| Supporters Trust governance documents 22:20 - Oct 24 with 12861 views | Uxbridge |
Following on from the SD dicussions in the other threads, the aforementioned documents relating to the Trust roles, responsibilities and governance documents are now available at http://www.swanstrust.co.uk/join-the-trust-board/ .
There are four documents online :
a) Key Roles and Posts - which details the non SD roles in the Trust
b) Conflict of Interest and Disciplinary Process - which details any currently perceived conflicts of interest, process to review and also internal governance procedures
c) Supporters Director Role - which details the specific Supporters Director role
d) Declaration Register - Which details business interests of Trust board members at the football club, and relevant details where not commercially sensitive.
This has taken a considerable time to discuss, agree and complete and I think is a significant step forward in ensuring the Trust is completely open and above board going forward in how its board members operate and any interactions with the club.
All feedback welcomed. [Post edited 24 Oct 2016 23:16]
|  |
| |  |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 23:29 - Oct 24 with 6465 views | Uxbridge |
URL updated with the SD and Members Interests documentation | |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 23:42 - Oct 24 with 6427 views | barry_island |
They seem a good step forward. Presumably the lack of role rotation is down to a lack of volunteers?
The second bullet under SD remuneration is I assume solely related to SCFC activities?
Thanks Uxbridge. |  |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 23:50 - Oct 24 with 6410 views | Uxbridge |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 23:42 - Oct 24 by barry_island |
They seem a good step forward. Presumably the lack of role rotation is down to a lack of volunteers?
The second bullet under SD remuneration is I assume solely related to SCFC activities?
Thanks Uxbridge. |
Yeah, that was a big discussion topic. Some favoured a shorter term, some longer. The argument that held sway was that it takes some time to get to grips with the particular roles, especially the SD one, and by the time they're up to speed it'd be time to go.
WHich bit was the second bullet sorry? | |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 23:55 - Oct 24 with 6386 views | barry_island |
The second bullet under point 5 related to remuneration of the SD. Said the SD would need the approval of the trust board before taking offer of employment etc. I assume this is only the case if the employment is SCFC related. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 23:57 - Oct 24 with 6371 views | Uxbridge |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 23:55 - Oct 24 by barry_island |
The second bullet under point 5 related to remuneration of the SD. Said the SD would need the approval of the trust board before taking offer of employment etc. I assume this is only the case if the employment is SCFC related. |
Ah OK. Yes, absolutely, only relates to something that relates to the football club. [Post edited 24 Oct 2016 23:58]
| |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:05 - Oct 25 with 6338 views | Gowerjack |
Just some questions please;
Why are these guidelines only being published now?
The Trust has been in existence for a considerable number of years.
Why is there now an imperative to advertise these rulings?
I am paticuarly intereested in this statement;
Supporters Director Remuneration
- All monies paid in respect of the Supporters Director role are to be paid to the Supporters Trust. The Trust Board to determine payment to the Supporters Director, based on the time and commitment involved in executing his/her duties and impact on his/her current employment.
- The Supporters Director should not enter into any paid employment, commercial agreement or business arrangement without the unanimous agreement of the ST Board.
I feel that it is essential that the Supporters Director should have no opportunity to benefit from any commercial dealings with the football club.
The role surely is to monitor and safeguard the investment of the real supporters of the Club,why is it not the case that any financial relationship between the Trust member and the Club be expressly prohibited?
So in truth have the Trust been too cosy with the Vipers nest that has been running our clu? [Post edited 25 Oct 2016 0:09]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:14 - Oct 25 with 6281 views | Uxbridge |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:05 - Oct 25 by Gowerjack |
Just some questions please;
Why are these guidelines only being published now?
The Trust has been in existence for a considerable number of years.
Why is there now an imperative to advertise these rulings?
I am paticuarly intereested in this statement;
Supporters Director Remuneration
- All monies paid in respect of the Supporters Director role are to be paid to the Supporters Trust. The Trust Board to determine payment to the Supporters Director, based on the time and commitment involved in executing his/her duties and impact on his/her current employment.
- The Supporters Director should not enter into any paid employment, commercial agreement or business arrangement without the unanimous agreement of the ST Board.
I feel that it is essential that the Supporters Director should have no opportunity to benefit from any commercial dealings with the football club.
The role surely is to monitor and safeguard the investment of the real supporters of the Club,why is it not the case that any financial relationship between the Trust member and the Club be expressly prohibited?
