| The Trust selling up 14:31 - Oct 23 with 26050 views | Darran |
Why are people saying the Trust won't sell up then?
Perhaps they will who knows?
Philip? [Post edited 23 Oct 2016 14:32]
|  |
| |  |
| The Trust selling up on 19:28 - Oct 24 with 1598 views | UplandsJack |
I have periodically over the last few years questioned HC position as Trust Director.
Certainly with what I plainly see as his conflict of interest with a personal business interest. Repeatedly I was bashed with how HC did all this great work for "free" ....
So it now comes to light not to be the case. Not only are his expenses reimbursed (and rightly so) but he is paid for his time. So contrary to what we were all let to believe....
Top this off with his frequenting on a regular basis with the "old guard" despite claiming repeatedly being in the dark about everything, is just a joke.
I'm sorry, but in my mind and I'm sure many, many others, HC cannot continue in his role and should therefore tender his resignation with immediate effect. If not then I believe the TRUST board should act and initiate the steps necessary to remove him anyway. This is all becoming a sorry and honestly an embarrassing mess for the trust.
Finally, are any other trust committee members paid for their time, that we are not YET aware of??? |  | | |
| The Trust selling up on 19:33 - Oct 24 with 1575 views | exiledclaseboy |
| The Trust selling up on 07:35 - Oct 24 by dobjack2 |
I'm sure Lisa's question is not a dig at HC but relates to the shareholders agreement issue.
Whilst you are jumping on the conflict of interest bandwagon would you really expect someone to lose money representing the trust on the board and at events? Untenable!? Take a step back and think a bit. There are few, if any, people that would be in a position to do the job otherwise.
Hardly a revelation, I would not have expected any different, but the trust board should have been more transparent that this is the position and not have presented an open goal for people with a trust knocking agenda and knee jerk reactions as there will be some that will believe that this was deliberately hidden. [Post edited 24 Oct 2016 7:38]
|
Bandwagon? I think not. I also wouldn't expect Huw Cooze to lose money in the course of carrying out whatever his duties as supporter director are. He should obviously have been reimbursed any out of pocket expenses in full. But the SD position is a voluntary one, or at least so we'd always been led to believe. If it became so that Huw Cooze couldn't carry it out without it having a detrimental effect on his other interests the role should have been passed to someone who had the time to commit to it. I can't get my head around to thinking that it's in any way right that the Trust's representative on the board of the football club, someone tasked with representing the fans' interests (which on occasion would undoubtedly have come into conflict with the interests of those running the club) should be paid by the club. It's just not right.
And to clarify again, I've never met Huw Cooze so have nothing against him personally. And I certainly have nothing personal against any members of the Trust board, some if whom I know and respect very much. |  |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 19:49 - Oct 24 with 1514 views | monmouth |
| The Trust selling up on 19:33 - Oct 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Bandwagon? I think not. I also wouldn't expect Huw Cooze to lose money in the course of carrying out whatever his duties as supporter director are. He should obviously have been reimbursed any out of pocket expenses in full. But the SD position is a voluntary one, or at least so we'd always been led to believe. If it became so that Huw Cooze couldn't carry it out without it having a detrimental effect on his other interests the role should have been passed to someone who had the time to commit to it. I can't get my head around to thinking that it's in any way right that the Trust's representative on the board of the football club, someone tasked with representing the fans' interests (which on occasion would undoubtedly have come into conflict with the interests of those running the club) should be paid by the club. It's just not right.
