| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:57 - Oct 13 with 4054 views | vetchonian |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:58 - Oct 10 by Wingstandwood |
http://www.prosvl.com/detail.aspx?item=PKG%20STADIUM%20PB&id=372
I guess the lowlife impostor sell-out sh#t that masqueraded under the bogus description “supporters-of-the-club” would love to take a cut of the £650,000 PA system deal that has been mentioned in this thread.
I utterly detest the parasites; It is bleeding bloody obvious they have no intent to relinquish Chairman/director titles, financial troughing, director privilege, leeching, VIP titles, spin-offs, perks etc. They would have to be dragged away kicking and screaming from the directors box….. the whole f#cking lot of them. Looks they want to remain in there for the rest of their living days?
Many (surely looks like it...folks!) believe they negotiated sale terms and conditions to cater solely for their greed, ego and outrageous sense of entitlement.
SIX HUNDRED AN FIFTY THOUSAND POUNDS FOR A PA SYSTEM? There is a bog standard one in the link. £8323 U.K Pounds conversion. Do they want a diamond encrusted solid gold one or just one they can fill their f#cking troughs with? |
I think you will find your example of a cheaper system is for "school" grounds. As poor as our current system is your chosen example would be as bad....probably worse! |  |
|  |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:02 - Oct 13 with 3992 views | TheResurrection |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:13 - Oct 13 by Uxbridge |
That's one possible reality I guess. Not one I'd recognise.
The offer was presented to the members. If the detail isn't as presented to the members, then the deal can't happen IMO. The offer was presented as any decision on use of funds being purely at the discretion of the Trust's members, so if that changes then the deal can't happen.
That's my view anyway. Not that I have more than 1/15th of the vote. A view which I stated to you ad nauseum months ago, but cheers for forgetting that. I'll just add this - I wouldn't be voting for any use of Trust funds that would be for the benefit of the majority shareholders and not the Trust. I personally couldn't see any scenario where the Trust would use its funds for stadium expansion anyway, but that's just me.
it's been a while since one of these threads (not that I read this site every day unlike someone thinks, my ever decreasing sanity and hairline couldn't cope with that, especially after the events of the past few months). Some good points, but as ever they often get lost by some less good points and the usual abuse.
The funny thing is, ideally I'd agree with a lot of the comments with regards to term limits, rotation of the Trust board etc. The Trust would be stronger for it, and the members engagement with the Trust would be too. New people equals new ideas equals new energy. All very desirable. However, and it really can't be stressed enough, people need to stand for election or make themselves available for that to happen.
Some names get called out on this thread as welcome additions, and I agree they'd be more than, but the silence is deafening. And, you know what, that's fair enough - nobody should be stand for something they don't feel they have the time to do it justice. However, and it does need stressing, the Trust board can only constitute new blood if new blood actually applies - luckily that's happened to some degree and there were two new people this summer, and a couple the year before. To say it's a closed shop defies reality. And, the great thing is that those new people are making their presence felt already, which is great. More of that please. Seriously.
The Trust faces many challenges both now and in the future. Starting with membership numbers, numbers are roughly consistent with this time over past seasons, however it's clearly not as high as anyone would like (and hasn't been since it was free). A subgroup is coming up with some ways to look at the reasons why that happens, ways to improve it, make membership more attractive etc. If you were a member last year then you'll be being contacted in the coming weeks if you haven't been already.
In terms of visibility, I think the relative lack of presence in the past few weeks has been a result of catching our breath after the two ballots of the past couple of months. That and the discussions with the Americans in terms of the details of the negotiations (and there will be more on that in the coming days and weeks). However, and this has been a historic problem that the Trust has never really got to grips with on a consistent basis, there needs to be better and more frequent communication. Again, this is something a group is looking at and will look to implement some improvements in the coming weeks.
