| Genuine question - from a Trust Member 19:19 - Nov 5 with 52057 views | marchamjack |
Were The Trust any part of the discussion process to keep Clement?
Thanks in advance. |  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |  |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:14 - Nov 12 with 1316 views | ItchySphincter |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 09:12 - Nov 12 by TheResurrection |
Oh FFS lad, how MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO BE REPEATING THE SAME OLD NONSENSE.
STAND DOWN FOR THE GOOD OF THE SUPPORTERS.
How can you endorse Stu Mac, since he's been SD it's gone from bad to worse and worse to desperate.
And don't try and Bullshit us with the views of the widerfan base being different to here.
You're on this site to learn more about the Swans and its issues, because you care. The ones that turn up for meetings. The geriatrics and other folk only have your communication to go on, and let's face it, that's nonexistent.
You've patronised us, hopefully for one of the last times, and stop the fack using hell, ..... That annoys the hell out of us as well.
It's time, Andrew, have a rest mate. [Post edited 12 Nov 2017 9:17]
|
I struggle to find anything positive in what he says yet he continues to get support on here. His attitude has always been along the lines of 'you don't really know what goes on' - well tell us then, break rank and stand up for the ordinary fan. The glib response of "if you don't like it, stand" doesn't wash either. Saying we can't let you know what's going on because it will rock the boat speaks for itself.
I believe he may well be as frustrated as the rest of us and his intentions are good but we are getting absolutely nowhere and we as a fan base are to blame. We had opportunity to change things and we failed, badly, and we can hardly call for a vote of no confidence when we elected these candidates and also voted for the sale of the shares.
I think people should have taken note of the bit that said "vote for me, I know some Americans and we should sell our shares" because that's what got him re-elected. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:24 - Nov 12 with 1275 views | Neath_Jack |
It's another nothing statement from me.
As a few others have said, fair play to Ux for posting on here, but it's nothing new there.
What we need as a minimum is those on the current board to tell us where they stand, have some courage in their convictions.
If they want to back Jenkins/Americans, tell us, if they want to go "nuclear", tell us, why are they still demanding £10 joining fee? Who's backing it and who's against it? Not hide away in closed shop meetings. Let's see if they have the bollocks to put their feelings out there, then the membership know who or what they are voting for.
We need to know who's saying what on "our" behalf.
They're just chinless wonders at the moment.
I'll bet the same things will be said come January then the same in the summer.
It's just waffle after waffle, no substance behind any of it, to me it just looks like people are on that board just for the kudos, so they can tell their work colleagues / mates down the pub that they are on the board.
If any of that is wrong, come on here and tell me, because apart from Ux, where are the rest of them? They all have internet access/smart phones/laptops whatever, there is no reason or excuse why they can't come on here.
It's all cosy secrets behind closed doors, time to open those doors and grow some bollocks or get the f*ck out of dodge. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:27 - Nov 12 with 1265 views | MattG |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 09:12 - Nov 12 by TheResurrection |
Oh FFS lad, how MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO BE REPEATING THE SAME OLD NONSENSE.
STAND DOWN FOR THE GOOD OF THE SUPPORTERS.
How can you endorse Stu Mac, since he's been SD it's gone from bad to worse and worse to desperate.
And don't try and Bullshit us with the views of the widerfan base being different to here.
You're on this site to learn more about the Swans and its issues, because you care. The ones that turn up for meetings. The geriatrics and other folk only have your communication to go on, and let's face it, that's nonexistent.
You've patronised us, hopefully for one of the last times, and stop the fack using hell, ..... That annoys the hell out of us as well.
It's time, Andrew, have a rest mate. [Post edited 12 Nov 2017 9:17]
|
If you are looking for change, how is demanding the resignation of one of the few Trust Board members that is actually in favour of that going to help achieve your aim?
Serious question. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:29 - Nov 12 with 1255 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 08:39 - Nov 12 by Uxbridge |
And I stand by that. Hell, I said it at the time.