And to clarify again, I've never met Huw Cooze so have nothing against him personally. And I certainly have nothing personal against any members of the Trust board, some if whom I know and respect very much. |
As I said earlier, it's blindingly obvious he should be replaced given the events of the last six months. I really expected the answer 'no' to does he get paid. I too was under the impression it was voluntary. If it is paid, I would have probably expected a damn sight more in standing up to these jerks over the last 12 months (i.e. a professional experienced non-exec). Which leads to the next question. How much? And don't tell me it's not our business anyone, because the higher it is, the more inducement there is to play ball, whoever you are, and whatever your 'moral compass'. |  |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 19:50 - Oct 24 with 1508 views | E20Jack |
| The Trust selling up on 19:33 - Oct 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Bandwagon? I think not. I also wouldn't expect Huw Cooze to lose money in the course of carrying out whatever his duties as supporter director are. He should obviously have been reimbursed any out of pocket expenses in full. But the SD position is a voluntary one, or at least so we'd always been led to believe. If it became so that Huw Cooze couldn't carry it out without it having a detrimental effect on his other interests the role should have been passed to someone who had the time to commit to it. I can't get my head around to thinking that it's in any way right that the Trust's representative on the board of the football club, someone tasked with representing the fans' interests (which on occasion would undoubtedly have come into conflict with the interests of those running the club) should be paid by the club. It's just not right.
And to clarify again, I've never met Huw Cooze so have nothing against him personally. And I certainly have nothing personal against any members of the Trust board, some if whom I know and respect very much. |
My thoughts exactly. Anyone unable to commit the time without impacting their lives shouldn't make themselves available. It should be an unpaid role, for me that is unquestionable. |  |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 20:05 - Oct 24 with 1464 views | Wingstandwood |
| The Trust selling up on 19:50 - Oct 24 by E20Jack |
My thoughts exactly. Anyone unable to commit the time without impacting their lives shouldn't make themselves available. It should be an unpaid role, for me that is unquestionable. |
Many a businessman would be absolutely overjoyed if they were bestowed with the title 'director-of-a-Premier-League-Club'. The ability to gain utterly unique privilege and access to other businessmen and mega-rich individuals associated with chairman/director etc roles at SCFC/other Premier League Clubs. What a perk hey!
The ability to build an extremely extensive portfolio of 'contact(s)' is a f#cking lottery win in itself. Other businessmen pay for a similar 'deal' by joining 'exclusive' golf clubs and are prepared to pay £100,000 + a year membership to do exactly that. And to think knowing the right people can get you a nice little contract here and there just like?........Ummmmmmmmm? |  |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 20:08 - Oct 24 with 1448 views | Dr_Winston |
| The Trust selling up on 19:50 - Oct 24 by E20Jack |
My thoughts exactly. Anyone unable to commit the time without impacting their lives shouldn't make themselves available. It should be an unpaid role, for me that is unquestionable. |
Realistically, how many people would be able to say that? How many people would put themselves forward for the role under those conditions?
I have no problem with the job being a paid one, or expenses covered at the very least. The problem for me has been the secrecy over the whole thing, the potential for conflicts of interest over the other contracts, and the sadly not uncommon lapses in judgement of the incumbent. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 20:33 - Oct 24 with 1378 views | E20Jack |
| The Trust selling up on 20:08 - Oct 24 by Dr_Winston |
Realistically, how many people would be able to say that? How many people would put themselves forward for the role under those conditions?
I have no problem with the job being a paid one, or expenses covered at the very least. The problem for me has been the secrecy over the whole thing, the potential for conflicts of interest over the other contracts, and the sadly not uncommon lapses in judgement of the incumbent. |
I think if the Trust advertised for the position as an unpaid role as a director of a Premier League football club, they would have applications into the thousands I'd have thought. From retired businessmen, to hands off business owners, to people who realise the value of such a position who currently run a business. As a poster above said, the position alone is a windfall and an absolute privilege. | |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 20:38 - Oct 24 with 1358 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust selling up on 20:08 - Oct 24 by Dr_Winston |
Realistically, how many people would be able to say that? How many people would put themselves forward for the role under those conditions?
I have no problem with the job being a paid one, or expenses covered at the very least. The problem for me has been the secrecy over the whole thing, the potential for conflicts of interest over the other contracts, and the sadly not uncommon lapses in judgement of the incumbent. |
Yes I agree - if people knew that it was a paid role then might also get some quality NEDs to stepping forward. If not can then advertise for a professional. As long as the process is transparent.
