| New chairman stands down 11:02 - Nov 22 with 26078 views | biggar |
Just had email saying new chairman has stood down. |  | | |  |
| New chairman stands down on 16:52 - Nov 22 with 2048 views | Jack_Kass |
Line them up, snipe them down. Who's next?
I really can't help but feel we're all losing track of the bigger picture here, if people spent half of their energy on targeting the real villians of this, instead of working to undermine the small players, then maybe real action could be taken.
5,10,12 years? Was it really important at this moment in time?
Will Morris ffs, how unimportant is he in all of this? Yet the best part of a week wasted on scrutinising him, and aiming to unseat him, while lets be honest, the real puppet masters above are laughing at it all, as now a 21% shareholder of the club is imploding internally, nowhere to be seen or heard in the board room, and vulnerable to just being wiped away with ease.
We get the club we deserve. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 16:54 - Nov 22 with 2034 views | trampie |
| 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. |
Everyone I speak to thinks the trust is rotten to the core and everyone in position needs to be removed and replaced by new blood. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 16:57 - Nov 22 with 2011 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 16:54 - Nov 22 by trampie |
Everyone I speak to thinks the trust is rotten to the core and everyone in position needs to be removed and replaced by new blood. |
What do they think of the sellouts themselves? |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:05 - Nov 22 with 1972 views | vetchonian |
| New chairman stands down on 16:54 - Nov 22 by trampie |
Everyone I speak to thinks the trust is rotten to the core and everyone in position needs to be removed and replaced by new blood. |
There have been lots of those on here who have insulted,critisced the Trust but I have not seen a rush of people willing to put themselves forward to change it.
We get what we deserve at times ....I guess we all got taken along with "just not another club" foolishly believing we could trust the Club board as like us they were fans,some of whom had been Trust memebrs. They had rescued us from that imposter Petty little did we know that they were just as bad.
Hindsight tells us following the killing of the Moores deal given the Trust's "intervention" we ahould have been more vigilant and aware of further potential sales.....but again I believe the Trust thought where it had succeeded once in stopping an "unfavourable" deal it would be able to so so once more....
Little did they think fellow fans would go behind their backs and even more so try to get them to agreeing to the non existence of a shareholder agreement!
What we need now is to close ranks and galvanise the troops and make the Trust strong again....But many just want to crow and continue to throw stones yet are not prepared themselves to step up to the plate. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:07 - Nov 22 with 1968 views | trampie |
| New chairman stands down on 16:57 - Nov 22 by Darran |
What do they think of the sellouts themselves? |
It's like the Conservatives and Labour, Conservatives are seen as self serving and in it for themselves, it's a given for many people to see them as that, but Labour to adopt similar if only slightly milder policies are seen by some as traitors to their core electorate and traitors to their original ideals.
Labour come in for more of a bashing from some because they pretend to be better than the other lot when in reality they are nearly as bad and deserving of more criticism for their betrayal of the ones they supposed to represent.
Some people see it like that. [Post edited 22 Nov 2017 17:24]
| |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:09 - Nov 22 with 1955 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 17:05 - Nov 22 by vetchonian |
There have been lots of those on here who have insulted,critisced the Trust but I have not seen a rush of people willing to put themselves forward to change it.
We get what we deserve at times ....I guess we all got taken along with "just not another club" foolishly believing we could trust the Club board as like us they were fans,some of whom had been Trust memebrs. They had rescued us from that imposter Petty little did we know that they were just as bad.
Hindsight tells us following the killing of the Moores deal given the Trust's "intervention" we ahould have been more vigilant and aware of further potential sales.....but again I believe the Trust thought where it had succeeded once in stopping an "unfavourable" deal it would be able to so so once more....
Little did they think fellow fans would go behind their backs and even more so try to get them to agreeing to the non existence of a shareholder agreement!
What we need now is to close ranks and galvanise the troops and make the Trust strong again....But many just want to crow and continue to throw stones yet are not prepared themselves to step up to the plate. |
Beautiful. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:16 - Nov 22 with 1928 views | trampie |
| New chairman stands down on 17:05 - Nov 22 by vetchonian |
There have been lots of those on here who have insulted,critisced the Trust but I have not seen a rush of people willing to put themselves forward to change it.
We get what we deserve at times ....I guess we all got taken along with "just not another club" foolishly believing we could trust the Club board as like us they were fans,some of whom had been Trust memebrs. They had rescued us from that imposter Petty little did we know that they were just as bad.
Hindsight tells us following the killing of the Moores deal given the Trust's "intervention" we ahould have been more vigilant and aware of further potential sales.....but again I believe the Trust thought where it had succeeded once in stopping an "unfavourable" deal it would be able to so so once more....
