| New chairman stands down 11:02 - Nov 22 with 25840 views | biggar |
Just had email saying new chairman has stood down. |  | | |  |
| New chairman stands down on 18:58 - Nov 22 with 1835 views | Oldjack |
| New chairman stands down on 18:45 - Nov 22 by Darran |
Alan there was no way to stop the sale and on a side note there’s not much that’s come to light since has there? |
Don't be so obtuse you div ,Had the trust known they'd and I've no doubt about it whatsover they'd have put a massive spanner in the works one way or another |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:58 - Nov 22 with 1837 views | swanseajack4eva |
| New chairman stands down on 18:43 - Nov 22 by MattG |
Not at all. My point was simply that there has never been anything stopping candidates doing just that. |
I think you miss the point. Based on the last elections the board members set zero expectation for new board members ... so you get what you get. There should be expectations for candidates to lay out their experience, qualifications, beliefs, objectives, tenure on board, etc. so members can make a properly informed choice. |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:00 - Nov 22 with 1831 views | Neath_Jack |
| New chairman stands down on 18:57 - Nov 22 by Darran |
Whoosh. OFAH Butt. |
Oh right you meant it, of course you did, silly me. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:01 - Nov 22 with 1827 views | swanseajack4eva |
| New chairman stands down on 18:45 - Nov 22 by Neath_Jack |
Stopping them doing what?
If you mean doing a little personal manifesto, then it should be compulsory, if they don't do one, then no chance of running in an election. |
Exactly. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:05 - Nov 22 with 1807 views | londonlisa2001 |
| New chairman stands down on 18:57 - Nov 22 by MattG |
Everyone agreed that the terms presented by the Yanks were different to what had been communicated to members.
For me, this undermined the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks to such an extent that I felt we should pull out of the deal. Others believed that continued negotiation could lead to the terms reverting back to what was originally communicated.
Everyone agreed that if the terms of the deal were different then it would go back to the members. I suppose the slightly grey area is whether the relationship between the Trust and the Yanks should be considered as one of the "terms of the deal" even though it's not there in black and white.
For me, it should be treated the same, purely on the basis that it was presented positively during the Consultation (and rightly so at the time) and that could have influenced people's decision. |
I completely agree with you.
And that's what I was referring to originally.
We are saying the same thing, which is why I'm confused at you saying I'm incorrect?
It's your final point and the disagreement from others, that I was referring to when I said you were outvoted. I didn't mean there was necessarily a show of hands, I meant outvoted in the wider sense. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:05 - Nov 22 with 1790 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 19:00 - Nov 22 by Neath_Jack |
Oh right you meant it, of course you did, silly me. |
Yes I meant it. Del Boy says it on OFAH. Along the lines of “What do you think I am Rodney physic?” |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:06 - Nov 22 with 1797 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 18:58 - Nov 22 by swanseajack4eva |
I think you miss the point. Based on the last elections the board members set zero expectation for new board members ... so you get what you get. There should be expectations for candidates to lay out their experience, qualifications, beliefs, objectives, tenure on board, etc. so members can make a properly informed choice. |
I'm not sure what you mean about the Board's expectations, sorry. There are no rules , you can say what you like and, to be honest, I was probably as guilty as anyone of being bland in what I said.
I agree, given where things are, that more thought (and maybe effort) needs to go into these statements in future and a more structured format would certainly help. |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:06 - Nov 22 with 1795 views | DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I'm hoping someone can clarify a few things for me. If someone was looking to apply to be Co opted on to the board, who decides who gets voted in? Is it the members or the existing board? As surely if it is the latter, they wont select anybody whose 250 words suggest they'll be against their intentions. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| New chairman stands down on 19:13 - Nov 22 with 1745 views | swanseajack4eva |
| New chairman stands down on 19:06 - Nov 22 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I'm hoping someone can clarify a few things for me. If someone was looking to apply to be Co opted on to the board, who decides who gets voted in? Is it the members or the existing board? As surely if it is the latter, they wont select anybody whose 250 words suggest they'll be against their intentions. |
The existing board decides ... with the likely outcome as you describe. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:14 - Nov 22 with 1729 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 19:06 - Nov 22 by DwightYorkeSuperstar |
I'm hoping someone can clarify a few things for me. If someone was looking to apply to be Co opted on to the board, who decides who gets voted in? Is it the members or the existing board? As surely if it is the latter, they wont select anybody whose 250 words suggest they'll be against their intentions. |
It’s the board but I’m pretty sure if one or two put themselves forward that the Trust would accept them on board unless they want to make it look like a closed shop of course. [Post edited 22 Nov 2017 19:18]
| |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:16 - Nov 22 with 1728 views | swanseajack4eva |
| New chairman stands down on 19:06 - Nov 22 by MattG |
I'm not sure what you mean about the Board's expectations, sorry. There are no rules , you can say what you like and, to be honest, I was probably as guilty as anyone of being bland in what I said.