Cards on the table here, and I suspect I won't be thanked for this but it needs saying if only to demonstrate that there are often competing voices within the Trust board which is pretty important in itself, it's not even close to the statement I wanted. However, democratic rules apply just like any board or group and we are where we are. The reaction was predictable.
That democratic aspect is something some people on here have always failed to grasp. You need a majority of 8 board members usually to carry anything. Individuals get singled out on here, but it's a collective organisation. Sometimes not an issue, such as recommending the deal based on the reality at that time, but sometimes it is. Usually those differences should be kept in-house but on important issues where the membership is split, I'd argue otherwise. I'm not here to slate any of them though ... They had the stones to put themselves out there.
Everything always comes back to communication. Content and frequency. I think there's a willingness to grasp the latter, but it's the former that is often the more important.
This isn't an issue of dark dealings or even blackmail, there are no things held over anyone as far as I can tell. Jenkins doesn't have anything on anyone on the Trust board, to the best of my knowledge anyway, but it's a lovely theory. If you want my opinion, it's principally a simple case of risk aversion, which I believe a former board member mentioned earlier in the thread. Consider what is the impact of playing things out in the public domain, especially at the moment. Saying something to the Americans in private is one thing, and that has happened, playing it out in public quite another. What is the best way to achieve the goals of the Trust, or indeed the mandate of our members just this summer? There may be other factors at play, but ultimately I think it comes down to that, how do the interests of the Trust and its members best get served and differing views on that.
All the more frustrating, as I can see the good job that is being doing on a day to day basis by many. Stu is an excellent SD in his dealings with the club. I couldn't think of anyone better suited for that role. He has the experience, knowledge and drive for the role, plus the time now to do it. From a governance perspective, he's the right man too. However, yet again, the failures in communication, this time in terms of frequency in particular mean that doesn't make itself into the public consciousness. Ultimately it's systemic across the board.
So, what do you do, as someone who thinks the Trust needs to be far more robust in public? Easy answer is resign and try and force the issue from the outside. Question is whether that would just exacerbate the issue. Or, do you try and work from the inside and represent the alternative case from there. There's no right or wrong answer to that, that's up to the individual and in truth I'm torn on that question.
This is the crux, isn't it? The Trust will, or can, only ever act in the way that those who engage with it want it to. It's generally risk averse because so is the membership overall, and ultimately it's from that pool are those who stands for election. We saw that in the summer, in both elections. Those attending the forums were simply in a different place to people on this site. Hell, we see it on a match day when the masses only get worked up when things turn bad on the pitch. It's self perpetuating in that regard. I've said this plenty of times before but it's even more pertinent now... The Trust will only act in the way you want it to if people who think like you join it and stand for election. Wait for it to happen, scream and demand it til you're blue in the face, but it never will until then. It's a numbers game, it won't just take 1 or 2 people having a go, and it'll need people of a higher calibre than the likes of Handley, who frankly is letting himself down on a daily basis with his conduct online. I hope some of the posters here reassess their position in that regard, you'd be welcome additions.
For what it's worth, I can see that there's a lot of willingness to improve on the engagement aspect. More frequent, more access etc. There's a lot done face to face already, and in many ways that's equally important, but there needs to be much more communication with the members online across the various mediums. I'd like to see individuals taking that up too, although given the inevitable comments from specific posters I don't blame those who don't.
Anyway, the Trust board will be judged on its actions in that regard, as it should be, and if they're not up to snuff then the members have the power to remove at least half every summer. Question is who replaces them, which gets back to my earlier comment.
However, an important question is what do people want the Trust to be. If you wanted the Trust to have been on the front line last week protesting and demanding the removal of the chairman, then that's not going to happen, especially with everything else going on. If it's acting like that, then the relationship with the Americans has totally broken down. As we're not at that point, things will be done differently. And indeed should be IMO. However, it shouldn't mean silence, and it shouldn't mean not publicly criticising aspects of the club and urging changing where it's needed, and too often it has, even if that isn't the private position.
The statement, albeit bland, mentioned a couple of things going on. The progress on those areas, and the Trust views and involvement, needs to be publicised in the coming days. This statement needs to be the start of that. Without that, the slow creep to irrelevance will continue.