Little did they think fellow fans would go behind their backs and even more so try to get them to agreeing to the non existence of a shareholder agreement!
What we need now is to close ranks and galvanise the troops and make the Trust strong again....But many just want to crow and continue to throw stones yet are not prepared themselves to step up to the plate. |
Would real radical new brooms be allowed to get in ?, fans I talk too talk about cronyism, don't know if that is the case or not but people I speak to are fed up with the trust seemingly going along with the sellouts and the new buyers when things don't seem to be in the best interests of Swansea as a club and a team and for the fans at large. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:21 - Nov 22 with 1912 views | Thursday |
Cut it out with the constant appeal to accomplishment.
Anybody is free to criticise the Trust without needing to offer to be a part of it. Good on those who want to criticise and step up to make a difference, but that criticism carries no more weight than that of those who do not (or cannot) step up. [Post edited 22 Nov 2017 17:23]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| New chairman stands down on 17:35 - Nov 22 with 1848 views | Jack_Kass |
| New chairman stands down on 17:21 - Nov 22 by Thursday |
Cut it out with the constant appeal to accomplishment.
Anybody is free to criticise the Trust without needing to offer to be a part of it. Good on those who want to criticise and step up to make a difference, but that criticism carries no more weight than that of those who do not (or cannot) step up. [Post edited 22 Nov 2017 17:23]
|
Thats lovely and rosey, but wheres the line, relative to the quantity and strength of criticism, and intenions behind that?
Someone who throws a paragraph of opinion in once a day, as opposed to someone who creates thread upon thread, page upon page.
If a Cardiff fan was on here bollocking the trust and scrutinising every move, would you hold their criticism with the same weight as a Swansea City supporter? Of course not. You'd dismiss them imediately, because you know their intentions are of no interest to the club.
There is a concern at the moment where, in my opinion, the loudest voices and dissenters against the trust, quite simply, don't give a f**k about the trust, reforming it, or its role in the future of our club. What their real agenda is, relative to the strength of their actions, is anyones guess. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:38 - Nov 22 with 1837 views | swancity |
| New chairman stands down on 17:21 - Nov 22 by Thursday |
Cut it out with the constant appeal to accomplishment.
Anybody is free to criticise the Trust without needing to offer to be a part of it. Good on those who want to criticise and step up to make a difference, but that criticism carries no more weight than that of those who do not (or cannot) step up. [Post edited 22 Nov 2017 17:23]
|
Indeed.
Regarding this resignation and explained by Uxbridge, it's quite clear that he wasn't the man for the job whether forced into it or not. Let's be fair, if a couple of questions being asked on a website have tipped him over the edge then what hope would he have of leading the charge of the light brigade when, eventually, the Trust get their act together and actually do something of note
I'd like to see a new group set up. How that could happen I don't know. If only.... | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:39 - Nov 22 with 1834 views | MoscowJack |
Ux,
I'll say this for you, you know how to write a statement well ;)
You've painted a good picture there and I'm not going to disagree with a lot of it, because you're right, but you're still missing out a few facts (especially about Trust's internal politics) which I know that you know, or at least you should do.
I haven't closed my eyes and made up rumours and I haven't just gone on forums and copied/pasted stuff that I found on Google. I spoke to people who would know, people who have good working knowledge of how the Board works and what's being said. Maybe you weren't aware of certain things going on....maybe you were.....but I was told quite a lot, but unfortunately not all of it I could actually put on here, for obvious reasons. None of it came from anyone associated to the the club either, so there was no hidden agenda or "axes to grind". In fact, they had nothing to gain as far as I could see, except for the desire to see the truth come out due to their frustration with the way things are and the way they're going.
You seem frustrated that so many of us don't understand the Assoc. Director role or position but, after your post, I still don't get it clearly, if I'm honest. Maybe our lack of understanding is simply that it wasn't communicated properly or clearly enough for us to truly understand. I don't know. The change to the role that you mentioned probably confused us a bit and it's snowballed from there, but I don't think we're all entirely to blame for not quite understanding how it all worked and fitted in.
Re. Director's Box and Boardroom - what's 'far from a perk' for you is certainly a perk for someone else. Maybe people think it's not wrong for a Trust Board member to take their wife regularly to the Boardroom/Box, but I think it's a place of work and should be treated as such. As I've said several times, it can be offered as a reward or as a way of entertaining someone important to the Trust, but that's maybe just my view.
