| Trust AGM 22:15 - Jan 9 with 7467 views | SkettyJack |
Any news on the date for this now that the previous minutes have been published? Also within the minutes for Decembers meeting it mentions the next meeting was last Monday!
|  | | |  |
| Trust AGM on 12:13 - Jan 10 with 6366 views | Nookiejack |
PS you would also think members around the country should receive at least 14 day’s advance notice so they can plan their itenaries.
Which would apply notice being given by 17th January 2018 at the latest to meet 31st January 2018 deadline. | | | |
| Trust AGM on 12:41 - Jan 10 with 6326 views | wobbly |
Yay. 7 more sleeps...exciting. |  | | |
| Trust AGM on 07:33 - Jan 11 with 6129 views | Phil_S |
| Trust AGM on 12:13 - Jan 10 by Nookiejack |
PS you would also think members around the country should receive at least 14 day’s advance notice so they can plan their itenaries.
Which would apply notice being given by 17th January 2018 at the latest to meet 31st January 2018 deadline. |
From what I remember 14 days notice has to be given for the AGM |  | | |
| Trust AGM on 19:15 - Jan 11 with 6007 views | Whiterockin |
| Trust AGM on 07:33 - Jan 11 by Phil_S |
From what I remember 14 days notice has to be given for the AGM |
Do you think that this could be one of the more lively ones Phil.  |  | | |
| Trust AGM on 19:18 - Jan 11 with 5998 views | Phil_S |
| Trust AGM on 19:15 - Jan 11 by Whiterockin |
Do you think that this could be one of the more lively ones Phil. |
I suspect it will be one of the most heavily populated ones as well. Think there was around 100 last year, I think there will be more this year. | | | |
| Trust AGM on 19:19 - Jan 11 with 5992 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Trust AGM on 19:18 - Jan 11 by Phil_S |
I suspect it will be one of the most heavily populated ones as well. Think there was around 100 last year, I think there will be more this year. |
I’m washing my hair. |  |
| |
| Trust AGM on 19:23 - Jan 11 with 5969 views | Phil_S |
I thought you did that on Sundays? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trust AGM on 19:25 - Jan 11 with 5959 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Trust AGM on 19:23 - Jan 11 by Phil_S |
I thought you did that on Sundays? |
I’m very flexible. | |
| |
| Trust AGM on 12:05 - Jan 30 with 5634 views | Dafydd |
Hello! Anybody there? | | | |
| Trust AGM on 12:46 - Jan 30 with 5581 views | Whiterockin |
| Trust AGM on 12:05 - Jan 30 by Dafydd |
Hello! Anybody there? |
You wont get a reply from the trust if you email them either. | | | |
| Trust AGM on 13:15 - Jan 30 with 5533 views | swanforthemoney |
Planet Swans to Major Ux
your circuits dead, is something wrong
can you hear me Major Ux ? |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Trust AGM on 13:18 - Jan 30 with 5524 views | Whiterockin |
| Trust AGM on 13:15 - Jan 30 by swanforthemoney |
Planet Swans to Major Ux
your circuits dead, is something wrong
can you hear me Major Ux ? |
Planet Swans to Major Ux
your circuits dead, something sucks
can you hear me Major Ux ? | | | |
| Trust AGM on 15:21 - Jan 30 with 5425 views | Landore_Jack |
Did anybody go this yesterday? Can't find an update anywhere. |  |
| |
| Trust AGM on 15:23 - Jan 30 with 5419 views | Joe_bradshaw |
I expect Nookie is only halfway through his first question... |  |
| |
| Trust AGM on 15:59 - Jan 30 with 5377 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust AGM on 15:21 - Jan 30 by Landore_Jack |
Did anybody go this yesterday? Can't find an update anywhere. |
You should have turned up.
Given all the talk of coups and the like, it was all a bit of a non-event and took the normal course of such things. Chairman's address, present the accounts and then open the floor up. Pretty clear the mood of the membership is very toxic towards Jenkins, with one chap in particular saying the Trust needs to be more aggressive in that sense, which is something I agree with. The usual mix of other questions, including one which tickled me in reference to this place. Some discussion on the splits in the fanbase, and you'd have to be blind not to notice them of course. I'm not sure many in attendance would have been in favour of any action during the game though (in fact very anti in general) but little argument with pre-match protests.
As for the model rules, sailed through without a single objection or vote against. No proposed amendments, votes of no confidence, hell even a dissenting voice. The question was raised regarding the term limits, but even that was a question with no issues with the explanation (SD dropped them years ago, and these are pretty much boilerplate SD rules).
So much for all the angst on here eh. And to answer the other question, no Nookie wasn't there. Neither was Spratty, which is unusual. |  |
| |
| Trust AGM on 18:23 - Jan 30 with 5290 views | swanforthemoney |
Well it all seems to have passed off passed off nicely.