I agree, given where things are, that more thought (and maybe effort) needs to go into these statements in future and a more structured format would certainly help. |
Matt - thanks and I agree with your second paragraph. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:16 - Nov 22 with 1725 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 19:05 - Nov 22 by londonlisa2001 |
I completely agree with you.
And that's what I was referring to originally.
We are saying the same thing, which is why I'm confused at you saying I'm incorrect?
It's your final point and the disagreement from others, that I was referring to when I said you were outvoted. I didn't mean there was necessarily a show of hands, I meant outvoted in the wider sense. |
I felt you were incorrect insofar as there was absolute unanimity that if there were any material changes to terms then the deal would be taken back to the members.
As to my last point and whether others see the relationship as being "material", in all honesty that remains to be seen. If there is no second vote then they obviously see it differently. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:24 - Nov 22 with 1668 views | londonlisa2001 |
| New chairman stands down on 19:16 - Nov 22 by MattG |
I felt you were incorrect insofar as there was absolute unanimity that if there were any material changes to terms then the deal would be taken back to the members.
As to my last point and whether others see the relationship as being "material", in all honesty that remains to be seen. If there is no second vote then they obviously see it differently. |
Well Will's statement when he was appointed, said he was intending to negotiate. I assumed he was telling the truth. Hence he (with the support of the Trust board) did disagree. He said it quite specifically in answer to a question I posed. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:25 - Nov 22 with 1668 views | BillyChong |
| New chairman stands down on 16:24 - Nov 22 by Swanseajill |
And I've had thought that the more the fans are unhappy with the Trust ( our one small voice) the share sellers and the new owners will be over the moon to see the fans small grip on our club...disintegrate.
They will feel that the fans must remain weak, and chant nice football songs during matches. Not to have any input in how are club is being run....at all.
It was ever so. But the Trust changed that. [Post edited 22 Nov 2017 16:30]
|
The fans will remain weak and chant nice football songs during matches whilst the Trust themselves are weak. I agree, the Trust did once change that but they haven’t done much of the sort recently. The directors would surely be happier with the Trust board carrying on as they were than someone stepping in who’d rock the boat a bit. One guy and a couple of mates handing a few flyers outside the stadium before the last game and some Facebook posts (albeit a bit OTT) shook them up more than the Trust has recently. [Post edited 22 Nov 2017 19:27]
| | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:32 - Nov 22 with 1634 views | monmouth |
| New chairman stands down on 19:16 - Nov 22 by MattG |
I felt you were incorrect insofar as there was absolute unanimity that if there were any material changes to terms then the deal would be taken back to the members.
As to my last point and whether others see the relationship as being "material", in all honesty that remains to be seen. If there is no second vote then they obviously see it differently. |
I'm regretting the harshness and cruelty of some of my own words over the weekend (although let me say, I'm amazed whatever anyone says that a chair would resign over a few comments on an internet forum, he clearly demonstrated he was not the man to be fronting anything with these yankee sharks if that really was the case).
I was just very much against the Trust being a bunch of poodles, and my anger at a Board led by a Chair that clearly can't argue his case, and that seemed determined to deal with such sharks, as indicated by both your and Phils comments, was just a red rag to a bull.