So, that's where I am. I'm probably not doing myself any favours by posting this, on here or elsewhere, and me doing so may dictate what happens next anyway, but it's what I think and that's all I can ever say and that's all I ever said I'd do. Apologies for replicating War and Peace but I always did bang on a bit. |
You keep saying it is a democratic process, but how is it that when the people in charge of distributing the voting papers etc were clearly trying to influence as many as possible into voting one way. You and the others did not make a fair case for both, you clearly wanted a specific result and made that clear.
When I walk into my polling station and I am given my paper, the lady doesn't tell me that voting for x would be best as it does this and that, where as voting for y would be poor and isn't what I recommend.
I say this every time, pay somebody to work 5 hours a week. One hour to sit down with McDonald and get a list of everything new that you're prepared to share and then 4 hours a week updating the website, sending a newsletter, answering emails etc. It isn't hard. You don't need to spend 3 months discussing how to improve engagement and setting up a subgroup to come up with this sort of stuff. It's farcical to be honest. Absolutely ridiculous. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:29 - Nov 12 with 1258 views | Neath_Jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:27 - Nov 12 by MattG |
If you are looking for change, how is demanding the resignation of one of the few Trust Board members that is actually in favour of that going to help achieve your aim?
Serious question. |
Well you should all put out a manifesto then no?
You got the bollocks for that? | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:33 - Nov 12 with 1245 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:27 - Nov 12 by MattG |
If you are looking for change, how is demanding the resignation of one of the few Trust Board members that is actually in favour of that going to help achieve your aim?
Serious question. |
Because, with their knowledge and experience, I think he, and/or Phil, would be more effective outside the tent pissing in. Change simply hasn’t happened, and simply won’t with the current arrangement.
Sorry Matt it wasn’t me you were asking. Did you get elected by the way? If not, that is a damning example there of the malaise. People that have been there for donkeys years still there, and can stay forever if they want, whilst others that might want to shake things up are barred. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:34 - Nov 12 with 1239 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:03 - Nov 12 by MoscowJack |
Thanks Ux for not only having the balls to come on here and address the problems directly again, but for admitting that things are nowhere near where you'd like them to be.
If I understand correctly, there have been some strong or passionate discussions with the Americans but the Trust have decided not to go into any detail in this statement. I think that's one of the biggest mistakes made is this statement was crying out for a bit of passion and emotion.
I think the fans need the Trust to feel and emulate the frustration of the fans - frustration with the old owners, new owners, the manager, the team, the style of play, the commercial department, the lack of customer service, the quality of the bloody beer/food, etc etc etc. On top of this, there's a potentially damaging stadium lease deal that I haven't heard the Trust talk about once (in detail).
I know so many fans who, like me, truly felt "Swansea til I Die" but now no longer feel anywhere near 'in love' with the club as we have been for decades. A defeat used to effect me for a week and I'm not talking just about the last 10 years, but the last 40.
There isn't one simple reason for this - there are many. We all knew that one day we would get relegated but we all hoped that we would go down still keeping our identity strong, going down with pride and surviving as a club because we're nothing like the basket case off the pitch that Sunderland or Villa were.
Unfortunately, we're looking more and more like Sunderland and Villa every week and I can't understand why the Trust can't at least SHOW the same concerns that we have. I'm absolutely furious with the way our club is spiraling out of control and I can see that many others feel exactly the same way too. I'm not 'slightly concerned' or 'a tad worried' - I'm really fking angry, very frustrated and demand that certain things are addressed asap.
I totally get that some members of the Trust Board are more risk-averse and don't want to rock the boat, but either the Trust Board represents the beliefs and concerns of the fans or it's not a fans' body anymore. I know this won't happen, but would we be able to know what was voted on and who objected? If there are people within the Trust Board who are holding others back from being more vocal on certain issues then maybe they should be named? After all, they were voted in, weren't they? Shouldn't the people who voted for them know what they have done to represent them in the Trust Boardroom?