As for saying that his partner was "attacked" - that's as big an exaggeration as they come, unless something has been said elsewhere in which case I have no idea. If none of what I had said was he true, all it would have taken was a simple explanation, but instead we get gross exaggerations which only serve to confuse issues further. If Will wasn't tough enough to stand up to a few people on the internet, what chance would he have against the American owners? I think you know the answer to that!
Re. 12 year rule - are you saying the rules are being changed now? That would be a huge step and something quite desperate for people to cling onto.
Someone wrote on another site "you get the club you deserve" but I feel that we're getting the Trust that we deserve too in some ways. We've let too much go without as much as a whimper. You deserve a lot of credit as you've seen what you didn't like and backed it up with action, but we've seen three really good guys (again....Phil, Jim and Huw Cooze) all hung out to dry at various stages and for various reasons. The Trust has made mistakes but honestly doesn't appear to be learning. I fear that for every good guy we lose, we're probably gaining someone with less honest motives and it's maybe only time until someone else good, like you, walks away too.
So, do we all sit on our hands and HOPE it changes? Do we prey and hope someone else fixes the issues with the Americans? Or do we challenge the Trust to be FAR more open, more communicative and act in a less sinister way than it's perceived at the moment?
Yes, people with the time, energy and passion should definitely stand up - there's no questioning that point - but what about the people who don't have the time or know that sitting in long-winded meetings is not for them? Or live too far away.....do they shut up and say nothing too?
I won't go on any more but I feel that you're painting a different picture to the reality as I see it. At a time when we're it one of our lowest points in 15+ years, we should feel closer to our fans' representative (The Trust) but in reality the Trust has its worst relationship with the fans since it was first born back in the Patti and I don't believe that a handful of people on one forum is to blame for that. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:49 - Nov 22 with 1792 views | sully49 |
Three questions, does the 12 year tenure apply to the officers of the Trust? Chairman Secretary and Treasurer.
Secondly. With people calling on the Trust to cash in all of our shares, to do with the money raised?
Have we finally given up our quest to obtain the necessary shares so we finally can have a vote in the board meetings? |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:49 - Nov 22 with 1784 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 17:39 - Nov 22 by MoscowJack |
Ux,
I'll say this for you, you know how to write a statement well ;)
You've painted a good picture there and I'm not going to disagree with a lot of it, because you're right, but you're still missing out a few facts (especially about Trust's internal politics) which I know that you know, or at least you should do.
I haven't closed my eyes and made up rumours and I haven't just gone on forums and copied/pasted stuff that I found on Google. I spoke to people who would know, people who have good working knowledge of how the Board works and what's being said. Maybe you weren't aware of certain things going on....maybe you were.....but I was told quite a lot, but unfortunately not all of it I could actually put on here, for obvious reasons. None of it came from anyone associated to the the club either, so there was no hidden agenda or "axes to grind". In fact, they had nothing to gain as far as I could see, except for the desire to see the truth come out due to their frustration with the way things are and the way they're going.
You seem frustrated that so many of us don't understand the Assoc. Director role or position but, after your post, I still don't get it clearly, if I'm honest. Maybe our lack of understanding is simply that it wasn't communicated properly or clearly enough for us to truly understand. I don't know. The change to the role that you mentioned probably confused us a bit and it's snowballed from there, but I don't think we're all entirely to blame for not quite understanding how it all worked and fitted in.
Re. Director's Box and Boardroom - what's 'far from a perk' for you is certainly a perk for someone else. Maybe people think it's not wrong for a Trust Board member to take their wife regularly to the Boardroom/Box, but I think it's a place of work and should be treated as such. As I've said several times, it can be offered as a reward or as a way of entertaining someone important to the Trust, but that's maybe just my view.
As for saying that his partner was "attacked" - that's as big an exaggeration as they come, unless something has been said elsewhere in which case I have no idea. If none of what I had said was he true, all it would have taken was a simple explanation, but instead we get gross exaggerations which only serve to confuse issues further. If Will wasn't tough enough to stand up to a few people on the internet, what chance would he have against the American owners? I think you know the answer to that!
Re. 12 year rule - are you saying the rules are being changed now? That would be a huge step and something quite desperate for people to cling onto.
Someone wrote on another site "you get the club you deserve" but I feel that we're getting the Trust that we deserve too in some ways. We've let too much go without as much as a whimper. You deserve a lot of credit as you've seen what you didn't like and backed it up with action, but we've seen three really good guys (again....Phil, Jim and Huw Cooze) all hung out to dry at various stages and for various reasons. The Trust has made mistakes but honestly doesn't appear to be learning. I fear that for every good guy we lose, we're probably gaining someone with less honest motives and it's maybe only time until someone else good, like you, walks away too.