Leading on from that, it's the names that are known that get the brickbats. That comes with the territory I guess when you put your head above the parapet. Stu Mac's been mentioned a few times on this thread, and I think some points are fair but very much depend on how you view them. True, he's not very visible online. However he's hardly hiding - go in the corner of the East Stand and you'll see him more often than not. Ditto away from home. He's not hiding in the director's box by any means.
I also know how often he's meeting with the club and putting the fans views there. Does anyone seriously think the Man Utd tickets would have been £20/£10 for ST/JA if he hadn't been pushing for that? That's one example. He's meeting weekly with the likes of Pearlman and other senior people at the club. This has been mentioned in past Trust releases etc, but I guess this comes back to that communication issue again.
The fanbase is very diverse these days - geographically, age (physically and in terms of being a fan) and also in what they want. So is the Trust to some degree, both members and board. Appealing to as wide a constituency is another of the big challenges the Trust will face, especially as long as we remain in the top flight.
I'll end with this. The Trust board consists of 15 members I think it is. Nobody joined that, or stuck around for a significant period of time, because of what they could get out of it. There's no personal benefit to it, and a whole load of abuse half the time. I joined in the hope I could make a difference and believed in the principle of it. I can't know, but I can only believe that's the same for everyone else. If you want the Trust to change, then make that happen - either by being a member or standing for election. |
That's an awful lot of waffle, hot air and probably false promises.
I want you Phil and Stu to announce your stepping down dates and I want the 3 of you to do a whole lot more, between now and the date you leave the Trust, to make it an organisation that people WANT to be a part of.
So let's start with one promise the 3 of you WILL MAKE..
What date exactly will be your last day?
This has to happen or the rest of what you say or promise will be completely irrelevant.
So over to the 3 of you to do the right thing by the old girl. [Post edited 13 Oct 2017 18:10]
|  |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:07 - Oct 13 with 3988 views | Darran |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:02 - Oct 13 by TheResurrection |
That's an awful lot of waffle, hot air and probably false promises.
I want you Phil and Stu to announce your stepping down dates and I want the 3 of you to do a whole lot more, between now and the date you leave the Trust, to make it an organisation that people WANT to be a part of.
So let's start with one promise the 3 of you WILL MAKE..
What date exactly will be your last day?
This has to happen or the rest of what you say or promise will be completely irrelevant.
So over to the 3 of you to do the right thing by the old girl. [Post edited 13 Oct 2017 18:10]
|
You still don’t care then? |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:28 - Oct 13 with 3956 views | DafyddHuw |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:13 - Oct 13 by Uxbridge |
That's one possible reality I guess. Not one I'd recognise.
The offer was presented to the members. If the detail isn't as presented to the members, then the deal can't happen IMO. The offer was presented as any decision on use of funds being purely at the discretion of the Trust's members, so if that changes then the deal can't happen.
That's my view anyway. Not that I have more than 1/15th of the vote. A view which I stated to you ad nauseum months ago, but cheers for forgetting that. I'll just add this - I wouldn't be voting for any use of Trust funds that would be for the benefit of the majority shareholders and not the Trust. I personally couldn't see any scenario where the Trust would use its funds for stadium expansion anyway, but that's just me.
it's been a while since one of these threads (not that I read this site every day unlike someone thinks, my ever decreasing sanity and hairline couldn't cope with that, especially after the events of the past few months). Some good points, but as ever they often get lost by some less good points and the usual abuse.
The funny thing is, ideally I'd agree with a lot of the comments with regards to term limits, rotation of the Trust board etc. The Trust would be stronger for it, and the members engagement with the Trust would be too. New people equals new ideas equals new energy. All very desirable. However, and it really can't be stressed enough, people need to stand for election or make themselves available for that to happen.
Some names get called out on this thread as welcome additions, and I agree they'd be more than, but the silence is deafening. And, you know what, that's fair enough - nobody should be stand for something they don't feel they have the time to do it justice. However, and it does need stressing, the Trust board can only constitute new blood if new blood actually applies - luckily that's happened to some degree and there were two new people this summer, and a couple the year before. To say it's a closed shop defies reality. And, the great thing is that those new people are making their presence felt already, which is great. More of that please. Seriously.
