| Genuine question - from a Trust Member 19:19 - Nov 5 with 52436 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 20:40 - Nov 5 with 2098 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:33 - Nov 5 by Landore_Jack |
Depending on the outcome of the meeting, is there a possibility that the Trust could back the protest? |
Short of building a time machine, you're asking me an impossible question there. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:42 - Nov 5 with 2086 views | Garyjack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:37 - Nov 5 by monmouth |
Funny enough I was going to ask if the Landore club had videoconferencing.
Just for a laugh like.
I think we all know the answer to this question (were the Trust consulted) don't we? And it's no big deal, because the board can do a volte face anytime. Laudrup was told he was safe to his face by Junko the same day that he sacked him by email if I remember right. |
You are correct. But 3 hours is a long time in football. especially on a Tuesday afternoon! |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:54 - Nov 5 with 2046 views | Wingstandwood |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:15 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
The Trust board needs to communicate its view one way or another I completely agree. Safe to say that'll be discussed tomorrow. [Post edited 5 Nov 2017 20:16]
|
Action/reaction is required IMMEDIATELY to remove that clown Jenkins from his 'officer-commanding' post overseeing transfers..........Even his "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no truth" apologists in the press are starting to wise up to the pure insanity of the latest transfer window farce.
Heaven help the club if that greedy low-life w#nker oversees yet another transfer window!
Question? Did Jenkins negotiate some insane sell-off deal package for himself i.e. allowing an insane undeserved wage, along with insane contract and conditions where he is allowed to (bearing in mind his obvious ineptitude) to be an unsackable lunatic running an asylum?
Looks like that...... because many are wondering why he hasn't being booted out, forcefull removed ages back, bearing in mind he is an absolute PR disaster/financial disaster for the club. The guy looks unsackable for some inexplicable reason.....Has SCST noticed that? |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:57 - Nov 5 with 2033 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:54 - Nov 5 by Wingstandwood |
Action/reaction is required IMMEDIATELY to remove that clown Jenkins from his 'officer-commanding' post overseeing transfers..........Even his "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no truth" apologists in the press are starting to wise up to the pure insanity of the latest transfer window farce.
Heaven help the club if that greedy low-life w#nker oversees yet another transfer window!
Question? Did Jenkins negotiate some insane sell-off deal package for himself i.e. allowing an insane undeserved wage, along with insane contract and conditions where he is allowed to (bearing in mind his obvious ineptitude) to be an unsackable lunatic running an asylum?
Looks like that...... because many are wondering why he hasn't being booted out, forcefull removed ages back, bearing in mind he is an absolute PR disaster/financial disaster for the club. The guy looks unsackable for some inexplicable reason.....Has SCST noticed that? |
The Americans very publicly backed him when there was the forum at the Liberty, based on his track record. They were made well aware by those in attendance that that isn't a globally held view. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:12 - Nov 5 with 1979 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:57 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
The Americans very publicly backed him when there was the forum at the Liberty, based on his track record. They were made well aware by those in attendance that that isn't a globally held view. |
The Trust have never disputed that view though have they?
I must say Ux, that I remain surprised by the absence of any statement from the Supporters' Director.
The team is in free fall with no one appearing to have a clue how to stop it. The manager has stated that the squad is unbalanced (and pretty firmly blamed the transfer window). He said he only 'hopes' that it may be corrected in January. One of our major summer signings is being quite blatantly kept away from the team. The atmosphere in the ground is increasingly toxic (which doesn't help performance). The Americans are nowhere to be seen. Local press are openly criticising the Chairman for a string of awful signings. The club couldn't even complete loan deals in time (in and out). And yet nothing.
What's the point of having a supporters' director at all if there is no comment in such times? |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:14 - Nov 5 with 1974 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:57 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
The Americans very publicly backed him when there was the forum at the Liberty, based on his track record. They were made well aware by those in attendance that that isn't a globally held view. |
You know what's coming don't you and I know what your answer will be but the Americans backing him doesn't mean the Trust should have backed him, particularly given the mood at that meeting. Yet there is still no contrary position taken, despite him royally shitting on the Trust during the sale. In fact, he's invited to a forum on the same platfprm where he faces no hostile questions.