I don't get the last bit. If anyone doesn't think that the 'relationship' is critical, never mind material, to the deal agreed then they are being totally disingenuous, as, unless I'm having a complete brainstorm, that was one of the key areas that the deal was predicated on. The Trust having influence and weight through the relationship, which was portrayed as well on the way to getting to a position of 'trust'. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:33 - Nov 22 with 1622 views | Dr_Winston |
| New chairman stands down on 18:58 - Nov 22 by Oldjack |
Don't be so obtuse you div ,Had the trust known they'd and I've no doubt about it whatsover they'd have put a massive spanner in the works one way or another |
Would have made absolutely no difference if the sellers still wanted to sell and the buyers still wanted to buy. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:38 - Nov 22 with 1585 views | MoscowJack |
I don't know if I'll get an answer to this but....I'll try again, as I'm struggling to understand this and it could be critical to the difference between what the Trust got the vote on and what was actually presented to the Trust.
So...did the Trust actually get numbers from the Americans (ie was it £5m for 5% or 'x' amount per %) or was it presumed it was the same as the old Board got? | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:40 - Nov 22 with 1568 views | Jackfath |
And all the while the main focus is being sidelined. Exactly what those that are in charge would be wishing to happen.
What a mess. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:41 - Nov 22 with 1554 views | Garyjack |
| New chairman stands down on 11:17 - Nov 22 by Darran |
I’m sorry but I still don’t get why so many seem intent on destroying the Trust but aren’t interested in destroying the people that sold the club to the Yanks.
Very strange to me and yes the Trust Have fuçked up and broken their own rules and if Will wasn’t eligible to be Trust Chairman because of those broken rules it’s tough shit.
Still don’t get it though. |
After everything the sell outs did to the trust, you'd think they would be pro active themselves to remove them from the club instead of sitting in the directors box with them on matchdays. I'm quite sure in my mind that if the trust were at the forefront of any demonstrations then they would be backed by hundreds if not thousands of fans instead of the 8 who the trust tried to pacify at the last home game! |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:42 - Nov 22 with 1540 views | Phil_S |
| New chairman stands down on 19:38 - Nov 22 by MoscowJack |
I don't know if I'll get an answer to this but....I'll try again, as I'm struggling to understand this and it could be critical to the difference between what the Trust got the vote on and what was actually presented to the Trust.
So...did the Trust actually get numbers from the Americans (ie was it £5m for 5% or 'x' amount per %) or was it presumed it was the same as the old Board got? |
Oh I’ll answer that
We got the amount , the very amount quoted in the consultations in the summer
Anyone who says we got anything different than the amount passed on (£5.17m) needs to check facts as I hold that piece of communication here |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:43 - Nov 22 with 1530 views | londonlisa2001 |
| New chairman stands down on 19:33 - Nov 22 by Dr_Winston |
Would have made absolutely no difference if the sellers still wanted to sell and the buyers still wanted to buy. |
The only way anything different could have happened is if either the Trust had been able to get to 25% (which they attempted to do twice), or if they had been able to find a buyer that wanted to work with them in partnership. I suppose it's theoretically possible that they could have attacked through PR to such an extent that the sellers would have had second thoughts, but their thick skin doesn't suggest that would have had any effect.
As I said in a post earlier, it's the sellers that created such an untenable position. This lot could never be worked with. So ultimately, take action, bank the money and wait. And while waiting, also explore whether there were buyers that may see the benefit in everyone, fans included, being on the same page and working with the Trust. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 19:43 - Nov 22 with 1527 views | ItchySphincter |
| New chairman stands down on 15:26 - Nov 22 by Uxbridge |
I really didn’t want to get involved in this, largely for my own stress levels. Guess I have no choice. This’ll probably turn into a speech but I’ll just put everything I think in one thread and log off, if only in the interests of my sanity.
You know what Nick, and you’ll know this, I have absolutely no issue with you saying what you have been told from your sources (I don’t know who they are, but can pretty much guess given the subject matter, material covered and the lack of any other obvious suspects). We can debate the content, and I’ll get to that, but I’ve got no issue with that bit. I’ve got a problem with several other things though, and they’re not really problems with you but in general. Mainly the lack of any sort of critical analysis of your comments (which I’m sure we agree aren’t actually facts but someone’s views), the lack of the same courtesy given to Will when he came onto here to rebut, and the way he and other members of his family were commented upon.
I should probably declare something here. Will and I have butted heads many a time over the last few years and argued the toss over many things. We have different views on certain things. Ironically, he’s someone who had grasped that the Trust board needed to be a lot more proactive in terms of their personal engagement online, and his recent appearances on here had been part of that. Anyway, I digress, Will and I were often on differing ends of the argument. This irony is not lost on me.