The Trust faces many challenges both now and in the future. Starting with membership numbers, numbers are roughly consistent with this time over past seasons, however it's clearly not as high as anyone would like (and hasn't been since it was free). A subgroup is coming up with some ways to look at the reasons why that happens, ways to improve it, make membership more attractive etc. If you were a member last year then you'll be being contacted in the coming weeks if you haven't been already.
In terms of visibility, I think the relative lack of presence in the past few weeks has been a result of catching our breath after the two ballots of the past couple of months. That and the discussions with the Americans in terms of the details of the negotiations (and there will be more on that in the coming days and weeks). However, and this has been a historic problem that the Trust has never really got to grips with on a consistent basis, there needs to be better and more frequent communication. Again, this is something a group is looking at and will look to implement some improvements in the coming weeks.
Leading on from that, it's the names that are known that get the brickbats. That comes with the territory I guess when you put your head above the parapet. Stu Mac's been mentioned a few times on this thread, and I think some points are fair but very much depend on how you view them. True, he's not very visible online. However he's hardly hiding - go in the corner of the East Stand and you'll see him more often than not. Ditto away from home. He's not hiding in the director's box by any means.
I also know how often he's meeting with the club and putting the fans views there. Does anyone seriously think the Man Utd tickets would have been £20/£10 for ST/JA if he hadn't been pushing for that? That's one example. He's meeting weekly with the likes of Pearlman and other senior people at the club. This has been mentioned in past Trust releases etc, but I guess this comes back to that communication issue again.
The fanbase is very diverse these days - geographically, age (physically and in terms of being a fan) and also in what they want. So is the Trust to some degree, both members and board. Appealing to as wide a constituency is another of the big challenges the Trust will face, especially as long as we remain in the top flight.
I'll end with this. The Trust board consists of 15 members I think it is. Nobody joined that, or stuck around for a significant period of time, because of what they could get out of it. There's no personal benefit to it, and a whole load of abuse half the time. I joined in the hope I could make a difference and believed in the principle of it. I can't know, but I can only believe that's the same for everyone else. If you want the Trust to change, then make that happen - either by being a member or standing for election. |
". I joined in the hope I could make a difference "
What difference did you hope you could make?
Rhetorical question. I'm not holding my breath for an answer. I never get one anyway. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:46 - Oct 13 with 3940 views | Swanzay |
"In terms of visibility, I think the relative lack of presence in the past few weeks has been a result of catching our breath after the two ballots of the past couple of months. That and the discussions with the Americans in terms of the details of the negotiations (and there will be more on that in the coming days and weeks). However, and this has been a historic problem that the Trust has never really got to grips with on a consistent basis, there needs to be better and more frequent communication" Uxbridge.
So all this talk of more open, improved, frequent and transparent communication channels between the Trust and the board in recent months is an exaggeration of reality and the Trust is still very much the after thought? |  | | |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:02 - Oct 13 with 3925 views | Garyjack |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:28 - Oct 13 by DafyddHuw |
". I joined in the hope I could make a difference "
What difference did you hope you could make?
Rhetorical question. I'm not holding my breath for an answer. I never get one anyway. |
Fair play Dafydd, that's a very good question! |  | | |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:07 - Oct 13 with 3916 views | Wingstandwood |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:57 - Oct 13 by vetchonian |
I think you will find your example of a cheaper system is for "school" grounds. As poor as our current system is your chosen example would be as bad....probably worse! |
Of course that PA system would be worse I was just went rock botton to give a price comparison to show the insanity of the £650,000 price quoted.
I am no rock-band roadie you could put 4 monitors on every stand and buy a required mixing desk. I think £650,000 sounds a bit overpriced???
Say the mixing desk cost the same as a very nice 4 bedroomed semi i.e. £150,000 leaving half a million for speakers? 4 for each stand?.....16 total?