The trust should have been using his own historic words (thus removing any lawyer interest) to utterly humiliate the bloke publicly. Instead they have, by their acquiescence and silence, supported and valdated him. Can the Trust Board possibly explain why they have actively taken this position after that one public outburst of how disappointed they were when Huw Cooze felt so let down? |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:14 - Nov 5 with 1972 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:12 - Nov 5 by londonlisa2001 |
The Trust have never disputed that view though have they?
I must say Ux, that I remain surprised by the absence of any statement from the Supporters' Director.
The team is in free fall with no one appearing to have a clue how to stop it. The manager has stated that the squad is unbalanced (and pretty firmly blamed the transfer window). He said he only 'hopes' that it may be corrected in January. One of our major summer signings is being quite blatantly kept away from the team. The atmosphere in the ground is increasingly toxic (which doesn't help performance). The Americans are nowhere to be seen. Local press are openly criticising the Chairman for a string of awful signings. The club couldn't even complete loan deals in time (in and out). And yet nothing.
What's the point of having a supporters' director at all if there is no comment in such times? |
Snap. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:19 - Nov 5 with 1960 views | Wingstandwood |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:57 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
The Americans very publicly backed him when there was the forum at the Liberty, based on his track record. They were made well aware by those in attendance that that isn't a globally held view. |
No answers on the sell-off deal Jenkins struck? Which sort of fuels the suspicion of many that Jenkins has struck an obscene and grubby 100% backroom deal specified solely for his own personal gain because..... It does not make business/Take-over commonsense whatsoever to have a complete and utter buffoonish clown like that steering (currently heading for the rocks) the SCFC ship.
Looks to me that the Yanks have either fallen for the JTAK bulls#it or want to deliberately relegate/destroy the club whilst making supporter-club relations as toxic as is humanly possible? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:27 - Nov 5 with 1928 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:14 - Nov 5 by monmouth |
You know what's coming don't you and I know what your answer will be but the Americans backing him doesn't mean the Trust should have backed him, particularly given the mood at that meeting. Yet there is still no contrary position taken, despite him royally shitting on the Trust during the sale. In fact, he's invited to a forum on the same platfprm where he faces no hostile questions.
The trust should have been using his own historic words (thus removing any lawyer interest) to utterly humiliate the bloke publicly. Instead they have, by their acquiescence and silence, supported and valdated him. Can the Trust Board possibly explain why they have actively taken this position after that one public outburst of how disappointed they were when Huw Cooze felt so let down? |
You're right, in terms of his tenure (there's been plenty of ciricism of his conduct with regards to the sale). The Trust board could have. On the flip side, it could have issued an endorsement. The fact neither of those things happened show that there wasn't unanimity on what has been a complex issue (for some at least.. I know it isn't for all). I don't know if that's changed.
PS given i got told off for inadvertently muddling the Trust board and the Trust, I hope you're going to tell yourself off there 
I'll reply to Lisa 's point on this one as they're on the same ground... It's not something to pin on the SD. It'd be a Trust board decision. The SD is the representation of that board ultimately. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:30 - Nov 5 with 1911 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:19 - Nov 5 by Wingstandwood |
No answers on the sell-off deal Jenkins struck? Which sort of fuels the suspicion of many that Jenkins has struck an obscene and grubby 100% backroom deal specified solely for his own personal gain because..... It does not make business/Take-over commonsense whatsoever to have a complete and utter buffoonish clown like that steering (currently heading for the rocks) the SCFC ship.
Looks to me that the Yanks have either fallen for the JTAK bulls#it or want to deliberately relegate/destroy the club whilst making supporter-club relations as toxic as is humanly possible? |
As has been stated countless times before, we can't know what agreements were made between the two as we're not privy to the sale.
However, even if there was an agreement , just like with Guidolin and Bradley there are ways around that. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:31 - Nov 5 with 1899 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:27 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
You're right, in terms of his tenure (there's been plenty of ciricism of his conduct with regards to the sale). The Trust board could have. On the flip side, it could have issued an endorsement. The fact neither of those things happened show that there wasn't unanimity on what has been a complex issue (for some at least.. I know it isn't for all). I don't know if that's changed.
