make a decision.
Responding to an active social media vehicle is tough because information is required instantly (usually) - the perception is we have been bad at this and I personally take that on board. I would prefer all committee members to post their own thoughts - most don’t for their own reasons but that is not a directive. This is just my view at present, the recent thread highlighted this issue in no uncertain terms, which we have discussed at our last committee meeting on Monday night and will consider carefully as already stated.
Paul FitzGerald
Trust Chairman
pfitz666@aol.com