Remaining £500,000 divided by 16? That is £31,250 for a single PA monitor.
Here's two on eBay 20 X's more powerful than a 100 watt Fender Twin guitar amp that many noted rock bands have used e.g. Rolling Stones, Sex Pistols ,Nirvana etc
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2x-Mackie-Thump-15-Speak |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:12 - Oct 13 with 3905 views | Nookiejack |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:13 - Oct 13 by Uxbridge |
That's one possible reality I guess. Not one I'd recognise.
The offer was presented to the members. If the detail isn't as presented to the members, then the deal can't happen IMO. The offer was presented as any decision on use of funds being purely at the discretion of the Trust's members, so if that changes then the deal can't happen.
That's my view anyway. Not that I have more than 1/15th of the vote. A view which I stated to you ad nauseum months ago, but cheers for forgetting that. I'll just add this - I wouldn't be voting for any use of Trust funds that would be for the benefit of the majority shareholders and not the Trust. I personally couldn't see any scenario where the Trust would use its funds for stadium expansion anyway, but that's just me.
it's been a while since one of these threads (not that I read this site every day unlike someone thinks, my ever decreasing sanity and hairline couldn't cope with that, especially after the events of the past few months). Some good points, but as ever they often get lost by some less good points and the usual abuse.
The funny thing is, ideally I'd agree with a lot of the comments with regards to term limits, rotation of the Trust board etc. The Trust would be stronger for it, and the members engagement with the Trust would be too. New people equals new ideas equals new energy. All very desirable. However, and it really can't be stressed enough, people need to stand for election or make themselves available for that to happen.
Some names get called out on this thread as welcome additions, and I agree they'd be more than, but the silence is deafening. And, you know what, that's fair enough - nobody should be stand for something they don't feel they have the time to do it justice. However, and it does need stressing, the Trust board can only constitute new blood if new blood actually applies - luckily that's happened to some degree and there were two new people this summer, and a couple the year before. To say it's a closed shop defies reality. And, the great thing is that those new people are making their presence felt already, which is great. More of that please. Seriously.
The Trust faces many challenges both now and in the future. Starting with membership numbers, numbers are roughly consistent with this time over past seasons, however it's clearly not as high as anyone would like (and hasn't been since it was free). A subgroup is coming up with some ways to look at the reasons why that happens, ways to improve it, make membership more attractive etc. If you were a member last year then you'll be being contacted in the coming weeks if you haven't been already.
In terms of visibility, I think the relative lack of presence in the past few weeks has been a result of catching our breath after the two ballots of the past couple of months. That and the discussions with the Americans in terms of the details of the negotiations (and there will be more on that in the coming days and weeks). However, and this has been a historic problem that the Trust has never really got to grips with on a consistent basis, there needs to be better and more frequent communication. Again, this is something a group is looking at and will look to implement some improvements in the coming weeks.
Leading on from that, it's the names that are known that get the brickbats. That comes with the territory I guess when you put your head above the parapet. Stu Mac's been mentioned a few times on this thread, and I think some points are fair but very much depend on how you view them. True, he's not very visible online. However he's hardly hiding - go in the corner of the East Stand and you'll see him more often than not. Ditto away from home. He's not hiding in the director's box by any means.
I also know how often he's meeting with the club and putting the fans views there. Does anyone seriously think the Man Utd tickets would have been £20/£10 for ST/JA if he hadn't been pushing for that? That's one example. He's meeting weekly with the likes of Pearlman and other senior people at the club. This has been mentioned in past Trust releases etc, but I guess this comes back to that communication issue again.
The fanbase is very diverse these days - geographically, age (physically and in terms of being a fan) and also in what they want. So is the Trust to some degree, both members and board. Appealing to as wide a constituency is another of the big challenges the Trust will face, especially as long as we remain in the top flight.