I know it's tough for you to say too much without letting down your fellow Board members but it seems that the Trust is publicly behaving in the weakest way it ever has, at a time when it's needed more than it has been for years. [Post edited 12 Nov 2017 11:40]
|
When you say “either the Trust Board represents the beliefs and concerns of the fans or it’s not a fans body anymore” I fear that the overwhelming majority of fans (people who attend games - the term “fans” is a moot point) neither have strong beliefs nor have much in the way of concerns. Their interest will wane then die when we go down. Maybe the Trust can be blamed for some of that apathy for not getting the message across but it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation.
I think that Planet Swans posters are the militant wing of the fan base and are the most passionate fans but are they representative of the fan bas as a whole? I think not and maybe the Trust are merely representing the silent majority.
When the “greedy b*****s” chant goes up at games a very small percentage of the crowd join in. Apathy is the enemy at the moment and maybe it needs another supporters’ organisation to get the message across. It needs a significant section of the crowd to turn when the Americans are present at the Liberty to make them sit up and take notice.
I don’t have any answers but maybe well organised demonstrations or even walking out of matches would get the message across but it would need more than 5 or even 10 percent of the crowd to be involved to have any effect. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:35 - Nov 12 with 1231 views | DafyddHuw |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:27 - Nov 12 by MattG |
If you are looking for change, how is demanding the resignation of one of the few Trust Board members that is actually in favour of that going to help achieve your aim?
Serious question. |
Because if he did resign, maybe the chinless wonders on the board who are "risk averse" (i.e. afraid) might sit up and wonder why he did it.
I still don't know why Ux gets kudos for sticking his head above the parapet. It's the very least I'd expect all 15 of them to do.
And what's all this nonsense about "the majority rules" and collectivity? Has nobody on the board ever heard of minority reports/statements?
The whole thing is a shower of shit and I wish I didn't care. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:35 - Nov 12 with 1228 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:29 - Nov 12 by Neath_Jack |
Well you should all put out a manifesto then no?
You got the bollocks for that? |
If he was elected, I’d agree.. just don’t know, and (you’ll empathise with this) can’t be arsed to check on the site...:) | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:38 - Nov 12 with 1213 views | MattG |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:33 - Nov 12 by monmouth |
Because, with their knowledge and experience, I think he, and/or Phil, would be more effective outside the tent pissing in. Change simply hasn’t happened, and simply won’t with the current arrangement.
Sorry Matt it wasn’t me you were asking. Did you get elected by the way? If not, that is a damning example there of the malaise. People that have been there for donkeys years still there, and can stay forever if they want, whilst others that might want to shake things up are barred. |
I was co-opted again in August but have just resigned my position.
I'm not going to go into details but, suffice to say, it's been a difficult last couple of months for some of us. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:41 - Nov 12 with 1194 views | DafyddHuw |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:38 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I was co-opted again in August but have just resigned my position.
I'm not going to go into details but, suffice to say, it's been a difficult last couple of months for some of us. |
Why not go inyo details? What's the problem? Are you saying members don't have a right to know? | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:42 - Nov 12 with 1194 views | MattG |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:35 - Nov 12 by DafyddHuw |
Because if he did resign, maybe the chinless wonders on the board who are "risk averse" (i.e. afraid) might sit up and wonder why he did it.
I still don't know why Ux gets kudos for sticking his head above the parapet. It's the very least I'd expect all 15 of them to do.
And what's all this nonsense about "the majority rules" and collectivity? Has nobody on the board ever heard of minority reports/statements?
The whole thing is a shower of shit and I wish I didn't care. |
The Board, rightly or wrongly, works on the basis of collective responsibility. It wouldn't help matters in dealings with the Yanks if they were seen to be publicly arguing amongst themselves.
I agree that he has the option to resign but might feel that he wants to continue the fight from within - that's his call. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:46 - Nov 12 with 1179 views | MattG |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:41 - Nov 12 by DafyddHuw |
Why not go inyo details? What's the problem? Are you saying members don't have a right to know? |
I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions from the timing of things. Basically my view of how the Trust should go forward didn't chime with the majority of the Board, hence my decision.