PS given i got told off for inadvertently muddling the Trust board and the Trust, I hope you're going to tell yourself off there
I'll reply to Lisa 's point on this one as they're on the same ground... It's not something to pin on the SD. It'd be a Trust board decision. The SD is the representation of that board ultimately. |
I'm allowed to, I'm not on the Trust Board...:) Point taken. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:35 - Nov 5 with 1876 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:31 - Nov 5 by monmouth |
I'm allowed to, I'm not on the Trust Board...:) Point taken. |
That is because you are far more sensible that I. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:38 - Nov 5 with 1856 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:27 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
You're right, in terms of his tenure (there's been plenty of ciricism of his conduct with regards to the sale). The Trust board could have. On the flip side, it could have issued an endorsement. The fact neither of those things happened show that there wasn't unanimity on what has been a complex issue (for some at least.. I know it isn't for all). I don't know if that's changed.
PS given i got told off for inadvertently muddling the Trust board and the Trust, I hope you're going to tell yourself off there
I'll reply to Lisa 's point on this one as they're on the same ground... It's not something to pin on the SD. It'd be a Trust board decision. The SD is the representation of that board ultimately. |
He's actually the Supporters' Director Ux, not just the representative / spokesperson of the Trust Board - that is the role of the Trust Chairman. It's a role that arises due to the Trust being able to nominate a representative, but it is distinct.
I've never heard a single word from him since he's been in role. Communication comes from the Trust Chairman, but I've never seen anything from SM at all.
Given he represents supporters, he should be speaking out and explaining exactly what is going on down there. Because from the outside, this is an absolute shambles. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:40 - Nov 5 with 1841 views | TheResurrection |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:27 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
You're right, in terms of his tenure (there's been plenty of ciricism of his conduct with regards to the sale). The Trust board could have. On the flip side, it could have issued an endorsement. The fact neither of those things happened show that there wasn't unanimity on what has been a complex issue (for some at least.. I know it isn't for all). I don't know if that's changed.
PS given i got told off for inadvertently muddling the Trust board and the Trust, I hope you're going to tell yourself off there
I'll reply to Lisa 's point on this one as they're on the same ground... It's not something to pin on the SD. It'd be a Trust board decision. The SD is the representation of that board ultimately. |
The Trust is a laughing stock and you should do yourself a favour, and the right thing, and stand down, Andrew.
So you tell us now the Trust Board were split on going after Jenkins or defending him? Like what, a year or more afterwards?
Well who was, which Board members backed him and which ones wanted to pursue a strategy for his exit? I can't say I read that in the boring as fack minutes that come out each month??
I've never known the Trust so much despised by so many people as it is now.
There will always be a nagging feeling in many people's eyes that the Trust have been hiding a whole lot more than Coozes employment and club salary, and decisions like the one you've just let slip will make people wonder all the more. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:41 - Nov 5 with 1836 views | whiterock |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 20:36 - Nov 5 by shandyjack |
or stuart Mc wasn't on the phone call, and it was only Huw and the 2 Yanks as the article states |
This is probably the likely scenario and HJ would have then phoned SMc for his views, Stu may well have said I need to consult my board and get back to you but that’s understanderble. The point is HJ would have consulted | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:42 - Nov 5 with 1821 views | Dewi1jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:27 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
You're right, in terms of his tenure (there's been plenty of ciricism of his conduct with regards to the sale). The Trust board could have. On the flip side, it could have issued an endorsement. The fact neither of those things happened show that there wasn't unanimity on what has been a complex issue (for some at least.. I know it isn't for all). I don't know if that's changed.
PS given i got told off for inadvertently muddling the Trust board and the Trust, I hope you're going to tell yourself off there
I'll reply to Lisa 's point on this one as they're on the same ground... It's not something to pin on the SD. It'd be a Trust board decision. The SD is the representation of that board ultimately. |
It's unfair to lay the blame on any one person in the Trust.
It's a collective decision taken on behalf of the members.
Lack of communication by the few though.
Maybe now is the time to ask in the Trust meeting if there should be a "no confidence" vote in Beaky.
At least get it in writing one way or t'other
If it can't be a majority of board members saying yea or nay then put it out to the members by EMail - don't waste money on envelopes and letters that Rs holes can't be bothered to return anyway to vote either way.