I'll end with this. The Trust board consists of 15 members I think it is. Nobody joined that, or stuck around for a significant period of time, because of what they could get out of it. There's no personal benefit to it, and a whole load of abuse half the time. I joined in the hope I could make a difference and believed in the principle of it. I can't know, but I can only believe that's the same for everyone else. If you want the Trust to change, then make that happen - either by being a member or standing for election. |
Thank you for confirming that in your view as 1/15 of the Board - a new vote would have to be held if Yanks asked for conditionality of Trust having to reinvest proceeds in stadium expansion - before buying the Trust’s 5% stake.
I assume that also applies to acquiring the stadium.
The announcement in respect of the vote was 17 Aug 17 which is nearly 2 months ago - so hope you understand why people start thinking about what possible issues could be holding up the deal - given there doesn’t appear to have been any further news since then. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:47 - Oct 13 with 3873 views | E20Jack |
If you are genuinely implying that it was the Trust that got the price for the cup game to £20. Then does that mean The Trust did not make their views known regarding the ridiculous pricing of the friendly (as they stated they did) - or was it that you were ignored that particular time?
If it was the latter then surely it would be fair to assume the influence is minimal on the subject and mere happenstance on this occasion? [Post edited 13 Oct 2017 20:03]
|  |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:48 - Oct 13 with 3872 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:02 - Oct 13 by Garyjack |
Fair play Dafydd, that's a very good question! |
I think in behavioural terms it goes deeper than it looks. I'm not saying this was a conscious reason by any means, but I'm sure every member of the Trust Board joined because they wanted to make a (personal) difference to the club they love.
Therefore, the legal option would have severed that link and there would have been no further chance to make a (personal) contribution to the club. I would bet every Freudian bone in my body that that was part of the drive behind wanting to do any kind of deal, cemented further by endorsement by the others, subconscious or not.
Unfortunately, I think the best (non-personal) contribution that the Board as a whole could have made would have been the one that saw them lose any chance of (personal) future contribution.
The distortion of the vote (and even though I accept the outcome, that's what it was) is tough to explain just looking at the poor deal on the table. The problem could be now of course, that the Trust will end when the Yanks decide to sell to anyone they wish and the Trust is dragged along. Lets hope it's as a PL club so that the Trust will at least get full value and can disband and bank the funds for future disaster. In which case this will have been the right decision. If not, and we are relegated, that (personal) contribution could prove disastrous.
I'll declare my bias, if it's not obvious. I have no beef with the individuals on the trust, in fact I think they are good people, I still simply can't believe that we didn't sue. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 21:59 - Oct 13 with 3813 views | TheResurrection |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:48 - Oct 13 by monmouth |
I think in behavioural terms it goes deeper than it looks. I'm not saying this was a conscious reason by any means, but I'm sure every member of the Trust Board joined because they wanted to make a (personal) difference to the club they love.
Therefore, the legal option would have severed that link and there would have been no further chance to make a (personal) contribution to the club. I would bet every Freudian bone in my body that that was part of the drive behind wanting to do any kind of deal, cemented further by endorsement by the others, subconscious or not.
Unfortunately, I think the best (non-personal) contribution that the Board as a whole could have made would have been the one that saw them lose any chance of (personal) future contribution.
The distortion of the vote (and even though I accept the outcome, that's what it was) is tough to explain just looking at the poor deal on the table. The problem could be now of course, that the Trust will end when the Yanks decide to sell to anyone they wish and the Trust is dragged along. Lets hope it's as a PL club so that the Trust will at least get full value and can disband and bank the funds for future disaster. In which case this will have been the right decision. If not, and we are relegated, that (personal) contribution could prove disastrous.
I'll declare my bias, if it's not obvious. I have no beef with the individuals on the trust, in fact I think they are good people, I still simply can't believe that we didn't sue. |
But why didn't we? I mean, really why?
It's strange the same Trust board members that brokered this deal were on the Board during, arguably, the Trust's darkest times a season or 2 to go.
There was never an external enquiry about what really went on, who played what part, who knew something, who didn't.