Still also think that expenses incurred should be passed to the Trust, for sign off to then bill the club.
The Trust has a right to one Director on the board - so the club should have no issue settling an invoice from the Trust with the expenses of the Supporter Director, with appropriate receipts.
Really think the Supporters Director role should be a fixed term of 2 years maximum - as well. Stops any Supporter Director getting too close to the Board. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Trust selling up on 20:38 - Oct 24 with 1354 views | UplandsJack |
| The Trust selling up on 19:33 - Oct 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Bandwagon? I think not. I also wouldn't expect Huw Cooze to lose money in the course of carrying out whatever his duties as supporter director are. He should obviously have been reimbursed any out of pocket expenses in full. But the SD position is a voluntary one, or at least so we'd always been led to believe. If it became so that Huw Cooze couldn't carry it out without it having a detrimental effect on his other interests the role should have been passed to someone who had the time to commit to it. I can't get my head around to thinking that it's in any way right that the Trust's representative on the board of the football club, someone tasked with representing the fans' interests (which on occasion would undoubtedly have come into conflict with the interests of those running the club) should be paid by the club. It's just not right.
And to clarify again, I've never met Huw Cooze so have nothing against him personally. And I certainly have nothing personal against any members of the Trust board, some if whom I know and respect very much. |
Exactly.
Which is why I stated to PS previously that this and other "voluntary" role should only be allowed to be held for a period of 2 years followed then by a period of 2 year suspension of being able to stand again for that position.
If we are going to pay someone to fill the role of director representative, then we should advertise for the best man/woman to do so. They should be paid by the trust including all expenses so as to be transparent to all the members of the trust and then the trust can reclaim all from the club Instead.
Also going forward, I strongly believe no-one should be allowed to hold or even stand for any position within the trust if they have any personal business involvement with the club.
Finally, I too would like to clarify as ECB has that I have never met HC to the best of my knowledge and have nothing against him personally.
Please Huw, for the good of the Trust going forward I urge you to do the right thing and stand down. | | | |
| The Trust selling up on 20:42 - Oct 24 with 1325 views | Dr_Winston |
| The Trust selling up on 20:33 - Oct 24 by E20Jack |
I think if the Trust advertised for the position as an unpaid role as a director of a Premier League football club, they would have applications into the thousands I'd have thought. From retired businessmen, to hands off business owners, to people who realise the value of such a position who currently run a business. As a poster above said, the position alone is a windfall and an absolute privilege. |
I think you're over estimating the potential benefits of being a supporters representative on the board of a small Premier League club.
Anyone willing to do the job for free in exchange for potential benefits certainly won't be doing it with the best interests of the supporters in mind. That way lies craziness IMO. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 20:45 - Oct 24 with 1298 views | Wingstandwood |
| The Trust selling up on 20:33 - Oct 24 by E20Jack |
I think if the Trust advertised for the position as an unpaid role as a director of a Premier League football club, they would have applications into the thousands I'd have thought. From retired businessmen, to hands off business owners, to people who realise the value of such a position who currently run a business. As a poster above said, the position alone is a windfall and an absolute privilege. |
Yeah to make Huw Cooze to be some kind of hero of 'supreme-self-sacrifice' would be a complete and utter joke to other lesser SCST members who've volunteered any unpaid service or made rather nice donations.
He has experienced stuff that most supporters could only dream of whilst having VIP treatment, status, and earned money from the whole thing. [Post edited 24 Oct 2016 20:46]
| |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 20:53 - Oct 24 with 1266 views | Wingstandwood |
| The Trust selling up on 20:42 - Oct 24 by Dr_Winston |
I think you're over estimating the potential benefits of being a supporters representative on the board of a small Premier League club.
Anyone willing to do the job for free in exchange for potential benefits certainly won't be doing it with the best interests of the supporters in mind. That way lies craziness IMO. |
Over estimating? There must be something about 'director' title JVZ still hasn't taken it off his Twitter account and the others are clinging onto the club and the title like a f#cking ravenous leech. | |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 21:02 - Oct 24 with 1231 views | londonlisa2001 |
As one of the people that seems to have opened up this discussion, I just wanted to say a couple of things.