So in truth have the Trust been too cosy with the Vipers nest that has been running our clu? [Post edited 25 Oct 2016 0:09]
|
Why now? Well it's been a long time coming. 12 months in truth. I think a number of Trust board members identified potential weaknesses and the decision to perform a comprehensive review was taken. These were approved at the October board meeting a few weeks ago. They should have been published immediately but focus slipped with all that's been going on. The discussion on here probably focused minds a little bit, but the work was already complete.
In terms of prohibiting any dealing between the SD and the Club, this again was something discussed in depth. There were two main views .. the absolutist view such as yours, and the view that there may be valid reasons for such a relationship to exist, especially in a place as small as Swansea where people have interests across multiple areas, and might result in cutting noses off to spite face. So, in that scenario, issues such as transparency and presenting the full picture for public scrutiny was required.
Has the Trust been too cosy? I wouldn't use the word cosy. Niave possibly, trusting maybe. I'm not sure that's right though. Basically you can't legislate for people acting disgracefully, which is what I believe the sellers did in the way they acted.
I do view all this as a first draft though. Once people have digested I'm sure it'll generate much comment and amendments may be necessary. We are an organisation of the members ultimately. | |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:35 - Oct 25 with 6237 views | Gowerjack |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:14 - Oct 25 by Uxbridge |
Why now? Well it's been a long time coming. 12 months in truth. I think a number of Trust board members identified potential weaknesses and the decision to perform a comprehensive review was taken. These were approved at the October board meeting a few weeks ago. They should have been published immediately but focus slipped with all that's been going on. The discussion on here probably focused minds a little bit, but the work was already complete.
In terms of prohibiting any dealing between the SD and the Club, this again was something discussed in depth. There were two main views .. the absolutist view such as yours, and the view that there may be valid reasons for such a relationship to exist, especially in a place as small as Swansea where people have interests across multiple areas, and might result in cutting noses off to spite face. So, in that scenario, issues such as transparency and presenting the full picture for public scrutiny was required.
Has the Trust been too cosy? I wouldn't use the word cosy. Niave possibly, trusting maybe. I'm not sure that's right though. Basically you can't legislate for people acting disgracefully, which is what I believe the sellers did in the way they acted.
I do view all this as a first draft though. Once people have digested I'm sure it'll generate much comment and amendments may be necessary. We are an organisation of the members ultimately. |
I'm really sorry to have to say this but the Trust has quite possibly taken their eye of the ball here.
Now I might be remembering this wrong but wasn't the Trust formed after Petty tried to rob the Club blind?
So surely the primary role of the Trust was to make sure this never happened again?
But it has....
Were they to cosy with the rest of the board?
That surely now had to be up for discussion.
Surerly it is only basic common sense to prohibit a commercial relationship between the Trust director and the Football Club?
As I metioned earlier why is it only now that these governance documents have been set up and published?
Now I don't think for a moment that if the Trust had been more clear it woold have stopped the greedy b satards but surely it needs to be smarter in how it interacts with the Club?
[Post edited 25 Oct 2016 0:44]
| |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:45 - Oct 25 with 6208 views | Uxbridge |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:35 - Oct 25 by Gowerjack |
I'm really sorry to have to say this but the Trust has quite possibly taken their eye of the ball here.
Now I might be remembering this wrong but wasn't the Trust formed after Petty tried to rob the Club blind?
So surely the primary role of the Trust was to make sure this never happened again?
But it has....
Were they to cosy with the rest of the board?
That surely now had to be up for discussion.
Surerly it is only basic common sense to prohibit a commercial relationship between the Trust director and the Football Club?
As I metioned earlier why is it only now that these governance documents have been set up and published?
Now I don't think for a moment that if the Trust had been more clear it woold have stopped the greedy b satards but surely it needs to be smarter in how it interacts with the Club?
[Post edited 25 Oct 2016 0:44]
|
Like I said, issues were identified and hopefully these address it.
Why not 10 years ago? 5? Fair point. What can I say, different times, different people, plus the SD role has extended somewhat when it encompassed the SLO activities. It shouldn't have done that IMO but there we are. | |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 01:00 - Oct 25 with 6180 views | UplandsJack |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:14 - Oct 25 by Uxbridge |
Why now? Well it's been a long time coming. 12 months in truth. I think a number of Trust board members identified potential weaknesses and the decision to perform a comprehensive review was taken. These were approved at the October board meeting a few weeks ago. They should have been published immediately but focus slipped with all that's been going on. The discussion on here probably focused minds a little bit, but the work was already complete.