The thing is that different people have different points of view and what matters is that they are making decisions for what they feel are the right reasons. I don't have a monopoly on my point of view being the right one. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:52 - Nov 12 with 1158 views | DafyddHuw |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:46 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions from the timing of things. Basically my view of how the Trust should go forward didn't chime with the majority of the Board, hence my decision.
The thing is that different people have different points of view and what matters is that they are making decisions for what they feel are the right reasons. I don't have a monopoly on my point of view being the right one. |
Well done and well said.
Takes a big person to do/say that. I take my hat off toyou. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:52 - Nov 12 with 1156 views | MoscowJack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:34 - Nov 12 by Joe_bradshaw |
When you say “either the Trust Board represents the beliefs and concerns of the fans or it’s not a fans body anymore” I fear that the overwhelming majority of fans (people who attend games - the term “fans” is a moot point) neither have strong beliefs nor have much in the way of concerns. Their interest will wane then die when we go down. Maybe the Trust can be blamed for some of that apathy for not getting the message across but it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation.
I think that Planet Swans posters are the militant wing of the fan base and are the most passionate fans but are they representative of the fan bas as a whole? I think not and maybe the Trust are merely representing the silent majority.
When the “greedy b*****s” chant goes up at games a very small percentage of the crowd join in. Apathy is the enemy at the moment and maybe it needs another supporters’ organisation to get the message across. It needs a significant section of the crowd to turn when the Americans are present at the Liberty to make them sit up and take notice.
I don’t have any answers but maybe well organised demonstrations or even walking out of matches would get the message across but it would need more than 5 or even 10 percent of the crowd to be involved to have any effect. |
Joe,
I get what you're saying but I think (hope!) that the silent ones are mainly the ones who we won't see if/when we're relegated. Some of them are only "Swansea til We're Crap" and not "Swansea Til We Die".
There's a hardcore of fans (it's hard to tell how many nowadays, but I'd say maybe 4k-6k) who are hurting now and not just because of the results. The style of the performances, the handling of the take-over, the silence from the Trust (off the back of some embarrassing own goals in the last year or so) as well as what seems to be a perceived willingness to stand back and let it all happen.
I know, for a fact, that there's a lot of passionate and capable people on the Trust's Board, but are they having their hands tied (or mouths censored) because it's a democratic system? Surely the whole point of having the likes of Ux on the Trust Board is because we need eyes and ears within the camp to see what's actually being done, and the effect it positively?
Sadly it seems some are up for a fight and others clearly aren't. That's human nature, I suppose, but we need a Trust Board that's fit for purpose at this moment of its existence and I don't believe it is. I'm certainly not calling for everyone to resign (that would be insane) but I think more we might need more transparency about what's on the agenda and who's voted for/against certain things.
I can tell you this....the Yanks are laughing now! The weaker the Trust appear, the stronger they are. Personally, I don't think it's too late for the Trust yet, but it's going to need quite a big change internally to (a) get fans believing again and (b) to then get the respect they/we deserve from the business partners!
I know it's a TINY thing, but the club haven't even got "Supporters Trust" written properly on the link to it on the official website! |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:53 - Nov 12 with 1149 views | ItchySphincter |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:38 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I was co-opted again in August but have just resigned my position.
I'm not going to go into details but, suffice to say, it's been a difficult last couple of months for some of us. |
You shouldn't have needed to be co-opted, you should have walked straight in. I don't know you personally but I felt you were one of the better candidates at the time and I'm genuinely sorry that, for whatever reason, you've gone. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:54 - Nov 12 with 1144 views | Neath_Jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:38 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I was co-opted again in August but have just resigned my position.
I'm not going to go into details but, suffice to say, it's been a difficult last couple of months for some of us. |
Adds more weight to the point that we need to know, who stands where on the important issues.
So that's you and Ian James that have resigned recently then, so the new blood are getting shouted out?
Any others resigned? You should be shouting the reasons from the rooftops IMO. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:54 - Nov 12 with 1144 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:46 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions from the timing of things. Basically my view of how the Trust should go forward didn't chime with the majority of the Board, hence my decision.