So, do we all sit on our hands and HOPE it changes? Do we prey and hope someone else fixes the issues with the Americans? Or do we challenge the Trust to be FAR more open, more communicative and act in a less sinister way than it's perceived at the moment?
Yes, people with the time, energy and passion should definitely stand up - there's no questioning that point - but what about the people who don't have the time or know that sitting in long-winded meetings is not for them? Or live too far away.....do they shut up and say nothing too?
I won't go on any more but I feel that you're painting a different picture to the reality as I see it. At a time when we're it one of our lowest points in 15+ years, we should feel closer to our fans' representative (The Trust) but in reality the Trust has its worst relationship with the fans since it was first born back in the Patti and I don't believe that a handful of people on one forum is to blame for that. |
So someone with now Association to the club knows what’s gone on behind the scenes with the Trust?
How does that work then?
Serious question I’m not having a go at you. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 17:57 - Nov 22 with 1743 views | MoscowJack |
| New chairman stands down on 17:49 - Nov 22 by Darran |
So someone with now Association to the club knows what’s gone on behind the scenes with the Trust?
How does that work then?
Serious question I’m not having a go at you. |
I mean not someone who works for the Club in any capacity, Darran. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:01 - Nov 22 with 1712 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 17:57 - Nov 22 by MoscowJack |
I mean not someone who works for the Club in any capacity, Darran. |
I see. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:04 - Nov 22 with 1696 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| New chairman stands down on 17:38 - Nov 22 by swancity |
Indeed.
Regarding this resignation and explained by Uxbridge, it's quite clear that he wasn't the man for the job whether forced into it or not. Let's be fair, if a couple of questions being asked on a website have tipped him over the edge then what hope would he have of leading the charge of the light brigade when, eventually, the Trust get their act together and actually do something of note
I'd like to see a new group set up. How that could happen I don't know. If only.... |
Indeed.
If only you did know you could set one up... |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:11 - Nov 22 with 1663 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 15:26 - Nov 22 by londonlisa2001 |
I'm only referring to statements made by Phil and Matt themselves swanseajill.
Both stated that they believed that the terms of the deal had altered and the deal should come back to members. Both stated that they were outvoted on that, and resigned as a result.
I trust that they have both told the truth on that and they are in disagreement with the current direction of travel. Uxbridge said he also disagreed but wanted to stay involved in an attempt to change minds from within. Which is completely fair and reasonable. I told him so both on here and privately.
I'm a firm believer in the Trust, always have been, as Phil, Nick and others will attest.
The issue that I have is I trust the new owners about as far as I could throw them I'm afraid. I believe they are only interested in making a quick buck, understandably by the way - they have no affinity for this club. And I do not want to see the Trust being made fools of, by pretending that they are interested in what the Trustvhave to say when laughing behind the Trust's back.
Unfortunately, in selling the club to people that would transparently only use it to make a quick profit, whatever that meant for the long term future, the sellers have put the Trust in a position where the only possible route was to look to the long term, and maximise the chance of one day being in a position to pick up the pieces. My disagreement with Phil and others, which I was open about, was I thought that it was so obvious what would happen, that trying to deal with them and build bridges was always naive in the extreme. Therefore I wanted the Trust to take action, amass a significant pot of money, and play the long game.
That's not the same as wanting to destroy the Trust, which was not the case even slightly. It was recognising the futility of the current crappy position and trying to make the most of it.
A situation that was entirely caused by the way, by the dreadful and inexcusable actions of the outgoing ownership whose only concern was their own pockets. |
Just to clarify one thing - I never said that I had been outvoted on whether the deal should come back to the members. To the best of my knowledge, there was no argument with that.
I resigned because I didn't feel we should be continuing to negotiate with the Yanks after they had attempted to amend the terms and that those negotiations were being allowed to adversely affect the ability of the Trust Board to communicate with the members. |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:13 - Nov 22 with 1651 views | Neath_Jack |
That's all anyone is asking for, is an open and honest Trust to go in and bat for us. It's far from that at the moment, it's just lurching from one disaster to another.
Reading Uxy's post, it seems like the Trust are going to stick two fingers up to the 12 year rule, another own goal if you ask me. His tone whilst communicating that almost comes across as smug too, which i find he does quite a lot.
Anyone with anything about them would have taken Moscow's allegations with a pinch of salt due to his friendship with Mr Morgan, not saying he's being fed anything but people, or i certainly did, read it with slight doubt.