P1sspoor turn out for the last vote btw. Even though it was free.
So those who didn't bother voting, don't bother any of us that did now.
Apathy runs right through our lovely, ugly club nowadays  |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:43 - Nov 5 with 1812 views | QJumpingJack |
re: protest
I can't see how the Trust can be seen to support an unofficial protest.
The Trust have been attempting to work with the new owners. They cannot stand outside the main stand joining in with fans handing out leaflets mocking fellow board members. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:44 - Nov 5 with 1809 views | monmouth |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:41 - Nov 5 by whiterock |
This is probably the likely scenario and HJ would have then phoned SMc for his views, Stu may well have said I need to consult my board and get back to you but that’s understanderble. The point is HJ would have consulted |
You think? | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:49 - Nov 5 with 1780 views | QJumpingJack |
It's worrying if a WalesOnline journalist has more info than the Trust board around Clement's future. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:50 - Nov 5 with 1778 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:38 - Nov 5 by londonlisa2001 |
He's actually the Supporters' Director Ux, not just the representative / spokesperson of the Trust Board - that is the role of the Trust Chairman. It's a role that arises due to the Trust being able to nominate a representative, but it is distinct.
I've never heard a single word from him since he's been in role. Communication comes from the Trust Chairman, but I've never seen anything from SM at all.
Given he represents supporters, he should be speaking out and explaining exactly what is going on down there. Because from the outside, this is an absolute shambles. |
But you're not talking about his duties as a director, it'd be as a representative of the Trust in that regard.
I'd comment on the comms aspect but I've done that plenty of times in the last few weeks. I agree. It's a Trust wide issue. SD and Trust board. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:55 - Nov 5 with 1757 views | TheResurrection |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:50 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
But you're not talking about his duties as a director, it'd be as a representative of the Trust in that regard.
I'd comment on the comms aspect but I've done that plenty of times in the last few weeks. I agree. It's a Trust wide issue. SD and Trust board. |
The same Trust Board that have failed us for too long?
Have any of you no shame whatsoever?? | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:58 - Nov 5 with 1737 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:40 - Nov 5 by TheResurrection |
The Trust is a laughing stock and you should do yourself a favour, and the right thing, and stand down, Andrew.
So you tell us now the Trust Board were split on going after Jenkins or defending him? Like what, a year or more afterwards?
Well who was, which Board members backed him and which ones wanted to pursue a strategy for his exit? I can't say I read that in the boring as fack minutes that come out each month??
I've never known the Trust so much despised by so many people as it is now.
There will always be a nagging feeling in many people's eyes that the Trust have been hiding a whole lot more than Coozes employment and club salary, and decisions like the one you've just let slip will make people wonder all the more. |
From what I read, there seems to be a nagging view in many people's eyes that you're hiding something by your reluctance to criticise Jenkins and the Americans. Don't worry Chris, I'm not one of them. I just think you're playing the usual role of contrarian.
I'm mildly surprised you think I made some sort of groundbreaking announcement there. Blindingly obvious I'd have thought. Many people have different views. Here's a helpful hint for future reference.. If the Trust doesn't make a statement on a hot topic, then it's probably because it either hadn't met to discuss it yet, or can't agree a line. That's the thing with committees.
I think I'll make my own decisions regarding my tenure though, but thanks for your concern. I'd retort with the usual gambit that maybe you should stand and put your money where your mouth is, but there's no point is there. There's always an excuse. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:59 - Nov 5 with 1724 views | Landore_Jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:50 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
But you're not talking about his duties as a director, it'd be as a representative of the Trust in that regard.
I'd comment on the comms aspect but I've done that plenty of times in the last few weeks. I agree. It's a Trust wide issue. SD and Trust board. |
The silence is deafening Ux. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 22:02 - Nov 5 with 1706 views | Uxbridge |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 21:59 - Nov 5 by Landore_Jack |
The silence is deafening Ux. |
And, for the umpteenth time, I completely agree that needs to change and quickly. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 22:07 - Nov 5 with 1684 views | Landore_Jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 22:02 - Nov 5 by Uxbridge |
And, for the umpteenth time, I completely agree that needs to change and quickly. |
That's the problem Ux. As a Trust member we constantly hear that communication could be better but see no improvement. Why? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