In terms of prohibiting any dealing between the SD and the Club, this again was something discussed in depth. There were two main views .. the absolutist view such as yours, and the view that there may be valid reasons for such a relationship to exist, especially in a place as small as Swansea where people have interests across multiple areas, and might result in cutting noses off to spite face. So, in that scenario, issues such as transparency and presenting the full picture for public scrutiny was required.
Has the Trust been too cosy? I wouldn't use the word cosy. Niave possibly, trusting maybe. I'm not sure that's right though. Basically you can't legislate for people acting disgracefully, which is what I believe the sellers did in the way they acted.
I do view all this as a first draft though. Once people have digested I'm sure it'll generate much comment and amendments may be necessary. We are an organisation of the members ultimately. |
I believe this has all come about from the fact the Trust had become too comfortable and cosy with all the success in recent years.
I think the initial wake up call came last year when the first American take-over came to light and a few, myself included questioned on here the roles of a few of the Trust board, especially HC and his conflict of interest with his own personal business dealings with the club.
On reflection I'm glad the trust has released this, but it does feel a bit like damage limitation if you ask me... I also still strongly feel no Supporters Director can properly represent the interest 100% of the fans, if he/she has a personal commercial interest directly with the club... Sorry but disclosure or not, I just honestly cannot see how this could not possibly have an affect in carrying out the duties the position carries . |  | | |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 01:01 - Oct 25 with 6178 views | Gowerjack |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 00:45 - Oct 25 by Uxbridge |
Like I said, issues were identified and hopefully these address it.
Why not 10 years ago? 5? Fair point. What can I say, different times, different people, plus the SD role has extended somewhat when it encompassed the SLO activities. It shouldn't have done that IMO but there we are. |
Ux
Thanks for the reply.
I guess you can tell that I'm disappointed and I'm not alone.
All of our supporters need to get together and try to work out how to deal with this.. | |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 01:11 - Oct 25 with 6150 views | Uxbridge |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 01:01 - Oct 25 by Gowerjack |
Ux
Thanks for the reply.
I guess you can tell that I'm disappointed and I'm not alone.
All of our supporters need to get together and try to work out how to deal with this.. |
Oh I get that. Like I've said elsewhere I don't think this has been historically handled well.
However, you can't change the past, you can only change how you operate in the future. That's what this is. Hopefully the good work detailed last week is remembered in the mix .. now more than ever a strong Trust is important, and demonstrating how will operate going forward will hopefully resolve some concerns.
Anyway, bed! | |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 02:06 - Oct 25 with 6070 views | Return_of_the_Jack |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 01:11 - Oct 25 by Uxbridge |
Oh I get that. Like I've said elsewhere I don't think this has been historically handled well.
However, you can't change the past, you can only change how you operate in the future. That's what this is. Hopefully the good work detailed last week is remembered in the mix .. now more than ever a strong Trust is important, and demonstrating how will operate going forward will hopefully resolve some concerns.
Anyway, bed! |
It kind of feels that these governance documents have been written to accomodate the current SD and HC situation. |  | | |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 04:46 - Oct 25 with 6029 views | Kilkennyjack |
Ux - you deserve a medal. Top job. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 07:28 - Oct 25 with 5984 views | dobjack2 |
I think that this has been long overdue.
Any representative has to be beyond reproach and also needs to be seen to be beyond reproach. It is in the latter area that the trust has got this wrong.
At this time there are a lot of angry people out here, me included. That anger can switch from topic to topic and will sweep people up in it as supporters lash out. Being open and transparent is something that the sell outs clearly were not and our new board are showing little inclination towards.
There needs to be a distinction made between the role and the person and at the moment that is not happening. Any criticism should go to the trust board collectively for not ensuring that everything the supporter director does is seen to be above board by all. I think this document goes some way towards that.i have no doubt that they were satisfied that all is above board but the wider fan base needs to be satisfied of this as well.
I understand the anger in the way in which the information has come to light but the personal abuse is unwarranted and sounds more like them up the road than us. I would not expect anyone to lose money for undertaking this role but I am disappointed that the trust has not appreciated the importance of this issue and dealt with it earlier as it has only played into the hands of those few that even at this time have an anti-trust agenda. The motivation of some of these people escapes me.
Yes I think that the trust board has been naive. The supporter director has had to tread a fine line in putting forward our agenda from a minority voting position on the board without pi$$ing off the rest of the board. In doing so that relationship with the rest of the board has looked too cosy to a lot of people, myself included. Do I think anything Untowards has been happening? No. can I be 100% certain of that? Unfortunately the answer is also no and that appears to be the issue for a lot of people.