It shows the mettle of Will, that he chose to single out comments made on the basis of Moscow's post, whilst completely ignoring the 12 year rule (even if the Trust are going to ignore it).
It's a massive f*cking mess, but the sooner the Trust start getting in tune with the feelings out there, and being honest, then it's doomed to fail. |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:14 - Nov 22 with 1639 views | Oldjack |
| New chairman stands down on 16:11 - Nov 22 by Darran |
It’s irrelevant who I’m talking about. We aren’t in this position because Will took his missus on a freebie in the Directors Box.
What people are losing track of is that the Trust couldn’t stop the sellouts selling even if Huw Cooze had never been born to go for a pint in Morgan’s.
People often accuse me of trying to deflect threads on here but by fuçk they’ve deflected from the real culprits. |
Trust couldn’t stop the sellouts selling even .......... hmmm didn't they put a spanner in the works last time we were for sale ? that's why the bastards kept it from the Trust this time around ? |  |
| 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 18:16 - Nov 22 with 1625 views | swanseajack4eva |
| New chairman stands down on 16:54 - Nov 22 by trampie |
Everyone I speak to thinks the trust is rotten to the core and everyone in position needs to be removed and replaced by new blood. |
In my view this is almost the right answer.
You might be surprised who will come forward if there is an open and transparent board member election process ... meaning proper disclosure of background, qualifications, objectives etc. so members can vote in an informed manner (none of this opaque co-opting decided on by existing board members). People with commercial, negotiation, governance and legal experience are needed.
Fine by me if some existing members are re-elected. |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:19 - Nov 22 with 1608 views | headcleaner |
It's a case of sorting out the (so called) little issues (trust) then tackle the real issues (board) (owners) an effective communicating vibrant trust would be a massive asset in tackli g the core problem. Letting the trust drift and be used by the board /owners or be counter productive for the fans is a mistake. Eyes wide open and United is the only way the fans can make a difference imho |  | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:21 - Nov 22 with 1593 views | ItchySphincter |
| New chairman stands down on 12:59 - Nov 22 by londonlisa2001 |
You haven't seen any calls on this board for Jenkins to step down?
Really?
When you keep referring to 'people' attacking the Trust and not the sell outs, you actually mean one person as far as I can tell? I haven't seen anyone else who's commented on this situation who hasn't been vociferous in their criticism of the new owners or the ex owners, I really haven't Darran.
As for the statement itself, I must admit I'm a bit confused. Other than the odd post, I haven't seen attacks on Will Morris on here? I've seen lots of questions about whether he was able to be Trust Chair under its own set of rules, and questions asking for clarity on the associate director position.
I haven't actually seen any answer to either of those main point but neither of those two things surely could be taken as a personal attack?
When Will posted on here immediately after the announcement, I saw lots of posts wishing him well. It's a little strange. |
Nick smashed him!  |  |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:24 - Nov 22 with 1577 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:14 - Nov 22 by Oldjack |
Trust couldn’t stop the sellouts selling even .......... hmmm didn't they put a spanner in the works last time we were for sale ? that's why the bastards kept it from the Trust this time around ? |
Yes but the other party pulled out on the night of the fans forum,I was there.
Go on then Einstein tell us all how the Trust could have stopped the individual shareholders from selling their shares to the Americans.
Off you go. | |
| |
| New chairman stands down on 18:24 - Nov 22 with 1574 views | MattG |
| New chairman stands down on 18:16 - Nov 22 by swanseajack4eva |
In my view this is almost the right answer.
You might be surprised who will come forward if there is an open and transparent board member election process ... meaning proper disclosure of background, qualifications, objectives etc. so members can vote in an informed manner (none of this opaque co-opting decided on by existing board members). People with commercial, negotiation, governance and legal experience are needed.
Fine by me if some existing members are re-elected. |
There's nothing to stop people putting whatever they want in their Personal Statement - never has been, to my knowledge - and the vote is, well, just a vote.
I benefited twice from the co-option process, on both occasions after having unsuccessfully stood for election. If the existing Board hadn't wanted me involved, they could have easily chosen someone else, particularly second time around when they would have been well aware of my views. | | | |
| New chairman stands down on 18:26 - Nov 22 with 1561 views | Darran |
| New chairman stands down on 18:11 - Nov 22 by MattG |
Just to clarify one thing - I never said that I had been outvoted on whether the deal should come back to the members. To the best of my knowledge, there was no argument with that.
I resigned because I didn't feel we should be continuing to negotiate with the Yanks after they had attempted to amend the terms and that those negotiations were being allowed to adversely affect the ability of the Trust Board to communicate with the members. |
LIsa making things up. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