Instead all we had was the self regulating code of conduct to say that in the future Trust Board members could not be involved in any personal business with the Club.
Was that really good enough?
And more importantly, why were the same Trust Board members allowed to be involved in the Trust's biggest ever decision.
I personally don't feel anything like enough was done about the dark episode when we changed as a Club completely, and this now feels like the icing an an ever more frustrating and helpless brushing under the carpet.
Is this really going to be the true legacy of the Trust over the last 10 years?
Do they carefully keep the numbers of members joining the Trust low ( I mean they do diddly squat to ever increase its membership!!) and hide behind their closed off little world of secrecy and self control? | |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 22:21 - Oct 13 with 3793 views | monmouth |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 21:59 - Oct 13 by TheResurrection |
But why didn't we? I mean, really why?
It's strange the same Trust board members that brokered this deal were on the Board during, arguably, the Trust's darkest times a season or 2 to go.
There was never an external enquiry about what really went on, who played what part, who knew something, who didn't.
Instead all we had was the self regulating code of conduct to say that in the future Trust Board members could not be involved in any personal business with the Club.
Was that really good enough?
And more importantly, why were the same Trust Board members allowed to be involved in the Trust's biggest ever decision.
I personally don't feel anything like enough was done about the dark episode when we changed as a Club completely, and this now feels like the icing an an ever more frustrating and helpless brushing under the carpet.
Is this really going to be the true legacy of the Trust over the last 10 years?
Do they carefully keep the numbers of members joining the Trust low ( I mean they do diddly squat to ever increase its membership!!) and hide behind their closed off little world of secrecy and self control? |
I can’t answer that, but I think that would be a tough gig to live with and retain any self respect so I bloody hope not. I believe, based on nothing much, that they all act in good faith. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 22:24 - Oct 13 with 3789 views | Darran |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 21:59 - Oct 13 by TheResurrection |
But why didn't we? I mean, really why?
It's strange the same Trust board members that brokered this deal were on the Board during, arguably, the Trust's darkest times a season or 2 to go.
There was never an external enquiry about what really went on, who played what part, who knew something, who didn't.
Instead all we had was the self regulating code of conduct to say that in the future Trust Board members could not be involved in any personal business with the Club.
Was that really good enough?
And more importantly, why were the same Trust Board members allowed to be involved in the Trust's biggest ever decision.
I personally don't feel anything like enough was done about the dark episode when we changed as a Club completely, and this now feels like the icing an an ever more frustrating and helpless brushing under the carpet.
Is this really going to be the true legacy of the Trust over the last 10 years?
Do they carefully keep the numbers of members joining the Trust low ( I mean they do diddly squat to ever increase its membership!!) and hide behind their closed off little world of secrecy and self control? |
We? Seriously with all due respect are you alright in the head?
How the fuçk can you say we when you haven't been a member for years and all you've ever done is slag them off?
Honestly WTF? | |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 00:04 - Oct 14 with 3732 views | TheResurrection |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 22:24 - Oct 13 by Darran |
We? Seriously with all due respect are you alright in the head?
How the fuçk can you say we when you haven't been a member for years and all you've ever done is slag them off?
Honestly WTF? |
This Sub Group facking nonsense!!!
WTF - 10 years in and all they come up with is to set up a sub group to see why membership is so shit!!!??
Being a paying member now means next to nothing financially to the Trust. If the Trust, or let's word it as it should be, "the supporters of SCFC" - as that's why it began, what it's always been about and always will be - and if they needed money urgently to survive or prosper, I'd be a member and like before, gladly contribute again.
Now, not being a member is just proof they're not doing what they should be. I can't buy into the way it's been abused and run.
And as for you, you feel it's your duty to stifle any conscious criticism and deflect away from issues relating to Phil and the Trust. Your whole life revolves around 1 website, it's tragic but it's true. People have seen through you a long time ago. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 02:51 - Oct 14 with 3680 views | Loyal |
I would like to offer up my mother in law as an incentive not to join the trust.