As I posted earlier I am hopeful that this document provides the necessary transparency and that this issue reminds everyone on the trust board how important it is that the fan base can see that everything is correct.
Meanwhile those in charge of the club and their cronies must be rubbing their hands with glee seeing us fighting amongst ourselves. | | | |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 07:52 - Oct 25 with 5919 views | barry_island |
Good post dobjack.
Given the revelations of the past few days it does make you wonder if the source is "close to Swansea City".
I'm not sure about the collective responsibility of the Trust Board. Have they known about this since 2011? If so then I agree there is.
As you say though, those beneficiaries in the demise of OUR club must be rubbing their hands together with glee. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 07:53 - Oct 25 with 5912 views | Phil_S |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 07:28 - Oct 25 by dobjack2 |
I think that this has been long overdue.
Any representative has to be beyond reproach and also needs to be seen to be beyond reproach. It is in the latter area that the trust has got this wrong.
At this time there are a lot of angry people out here, me included. That anger can switch from topic to topic and will sweep people up in it as supporters lash out. Being open and transparent is something that the sell outs clearly were not and our new board are showing little inclination towards.
There needs to be a distinction made between the role and the person and at the moment that is not happening. Any criticism should go to the trust board collectively for not ensuring that everything the supporter director does is seen to be above board by all. I think this document goes some way towards that.i have no doubt that they were satisfied that all is above board but the wider fan base needs to be satisfied of this as well.
I understand the anger in the way in which the information has come to light but the personal abuse is unwarranted and sounds more like them up the road than us. I would not expect anyone to lose money for undertaking this role but I am disappointed that the trust has not appreciated the importance of this issue and dealt with it earlier as it has only played into the hands of those few that even at this time have an anti-trust agenda. The motivation of some of these people escapes me.
Yes I think that the trust board has been naive. The supporter director has had to tread a fine line in putting forward our agenda from a minority voting position on the board without pi$$ing off the rest of the board. In doing so that relationship with the rest of the board has looked too cosy to a lot of people, myself included. Do I think anything Untowards has been happening? No. can I be 100% certain of that? Unfortunately the answer is also no and that appears to be the issue for a lot of people.
As I posted earlier I am hopeful that this document provides the necessary transparency and that this issue reminds everyone on the trust board how important it is that the fan base can see that everything is correct.
Meanwhile those in charge of the club and their cronies must be rubbing their hands with glee seeing us fighting amongst ourselves. |
Just popping in - I won't be around to get into debates today (just so nobody says I am picking and choosing responses) as on holiday with the family but to pick up some of yours (and others) points
Yes, I would agree the Trust has got this wrong. It should have been detailed at the very beginning when it was formed and, in the absence of this, then there were chances in the past that it should have been in play. As Ux said we cannot change the past but what we can change is the future. I was part of the sub group that looked at the governance and completely back all the documents that went online yesterday. It has taken too long to get them published (so that they are now published at this inappropriate time) but there have been many reasons for that which have meant other things taking over at various points. Last week being a classic case of one of them.
I know - but I appreciate your comments that everyone needs to be aware - that HC has always represented our interests to the very best of his ability. I also firmly believe - having looked him in the eye when I asked him - that he knew nothing about the takeover and this has of course been confirmed by HJ bot verbally and in writing.
I do agree the Trust board has been naïve and clearly as part of that I take my responsibility, as do the rest of us. The role has grown from what it should be into what it is and - back to the statement of not being able to change the past - if I/we had the time again we would do things totally different. No difference there to anybody in any organisation, mistakes are made sometimes.
The key now is the document that is out there and there are some clear guidelines for key role holders together with term lengths which is also vital - and again something I support.
The role of the SD will change dramatically as a direct result of this but it will be for the best of the organisation which, we have always stated, is the most important thing.
The cosy comments are always interesting and they are comments I have mulled over time and time again. Whatever the truth in them (and it is easy to see why people say it is the case) it would have made no difference to the sale that has gone through as this was forced and driven by people who wanted their money and their exit. As we saw they were happy to tread all over friendships to make that happen (if anything the "cosy" element proves just what lengths they would go to)
I'm sorry it has come to this stage but the point now is that it changes going forward which is the key bit |  | | |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:00 - Oct 25 with 5887 views | 3swan |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 07:53 - Oct 25 by Phil_S |
Just popping in - I won't be around to get into debates today (just so nobody says I am picking and choosing responses) as on holiday with the family but to pick up some of yours (and others) points
Yes, I would agree the Trust has got this wrong. It should have been detailed at the very beginning when it was formed and, in the absence of this, then there were chances in the past that it should have been in play. As Ux said we cannot change the past but what we can change is the future. I was part of the sub group that looked at the governance and completely back all the documents that went online yesterday. It has taken too long to get them published (so that they are now published at this inappropriate time) but there have been many reasons for that which have meant other things taking over at various points. Last week being a classic case of one of them.