It was interesting that it wasnt massively well publicised on PS in the week before the event.
Perhaps that was a bit of a tactic.
For the record, was there any discussion what to do about the fact that the owners have decided to break off negotiations about the deal | |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
| |
| Trust AGM on 18:33 - Jan 30 with 5278 views | Bobby_Fischer |
| Trust AGM on 18:23 - Jan 30 by swanforthemoney |
Well it all seems to have passed off passed off nicely.
It was interesting that it wasnt massively well publicised on PS in the week before the event.
Perhaps that was a bit of a tactic.
For the record, was there any discussion what to do about the fact that the owners have decided to break off negotiations about the deal |
I think its either a case of complete apathy or people have actually forgotten that they exist. |  |
| |
| Trust AGM on 09:44 - Jan 31 with 5161 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust AGM on 15:59 - Jan 30 by Uxbridge |
You should have turned up.
Given all the talk of coups and the like, it was all a bit of a non-event and took the normal course of such things. Chairman's address, present the accounts and then open the floor up. Pretty clear the mood of the membership is very toxic towards Jenkins, with one chap in particular saying the Trust needs to be more aggressive in that sense, which is something I agree with. The usual mix of other questions, including one which tickled me in reference to this place. Some discussion on the splits in the fanbase, and you'd have to be blind not to notice them of course. I'm not sure many in attendance would have been in favour of any action during the game though (in fact very anti in general) but little argument with pre-match protests.
As for the model rules, sailed through without a single objection or vote against. No proposed amendments, votes of no confidence, hell even a dissenting voice. The question was raised regarding the term limits, but even that was a question with no issues with the explanation (SD dropped them years ago, and these are pretty much boilerplate SD rules).
So much for all the angst on here eh. And to answer the other question, no Nookie wasn't there. Neither was Spratty, which is unusual. |
Re: the Model Rules and Term Limits
I have it in writing from SD that it is for every Trust to decide individually and you do this is in the side policies.
To quote SD's response:-
"With regard to the terms of office, SD are able to see the pros and cons of a time limit for board members and recommend that if something is agreed then it is addressed in one of the side policies. This is because opinions may change dependent on circumstances such as, for example, the interest in board positions."
That is a totally different spin to you saying they dropped it.
No explanation in the run up to why the Trust Board thought term limits should be dropped and the Side Policy about Trust Board members roles and responsibilities was very unclear on whether maximum term of office for a Board member without portfolio was 4 years or unlimited.
Hope you are pleased with the result - Trust Board members can now serve into perpetuity. No fresh blood and if anything untowards is going on and it will never be identified.
I should have objected by proxy as couldn’t attend.
Anyway congratulations as this is the Trust you want and have got.
To quote “sailed through without a single objection or vote against. No proposed amendments, votes of no confidence, hell even a dissenting voice”. | | | |
| Trust AGM on 11:09 - Jan 31 with 5117 views | Vetchfielder |
| Trust AGM on 15:59 - Jan 30 by Uxbridge |
You should have turned up.
Given all the talk of coups and the like, it was all a bit of a non-event and took the normal course of such things. Chairman's address, present the accounts and then open the floor up. Pretty clear the mood of the membership is very toxic towards Jenkins, with one chap in particular saying the Trust needs to be more aggressive in that sense, which is something I agree with. The usual mix of other questions, including one which tickled me in reference to this place. Some discussion on the splits in the fanbase, and you'd have to be blind not to notice them of course. I'm not sure many in attendance would have been in favour of any action during the game though (in fact very anti in general) but little argument with pre-match protests.
As for the model rules, sailed through without a single objection or vote against. No proposed amendments, votes of no confidence, hell even a dissenting voice. The question was raised regarding the term limits, but even that was a question with no issues with the explanation (SD dropped them years ago, and these are pretty much boilerplate SD rules).
So much for all the angst on here eh. And to answer the other question, no Nookie wasn't there. Neither was Spratty, which is unusual. |
I have proposed amendments to the Model Rules by email to the Trust but was advised that any changes would need ratification by SD so could not be considered for adoption as part of the AGM. I've been assured by the Secretary that would however be considered at some point after the AGM and I am happy with that. Just to clarify that my proposed amendments did not relate to the term limits.
We should of course have been given far more than 1 week to review the Model Rules before adoption at the AGM - it did not facilitate or allow any debate around the detail. |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| Trust AGM on 11:15 - Jan 31 with 5107 views | Uxbridge |
| Trust AGM on 09:44 - Jan 31 by Nookiejack |
Re: the Model Rules and Term Limits
I have it in writing from SD that it is for every Trust to decide individually and you do this is in the side policies.
To quote SD's response:-
"With regard to the terms of office, SD are able to see the pros and cons of a time limit for board members and recommend that if something is agreed then it is addressed in one of the side policies. This is because opinions may change dependent on circumstances such as, for example, the interest in board positions."