The thing is that different people have different points of view and what matters is that they are making decisions for what they feel are the right reasons. I don't have a monopoly on my point of view being the right one. |
But surely it IS right that the arguments ARE put in front of the members, so they know what their representatives do and don’t stand for. It’s not the Kremlin, though it feels like it. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:55 - Nov 12 with 1134 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 08:39 - Nov 12 by Uxbridge |
And I stand by that. Hell, I said it at the time.
Cards on the table here, and I suspect I won't be thanked for this but it needs saying if only to demonstrate that there are often competing voices within the Trust board which is pretty important in itself, it's not even close to the statement I wanted. However, democratic rules apply just like any board or group and we are where we are. The reaction was predictable.
That democratic aspect is something some people on here have always failed to grasp. You need a majority of 8 board members usually to carry anything. Individuals get singled out on here, but it's a collective organisation. Sometimes not an issue, such as recommending the deal based on the reality at that time, but sometimes it is. Usually those differences should be kept in-house but on important issues where the membership is split, I'd argue otherwise. I'm not here to slate any of them though ... They had the stones to put themselves out there.
Everything always comes back to communication. Content and frequency. I think there's a willingness to grasp the latter, but it's the former that is often the more important.
This isn't an issue of dark dealings or even blackmail, there are no things held over anyone as far as I can tell. Jenkins doesn't have anything on anyone on the Trust board, to the best of my knowledge anyway, but it's a lovely theory. If you want my opinion, it's principally a simple case of risk aversion, which I believe a former board member mentioned earlier in the thread. Consider what is the impact of playing things out in the public domain, especially at the moment. Saying something to the Americans in private is one thing, and that has happened, playing it out in public quite another. What is the best way to achieve the goals of the Trust, or indeed the mandate of our members just this summer? There may be other factors at play, but ultimately I think it comes down to that, how do the interests of the Trust and its members best get served and differing views on that.
All the more frustrating, as I can see the good job that is being doing on a day to day basis by many. Stu is an excellent SD in his dealings with the club. I couldn't think of anyone better suited for that role. He has the experience, knowledge and drive for the role, plus the time now to do it. From a governance perspective, he's the right man too. However, yet again, the failures in communication, this time in terms of frequency in particular mean that doesn't make itself into the public consciousness. Ultimately it's systemic across the board.
So, what do you do, as someone who thinks the Trust needs to be far more robust in public? Easy answer is resign and try and force the issue from the outside. Question is whether that would just exacerbate the issue. Or, do you try and work from the inside and represent the alternative case from there. There's no right or wrong answer to that, that's up to the individual and in truth I'm torn on that question.
This is the crux, isn't it? The Trust will, or can, only ever act in the way that those who engage with it want it to. It's generally risk averse because so is the membership overall, and ultimately it's from that pool are those who stands for election. We saw that in the summer, in both elections. Those attending the forums were simply in a different place to people on this site. Hell, we see it on a match day when the masses only get worked up when things turn bad on the pitch. It's self perpetuating in that regard. I've said this plenty of times before but it's even more pertinent now... The Trust will only act in the way you want it to if people who think like you join it and stand for election. Wait for it to happen, scream and demand it til you're blue in the face, but it never will until then. It's a numbers game, it won't just take 1 or 2 people having a go, and it'll need people of a higher calibre than the likes of Handley, who frankly is letting himself down on a daily basis with his conduct online. I hope some of the posters here reassess their position in that regard, you'd be welcome additions.
For what it's worth, I can see that there's a lot of willingness to improve on the engagement aspect. More frequent, more access etc. There's a lot done face to face already, and in many ways that's equally important, but there needs to be much more communication with the members online across the various mediums. I'd like to see individuals taking that up too, although given the inevitable comments from specific posters I don't blame those who don't.
Anyway, the Trust board will be judged on its actions in that regard, as it should be, and if they're not up to snuff then the members have the power to remove at least half every summer. Question is who replaces them, which gets back to my earlier comment.