I know - but I appreciate your comments that everyone needs to be aware - that HC has always represented our interests to the very best of his ability. I also firmly believe - having looked him in the eye when I asked him - that he knew nothing about the takeover and this has of course been confirmed by HJ bot verbally and in writing.
I do agree the Trust board has been naïve and clearly as part of that I take my responsibility, as do the rest of us. The role has grown from what it should be into what it is and - back to the statement of not being able to change the past - if I/we had the time again we would do things totally different. No difference there to anybody in any organisation, mistakes are made sometimes.
The key now is the document that is out there and there are some clear guidelines for key role holders together with term lengths which is also vital - and again something I support.
The role of the SD will change dramatically as a direct result of this but it will be for the best of the organisation which, we have always stated, is the most important thing.
The cosy comments are always interesting and they are comments I have mulled over time and time again. Whatever the truth in them (and it is easy to see why people say it is the case) it would have made no difference to the sale that has gone through as this was forced and driven by people who wanted their money and their exit. As we saw they were happy to tread all over friendships to make that happen (if anything the "cosy" element proves just what lengths they would go to)
I'm sorry it has come to this stage but the point now is that it changes going forward which is the key bit |
Not here to comment on the details, as it needs time to balance things out, but want to make one comment.
I have had many exchanges with Phil over the years (agreed and non agreed)
One thing I have always accepted is how much time things can take when the Trust is being run on a voluntary basis. It's not perfect but people do have lives to lead, and things on the back burner can quickly come back and bite. | | | |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:06 - Oct 25 with 5877 views | Phil_S |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:00 - Oct 25 by 3swan |
Not here to comment on the details, as it needs time to balance things out, but want to make one comment.
I have had many exchanges with Phil over the years (agreed and non agreed)
One thing I have always accepted is how much time things can take when the Trust is being run on a voluntary basis. It's not perfect but people do have lives to lead, and things on the back burner can quickly come back and bite. |
There's an element in that which is completely true but that does not make it excusable that it has got to the stage it has got too.
The time is something I never appreciated before I got involved and at times like this I dread to think how much it can drain - I would estimate that the last 2/3 weeks alone have probably taken maybe upwards of 30 hours time for me alone, I look back and wonder how I find that time without people noticing (and before anyone asks none of that is paid work)
This should have been done a long time ago, the fact that it wasn't is a collective responsibility as has been said. | | | |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:08 - Oct 25 with 5872 views | barry_island |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:00 - Oct 25 by 3swan |
Not here to comment on the details, as it needs time to balance things out, but want to make one comment.
I have had many exchanges with Phil over the years (agreed and non agreed)
One thing I have always accepted is how much time things can take when the Trust is being run on a voluntary basis. It's not perfect but people do have lives to lead, and things on the back burner can quickly come back and bite. |
3Swan I think everyone understands the issues with things being run on a voluntary basis, because that is the basis on which we thought everything was run. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:12 - Oct 25 with 5847 views | 3swan |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:08 - Oct 25 by barry_island |
3Swan I think everyone understands the issues with things being run on a voluntary basis, because that is the basis on which we thought everything was run. |
I agree it was more the time element I was trying to highlight [Post edited 25 Oct 2016 8:13]
| | | |
| Supporters Trust governance documents on 08:53 - Oct 25 with 5754 views | barry_island |
I have no issue with Huw C staying on as a paid director of Swansea City, whether that be on £40k, £100k or one billion dollars, in fact whatever figure the club decides. He undoubtedly does many hours of good work as documented on this and many other threads over the years that is without question.
What i do have issue with is this being as a Trust Supporter Director. The fact that Phil has to look him in the eye and make a judgement call on whether he is being told the truth, even if backed up in writing by Huw Jenkins, surely is the final evidence that the position is untenable.
Huw has been hung out to dry by it seems to me those he trusted in the club. I feel truly sorry for him in this respect.
We need a new Trust Supporter Director. We need to move on now.
Sorry for all the edits I think my typing is turning me into Perchie. [Post edited 25 Oct 2016 9:01]
| |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