Firstly - I didn't know the answer to the question, so it was genuinely not loaded when I asked it. It was simply based on my experience on other boards that have non execs that represent shareholders' interests, most of whom get a directors fee, whether directly, or via a fee paid to the shareholder they represent. In some cases, this fee is not passed on, but that is where the person involved works full time for the shareholder, and it is part of their day to day job as a director of that organisation. If they are employed on behalf of the shareholder (rather than directly by the shareholder) they all get compensation. If they didn't, no one would do it.
Now in the instances I am talking about, I'm talking about PLCs, so many people are effectively professional NEDs, with all the experience and know how that brings.
This situation is a bit different - HC started his role when we were much smaller, and I can't imagine many people if anyone would have done all the things he did, free of charge, back when we were a tiny League 1 club.
Now we are a different beast and with all the demands made of the supporters' director's time, I think it's reasonable that the person nominated gets a fee. The only issues are firstly whether it should have always been transparent that a fee was received, and I'm sure everyone including the Trust think that it should. The second is whether the 'new' demands of the club mean that a paid director could have been chosen differently or whether HC was the 'right' person to continue with the role previously done for nothing. I simply do not know enough of HC to judge, but I am happy that the Trust board are allowed to make that assessment, both initially, and now.
I'm not apologising for asking the question, as I think it was an important one, but I am sorry that it has turned into a character assassination of someone that, from the outside at least, seems a very decent person, and someone who has done a lot for us supporters.
The actual reason I did ask the question by the way, is because I wanted to know if HC's only duty of care was to the Trust, or whether he also had a duty of care to the club as a paid director. It seems from the answer that he has both. | | | |
| The Trust selling up on 21:07 - Oct 24 with 1197 views | Darran |
| The Trust selling up on 21:02 - Oct 24 by londonlisa2001 |
As one of the people that seems to have opened up this discussion, I just wanted to say a couple of things.
Firstly - I didn't know the answer to the question, so it was genuinely not loaded when I asked it. It was simply based on my experience on other boards that have non execs that represent shareholders' interests, most of whom get a directors fee, whether directly, or via a fee paid to the shareholder they represent. In some cases, this fee is not passed on, but that is where the person involved works full time for the shareholder, and it is part of their day to day job as a director of that organisation. If they are employed on behalf of the shareholder (rather than directly by the shareholder) they all get compensation. If they didn't, no one would do it.
Now in the instances I am talking about, I'm talking about PLCs, so many people are effectively professional NEDs, with all the experience and know how that brings.
This situation is a bit different - HC started his role when we were much smaller, and I can't imagine many people if anyone would have done all the things he did, free of charge, back when we were a tiny League 1 club.
Now we are a different beast and with all the demands made of the supporters' director's time, I think it's reasonable that the person nominated gets a fee. The only issues are firstly whether it should have always been transparent that a fee was received, and I'm sure everyone including the Trust think that it should. The second is whether the 'new' demands of the club mean that a paid director could have been chosen differently or whether HC was the 'right' person to continue with the role previously done for nothing. I simply do not know enough of HC to judge, but I am happy that the Trust board are allowed to make that assessment, both initially, and now.
I'm not apologising for asking the question, as I think it was an important one, but I am sorry that it has turned into a character assassination of someone that, from the outside at least, seems a very decent person, and someone who has done a lot for us supporters.
The actual reason I did ask the question by the way, is because I wanted to know if HC's only duty of care was to the Trust, or whether he also had a duty of care to the club as a paid director. It seems from the answer that he has both. |
So you didn't know anything about it before you asked the question as Shaky alluded to over on nonce earlier. | |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 21:09 - Oct 24 with 1185 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust selling up on 21:07 - Oct 24 by Darran |
So you didn't know anything about it before you asked the question as Shaky alluded to over on nonce earlier. |
Sorry - what did Shaky say? I don't go on the other site. | | | |
| The Trust selling up on 21:14 - Oct 24 with 1151 views | Darran |
| The Trust selling up on 21:09 - Oct 24 by londonlisa2001 |
Sorry - what did Shaky say? I don't go on the other site. |
He said ........