She only has five teeth but from a gum disease point of view can suck like a Henry Hoover.
If anyone can finish the job early it will prevent her gums bleeding on your helmet.
Best of luck. PM me for details 👠|  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 09:20 - Oct 14 with 3638 views | QJumpingJack |
For the Trust, how do they define success this season? | | | |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:04 - Oct 15 with 3525 views | DafyddHuw |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 09:20 - Oct 14 by QJumpingJack |
For the Trust, how do they define success this season? |
Letting the Yanks think that the Trust have some say in the pricing of Cup tickets. | | | |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:12 - Oct 15 with 3515 views | vetchonian |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 19:07 - Oct 13 by Wingstandwood |
Of course that PA system would be worse I was just went rock botton to give a price comparison to show the insanity of the £650,000 price quoted.
I am no rock-band roadie you could put 4 monitors on every stand and buy a required mixing desk. I think £650,000 sounds a bit overpriced???
Say the mixing desk cost the same as a very nice 4 bedroomed semi i.e. £150,000 leaving half a million for speakers? 4 for each stand?.....16 total?
Remaining £500,000 divided by 16? That is £31,250 for a single PA monitor.
Here's two on eBay 20 X's more powerful than a 100 watt Fender Twin guitar amp that many noted rock bands have used e.g. Rolling Stones, Sex Pistols ,Nirvana etc
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2x-Mackie-Thump-15-Speak |
I agree £659k is a lot but that possibly includes the install costs maybe even a complete replacement through the stadium including cabling etc......I'm not defending the sellouts here but by the time you add In contractors costs who knows and to quote an ex boss of mine " you don't get much for your money" | |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:20 - Oct 15 with 3495 views | vetchonian |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 18:02 - Oct 13 by TheResurrection |
That's an awful lot of waffle, hot air and probably false promises.
I want you Phil and Stu to announce your stepping down dates and I want the 3 of you to do a whole lot more, between now and the date you leave the Trust, to make it an organisation that people WANT to be a part of.
So let's start with one promise the 3 of you WILL MAKE..
What date exactly will be your last day?
This has to happen or the rest of what you say or promise will be completely irrelevant.
So over to the 3 of you to do the right thing by the old girl. [Post edited 13 Oct 2017 18:10]
|
Time for you to step up then Chrissy
So much to say easy from the sidelines isn't it.
If you want thes e guys to step down and allow the Trust to change why haven't you stood for election......I will willingly nominate you
So go on put your money where your mouth is
But no you aren't brave enough for that as you will son. Be found out.
So why not instead of sniping from the sidelines don't you ever try to get involved and change things? | |
| |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 12:43 - Oct 15 with 3473 views | Wingstandwood |
| Swans Trust Board Minutes - September 2017 on 00:04 - Oct 14 by TheResurrection |
This Sub Group facking nonsense!!!
WTF - 10 years in and all they come up with is to set up a sub group to see why membership is so shit!!!??
Being a paying member now means next to nothing financially to the Trust. If the Trust, or let's word it as it should be, "the supporters of SCFC" - as that's why it began, what it's always been about and always will be - and if they needed money urgently to survive or prosper, I'd be a member and like before, gladly contribute again.
Now, not being a member is just proof they're not doing what they should be. I can't buy into the way it's been abused and run.
And as for you, you feel it's your duty to stifle any conscious criticism and deflect away from issues relating to Phil and the Trust. Your whole life revolves around 1 website, it's tragic but it's true. People have seen through you a long time ago. |
I can tell you why membership is so shit!
The Trust..... And?..... The club owners (and still troughing/freeloading) sell-outs, ex-sell-outs are but one entity in the same way the IRA and Sinn Fein were.
The trust cannot even be bothered to communicate.
The trust?.... Is about as dynamic, reactive, proactive, and relevant, as a roadkill hedgehog that has just met 5 Armoured Brigade and all associated HGV-carrier deployment on the way to a live-firing exercise. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.