That is a totally different spin to you saying they dropped it.
No explanation in the run up to why the Trust Board thought term limits should be dropped and the Side Policy about Trust Board members roles and responsibilities was very unclear on whether maximum term of office for a Board member without portfolio was 4 years or unlimited.
Hope you are pleased with the result - Trust Board members can now serve into perpetuity. No fresh blood and if anything untowards is going on and it will never be identified.
I should have objected by proxy as couldn’t attend.
Anyway congratulations as this is the Trust you want and have got.
To quote “sailed through without a single objection or vote against. No proposed amendments, votes of no confidence, hell even a dissenting voice”. |
Nobody has said otherwise Stu. Of course the Trust could implement its own policy on term limits. I happen to think it should. It's going to be reviewed anyway, as part of the regular governance reviews.
But I'm afraid you're the one guilty of spin. SD did drop it, a fact mentioned by Dai at Monday's forum, as they saw that Trust's were having difficulty attracting board members. I wonder if they said that in their reply to you, beyond the paragraph you selectively copied. Either way, that paragraph backs up the above.
You should have objected by proxy. I wish you had, and some dissenting voices attended. A room of nodding dogs does nobody any good, although that's a pretty inaccurate description of Monday. Anyway, good to hear you're a member, although a shame you didn't take the opportunity. That's what it comes down to ultimately ... change only happens if people make it happen. | |
| |
| Trust AGM on 11:37 - Jan 31 with 5077 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust AGM on 11:15 - Jan 31 by Uxbridge |
Nobody has said otherwise Stu. Of course the Trust could implement its own policy on term limits. I happen to think it should. It's going to be reviewed anyway, as part of the regular governance reviews.
But I'm afraid you're the one guilty of spin. SD did drop it, a fact mentioned by Dai at Monday's forum, as they saw that Trust's were having difficulty attracting board members. I wonder if they said that in their reply to you, beyond the paragraph you selectively copied. Either way, that paragraph backs up the above.
You should have objected by proxy. I wish you had, and some dissenting voices attended. A room of nodding dogs does nobody any good, although that's a pretty inaccurate description of Monday. Anyway, good to hear you're a member, although a shame you didn't take the opportunity. That's what it comes down to ultimately ... change only happens if people make it happen. |
No selective cutting and pasting Andrew. Here’s SDs full response.
Interesting that you thought I would selectively cut and paste. Maybe tells something about you.
Dear Stuart
Further to our conversation earlier this afternoon regarding the 2016 model rules proposed at the forthcoming Swansea City Supporters Trust AGM, I have spoken to my colleagues here and can advise that the rules currently being used are the original SD rules from 2001. A copy of these rules are downloadable here:
https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Original_Rules.pdf
With regard to the terms of office, SD are able to see the pros and cons of a time limit for board members and recommend that if something is agreed then it is addressed in one of the side policies. This is because opinions may change dependent on circumstances such as, for example, the interest in board positions.
I hope the above answers your questions, however, should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks and Regards
Richard Irving
Office Manager & Company Secretary
Supporters Direct
t: (0) 20 7250 8144
e: richard.irving@supporters-direct.org
a: 1st Floor, CAN Mezzanine, 49-51 East Road, London, N1 6AH
www.supporters-direct.org | | | |
| Trust AGM on 11:50 - Jan 31 with 5052 views | Nookiejack |
| Trust AGM on 11:15 - Jan 31 by Uxbridge |
Nobody has said otherwise Stu. Of course the Trust could implement its own policy on term limits. I happen to think it should. It's going to be reviewed anyway, as part of the regular governance reviews.
But I'm afraid you're the one guilty of spin. SD did drop it, a fact mentioned by Dai at Monday's forum, as they saw that Trust's were having difficulty attracting board members. I wonder if they said that in their reply to you, beyond the paragraph you selectively copied. Either way, that paragraph backs up the above.
You should have objected by proxy. I wish you had, and some dissenting voices attended. A room of nodding dogs does nobody any good, although that's a pretty inaccurate description of Monday. Anyway, good to hear you're a member, although a shame you didn't take the opportunity. That's what it comes down to ultimately ... change only happens if people make it happen. |
How you can come on here saying that such an important issue about term limits just ‘sailed through’ without debate in my view is very poor from a governance perspective.
If you had argued that because of the difficulty of attracting people to stand for the Board - then I could understand your position on why you have dropped the term limits.
The obvious counter argument to this is that we now appear to have many members - who will now stand for the Board - further to the recent co-opted members process.
I would expect many members didn’t understand the fors and against of term limits and to say that SD has just dropped them is very very poor.
Anyway no point in debating this now after the AGM. | | | |
| Trust AGM on 11:51 - Jan 31 with 5043 views | QJumpingJack |
Nookie - you should stand for the Trust board. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