However, an important question is what do people want the Trust to be. If you wanted the Trust to have been on the front line last week protesting and demanding the removal of the chairman, then that's not going to happen, especially with everything else going on. If it's acting like that, then the relationship with the Americans has totally broken down. As we're not at that point, things will be done differently. And indeed should be IMO. However, it shouldn't mean silence, and it shouldn't mean not publicly criticising aspects of the club and urging changing where it's needed, and too often it has, even if that isn't the private position.
The statement, albeit bland, mentioned a couple of things going on. The progress on those areas, and the Trust views and involvement, needs to be publicised in the coming days. This statement needs to be the start of that. Without that, the slow creep to irrelevance will continue.
So, that's where I am. I'm probably not doing myself any favours by posting this, on here or elsewhere, and me doing so may dictate what happens next anyway, but it's what I think and that's all I can ever say and that's all I ever said I'd do. Apologies for replicating War and Peace but I always did bang on a bit. |
"I hope some of the posters here reassess their position in that regard, you'd be welcome additions."
What is that supposed to mean? You've said a few times that people aren't prepared to do stuff - you've even used phrases like 'the silence is deafening'. What is it that you mean?
On a wider note, if you disagree with the direction being taken, resign. It's all that you can do. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:57 - Nov 12 with 1124 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:53 - Nov 12 by ItchySphincter |
You shouldn't have needed to be co-opted, you should have walked straight in. I don't know you personally but I felt you were one of the better candidates at the time and I'm genuinely sorry that, for whatever reason, you've gone. |
Hear hear | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:58 - Nov 12 with 1121 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:33 - Nov 12 by monmouth |
Because, with their knowledge and experience, I think he, and/or Phil, would be more effective outside the tent pissing in. Change simply hasn’t happened, and simply won’t with the current arrangement.
Sorry Matt it wasn’t me you were asking. Did you get elected by the way? If not, that is a damning example there of the malaise. People that have been there for donkeys years still there, and can stay forever if they want, whilst others that might want to shake things up are barred. |
It's surely highly unlikely that the Chairman shares your position, Mon. If he did, the Trust would take a different approach. Ultimately the direction taken by an organisation comes from the top. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:03 - Nov 12 with 1092 views | DafyddHuw |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:55 - Nov 12 by londonlisa2001 |
"I hope some of the posters here reassess their position in that regard, you'd be welcome additions."
What is that supposed to mean? You've said a few times that people aren't prepared to do stuff - you've even used phrases like 'the silence is deafening'. What is it that you mean?
On a wider note, if you disagree with the direction being taken, resign. It's all that you can do. |
He's changing it from within,mun - by going along with the majority of the board, no matter what they decide.
If there's logic to that , then I still don't get it. If youi fundamentaly disagree with something, surely if it's that much against what you believe in then you just can't go along with it. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:04 - Nov 12 with 1082 views | NeathJack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:54 - Nov 12 by Neath_Jack |
Adds more weight to the point that we need to know, who stands where on the important issues.
So that's you and Ian James that have resigned recently then, so the new blood are getting shouted out?
Any others resigned? You should be shouting the reasons from the rooftops IMO. |
I completely agree.
It's quite clear that something is really not right if you've got board members resigning in protest at the direction the Trust is going.
I tip my hat to Matt for his principled position but the reasons for any resignation under these circumstances should be made loud and clear to the members. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:04 - Nov 12 with 1082 views | MattG |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:54 - Nov 12 by monmouth |
But surely it IS right that the arguments ARE put in front of the members, so they know what their representatives do and don’t stand for. It’s not the Kremlin, though it feels like it. |
Suggest that may be one for the next election rather now. As I said in another post, my views were different but not necessarily right. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:06 - Nov 12 with 1065 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:03 - Nov 12 by DafyddHuw |
He's changing it from within,mun - by going along with the majority of the board, no matter what they decide.
If there's logic to that , then I still don't get it. If youi fundamentaly disagree with something, surely if it's that much against what you believe in then you just can't go along with it. |
I get the argument to be fair.
It's one that each of us had to have with ourselves in deciding whether to renew or not I guess on a smaller scale.
I decided not to as I couldn't see any appetite for what I thought they should be doing.
I did think that if they put out a strong statement this week I would have rejoined, but same again, so I haven't. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