"And having thought about this a bit more, it is one thing Uxbridge disclosing this on a messageboard but how the f*ck did Lisa catch wind of it?" | |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 21:16 - Oct 24 with 1141 views | morningstar |
| The Trust selling up on 21:14 - Oct 24 by Darran |
He said ........
"And having thought about this a bit more, it is one thing Uxbridge disclosing this on a messageboard but how the f*ck did Lisa catch wind of it?" |
In full............
Indeed so.
And having thought about this a bit more, it is one thing Uxbridge disclosing this on a messageboard but how the fvck did Lisa catch wind of it?
I's say I have looked at Trust communications fairly carefully, and I have seen no suggestion whatsoever that Cozy was being paid by anybody -- in fact quite the opposite!
So how did Lisa guess? Much more likely that somebody leaked this to 'manage' the reaction of fans.
Notrac is absolutely right, this whole thing stinks.
And those looking to lynch Cozy personally should bear in mind the presence of collective responsibility. He would have undoubtedly advised the Trust board of his board fees or whatever they are calling them, and Queen Phil would have decreed it was ok to trouser it.
They have then spent 9 months ostensibly working tirelessly on their Code of Conduct while probably feverishly trying to figure out the best way of revealing something they knew would be deeply unpopular. For the fans by the fans has proved to be a hollow slogan in more areas than one recently.
Shaky, Today at 16:27 |  |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 21:16 - Oct 24 with 1139 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust selling up on 21:02 - Oct 24 by londonlisa2001 |
As one of the people that seems to have opened up this discussion, I just wanted to say a couple of things.
Firstly - I didn't know the answer to the question, so it was genuinely not loaded when I asked it. It was simply based on my experience on other boards that have non execs that represent shareholders' interests, most of whom get a directors fee, whether directly, or via a fee paid to the shareholder they represent. In some cases, this fee is not passed on, but that is where the person involved works full time for the shareholder, and it is part of their day to day job as a director of that organisation. If they are employed on behalf of the shareholder (rather than directly by the shareholder) they all get compensation. If they didn't, no one would do it.
Now in the instances I am talking about, I'm talking about PLCs, so many people are effectively professional NEDs, with all the experience and know how that brings.
This situation is a bit different - HC started his role when we were much smaller, and I can't imagine many people if anyone would have done all the things he did, free of charge, back when we were a tiny League 1 club.
Now we are a different beast and with all the demands made of the supporters' director's time, I think it's reasonable that the person nominated gets a fee. The only issues are firstly whether it should have always been transparent that a fee was received, and I'm sure everyone including the Trust think that it should. The second is whether the 'new' demands of the club mean that a paid director could have been chosen differently or whether HC was the 'right' person to continue with the role previously done for nothing. I simply do not know enough of HC to judge, but I am happy that the Trust board are allowed to make that assessment, both initially, and now.
I'm not apologising for asking the question, as I think it was an important one, but I am sorry that it has turned into a character assassination of someone that, from the outside at least, seems a very decent person, and someone who has done a lot for us supporters.
The actual reason I did ask the question by the way, is because I wanted to know if HC's only duty of care was to the Trust, or whether he also had a duty of care to the club as a paid director. It seems from the answer that he has both. |
So if he has a duty of care to the club what are the implications of this? If for example he was privy to the offer from Steve and Jason and told by the club not to disclose it as confidential - how does he then decide whether to disclose it to the Trust - if he has also got a duty of care to the Trust?