However, there are things I know and there are things I can neither confirm or deny. I don’t know if Will had conversations with Nigel in an attempt to whip up support for a tilt at Chairman, but they both vehemently deny it. I’m not even sure if it’s even relevant if they did, but anyway. What I do know are two things — if this happened, nobody approached me about it or even mentioned it, and Phil was elected to the chair unopposed in both 2015 and 2017. Actually I know a third thing, Phil proposed Will to be vice chair. Read into that what you will. Between you, me and the lamppost, he was pretty much pressganged into the Chairman role due to that appointment. If any of us could have seen into the future, that’d have been a very different meeting. He didn’t stab me in the back to the best of my knowledge, although as a board member without portfolio that may be a moot point. I won’t mention the irony of people on PS disapproving of a coup when there are ones being openly planned here, but it did make my chuckle. Anyway, I couldn’t disprove something that I have no knowledge of, so there we are, but the evidence doesn’t really support any of it and I do wonder if Nick’s sources have their own axe’s to grind.
This whole Associate Director nonsense staggers me to be honest. It’s been answered plenty of times, occasionally by the same people saying that there’s no clarity. However, in the futile hope of putting this to bed, can someone please cut and paste this in the future. The AD position has been in the possession of the Trust for donkeys years, possibly from the beginning when Tenko was also conferred the same title as a sop. It means nothing in practice, they don’t attend board meetings or vote, and I doubt it has any legal standing. Anyway, point is the position is always held by a Trust board member, and I believe Will is the second holder of that title. Recently the Trust had some additional rights conferred onto it with the Trust now having the right to a second, non-voting, director being able to attend board meetings. That’s usually the AD, with Chair as backup Will didn’t have the role before he joined the Trust board, principally because it’s a position appointed by the Trust board. Allegations of conflict of interest on that basis are preposterous.
As Will himself mentioned, he attends the directors box on rota with Stu and Phil as the senior officers of the Trust, probably more than originally planned as Phil has his own thoughts on the situation. The Trust has a number of spaces (6 I think) it uses for various purposes (raffle prizes, volunteers who have performed tasks for the Trust etc), one of which being to get members of the Trust board into a position to express their views with the directors or officers of the club, or often opposition clubs. Now it’s true that Trust board attendees often have a +1, not always but often, it depends on capacity. Sometimes that’s because there’s the space, sometimes that’s because it’s a pretty lonely place without someone you can speak to, and sometimes it actually helps smooth things as other attendees would have their partners there too. Now we can debate whether the Trust should be in the directors box at all, and that’s something I’ve alternated my view on depending on how relations are, but the Trust has the right to its spaces there and I have no issue with those who think the Trust should be there. As I’ll no doubt be asked, I’ve been in there a few times over the last few years (4 I think, 2 league, 2 league cup), sometimes by myself, twice with someone else, one of those with the other half last Boxing Day. To go back to my earlier point, she got more out of Pearlman and his wife than I did, so she should probably be in there more than I should. I could mention who else was there that day, but that’ll move this away from where I want to go. Anyway, my point was, being accompanied by his wife is an unfair stick to beat Will with (as otherwise she’d be attending the game on her own), and to infer that it’s something to do with status is only ever somebody’s opinion, not fact, and nothing more than cheap gossip. If it’s a perk, it’s a crap one. Give me my seat in the East every day of the week.
As for his departure statement, entirely his prerogative I say. Not for me, or anyone else on the Trust board, to dictate what message he wanted in that, although I doubt there’s much dissention in the fundamental message of the statement. And this is the bit that always gets missed. Everyone involved with the Trust board is an actual real person, with feelings, thoughts, families etc. Thing is with the Trust, it takes over sometimes, especially the last 18 months and especially if you’re getting properly involved. It affects your families as they get dragged into it, for no other reason than it becomes a big part of your life. They’ll occasionally put their own heads above the parapet and give their own views. This is something I’ve personally had a fair bit of experience of in recent times, and it’s not fun for someone’s other half to see their partner attacked for the crime of expressing their view, especially if they get dragged into it. I’ve seen that first hand when my partner committed the cardinal sin of correcting some utter nonsense on the Facebook group. She got accused of all sorts and all of it utter nonsense which was easy to disprove. I know Will’s family faced similar issues when they commented online. A lot of it comes with the territory I know, but there has to be a line surely. Anyway, back to the statement, it is nothing more than heartfelt departure statement from someone who gave over a decade to the Trust board. He earned that right, and the statement should be taken at face value. I think a lot of it needed saying to be honest. If it affects your family, it isn’t worth it. End of.