Or on similar conflicts does the fact that he is a Supporter Director of the Trust means his duty of care to the Trust will always his duty of care to the club? | | | |
| The Trust selling up on 21:16 - Oct 24 with 1136 views | Humpty |
| The Trust selling up on 19:49 - Oct 24 by monmouth |
As I said earlier, it's blindingly obvious he should be replaced given the events of the last six months. I really expected the answer 'no' to does he get paid. I too was under the impression it was voluntary. If it is paid, I would have probably expected a damn sight more in standing up to these jerks over the last 12 months (i.e. a professional experienced non-exec). Which leads to the next question. How much? And don't tell me it's not our business anyone, because the higher it is, the more inducement there is to play ball, whoever you are, and whatever your 'moral compass'. |
It was blindingly obvious the answer was 'yes' when the question was left unanswered for days. Because they didn't want to answer it. |  | | |
| The Trust selling up on 21:19 - Oct 24 with 1109 views | Nookiejack |
| The Trust selling up on 21:16 - Oct 24 by Nookiejack |
So if he has a duty of care to the club what are the implications of this? If for example he was privy to the offer from Steve and Jason and told by the club not to disclose it as confidential - how does he then decide whether to disclose it to the Trust - if he has also got a duty of care to the Trust?
Or on similar conflicts does the fact that he is a Supporter Director of the Trust means his duty of care to the Trust will always his duty of care to the club? |
.......his duty of care to the Trust will always override his duty of care to the club?
Also if he wasn't paid does this mean he wouldn't have a duty of care to the club? | | | |
| The Trust selling up on 21:26 - Oct 24 with 1065 views | Return_of_the_Jack |
No wonder they want to find a working solution, Cooze will lose a wage and his design contract? |  | | |
| The Trust selling up on 21:26 - Oct 24 with 1065 views | NeiltheTaylor |
What a thoroughly demoralising read | |
| Joe_bradshaw -I thought the cryochamber was the new name for Cardiff's stadium.
|
| |
| The Trust selling up on 21:28 - Oct 24 with 1053 views | UplandsJack |
Lisa your last paragraph brings up yet further question marks over HC ability to fully and unconditionally carry out his role to represent the best interests of the fans.
I have to say this misrepresentation by the trust, continually banging on about the amount of work and effort HC has put in unpaid has turned out to be a joke ....
The whole sorry situation is turning into a joke....
The only certainty is, that in due course the real truth will come out and then the shit may well and truly hit the fan..... No pun intended.... Well maybe just a little! | | | |
| The Trust selling up on 21:34 - Oct 24 with 1024 views | exiledclaseboy |
I don't see how you can be a representative of one party on the board of a second party while at the same time being paid by that second party for being a representative of the first party. It's patently ridiculous and a clear potential conflict of interest. If the role of supporter director has become so large and ungainly that it's now a full time job with a salary attached then it needs to be redefined because that's clearly not what the role should be. In fact it's a complete contradiction of what the role should be. This has all got very messy.
And if the accusation of character assassination was in any way aimed at me I resent it. [Post edited 24 Oct 2016 21:36]
| |
| |
| The Trust selling up on 21:41 - Oct 24 with 986 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The Trust selling up on 21:16 - Oct 24 by morningstar |
In full............
Indeed so.
And having thought about this a bit more, it is one thing Uxbridge disclosing this on a messageboard but how the fvck did Lisa catch wind of it?
I's say I have looked at Trust communications fairly carefully, and I have seen no suggestion whatsoever that Cozy was being paid by anybody -- in fact quite the opposite!
So how did Lisa guess? Much more likely that somebody leaked this to 'manage' the reaction of fans.
Notrac is absolutely right, this whole thing stinks.
And those looking to lynch Cozy personally should bear in mind the presence of collective responsibility. He would have undoubtedly advised the Trust board of his board fees or whatever they are calling them, and Queen Phil would have decreed it was ok to trouser it.
They have then spent 9 months ostensibly working tirelessly on their Code of Conduct while probably feverishly trying to figure out the best way of revealing something they knew would be deeply unpopular. For the fans by the fans has proved to be a hollow slogan in more areas than one recently.
Shaky, Today at 16:27 |
Ah right.
No, it wasn't leaked to me. Nor was it a guess. It was based on my experience of what frequently happens and I didn't know the answer when I asked. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