And this is the bit where I really disliked what happened on Sunday. Things got very personal very quickly, and all off the back of some sensationalised allegations that, for the record, Will denied. Lines were crossed IMO in that thread that got locked in particular as all sorts of allegations were made and delight taken in joining the attack. I tell a lie, there was one post questioning the accuracy of the allegations. I expect little agreement on that point, but frankly I think you’re all wrong if you think that part was acceptable. Would that have happened face to face? Not a chance.
What happens next will be interesting. There’ll be clarity on the model rules situation in the next couple of days, although from the provisional details from the legal types I’ve seen I expect people are going to be disappointed on that score. Shaky has made most of the points I was going to make, which made me smile. There’ll also be further announcements on next steps, some detail on where we are with the Americans etc. There’s a general lack of clarity out there on that particular for various reasons, and that’s not helped. However, if I may address the position of Chairman for a moment. Firstly, the members electing a chairman makes no sense to me. The chair doesn’t have special powers, they get one vote (and occasionally a casting one). They don’t dictate Trust policy, as Phil found out. Secondly, I hope whoever is next in the hotseat (and no, it won’t be me for reasons which are well publicised although I’d probably add a few new ones after the last week), is given a fair crack.
Disagree with them all you want, disagree with the Trust board view all you want, I’ll often agree, but their views are as valid as anyone else’s. And this is the fundamental thing for me … everyone has the right to their own view. Don’t agree with it, fine no problem. I just wish those who disagreed with the view of the Trust board stood and tried to change that policy. There’s only 15 spaces, it wouldn’t take much to tilt the balance. You have 2 days left on that score. Personally, I want a Trust board that can argue both sides of the argument. Who could ever think that everyone agreeing would be a good thing? This episode is unlikely to make people jump up and stand, and anyone who does has my upmost respect. And that’s the thing … regardless of my views on certain things, I have respect for anyone who steps up, and I most definitely include Will in that. It’s a thankless task.
With perfect hindsight, we were always going to get to this position. Tensions are red hot, fans feel alienated, the Trust board haven’t helped themselves at times, myself included. Sunday was probably a perfect storm in that regard. Something like this was always going to happen. Doesn’t make it right though.
All I ask is this. Every action of the Trust is analysed in microscopic detail. Frequently overanalysed, often goes way down the wrong track, but that’s the job of every fan to do. Lots of the criticism is justified. However, the same action should also apply to everything else that comes up. Just because you agree with something or if it fits in with your worldview doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also put the same tests to that. Question everything, and I mean everything. Oh and taking things at face value and giving people the benefit of the doubt isn’t a bad place to start either. The Trust is trying to change and improve, but it’s got no chance of making that change in the way I, and I suspect most on here, want if people get written off the moment they step up, or the worst is automatically not only accepted but believed without any consideration. |
See, I don't want to be rude here but that kind of boIIocks should be replaced by a Trust statement about what is actually going on at this grand old football club.
I know you'll get props and loads of pats on the back for that but , besides agreeing that people should attempt to be civil, it doesn't really say anything much. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:43 - Nov 22 with 1522 views | whoflungdung |
Does this mean then Gary, that if you came across these cretins ,you wouldn't be doffing your cap to them | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:45 - Nov 22 with 1513 views | MoscowJack |
| New chairman stands down on 19:42 - Nov 22 by Phil_S |
Oh I’ll answer that
We got the amount , the very amount quoted in the consultations in the summer
Anyone who says we got anything different than the amount passed on (£5.17m) needs to check facts as I hold that piece of communication here |
So they offered in writing £5.17m......and then they changed it?
I'm not questioning you, just trying to clearly understand it. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 19:47 - Nov 22 with 1488 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 19:40 - Nov 22 by Jackfath |
And all the while the main focus is being sidelined. Exactly what those that are in charge would be wishing to happen.
What a mess. |
It’s as if it had been planned eh? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
