| Genuine question - from a Trust Member 19:19 - Nov 5 with 53430 views | marchamjack |
Were The Trust any part of the discussion process to keep Clement?
Thanks in advance. |  |
| Oh,..Dave, what's occuring? |
| |  |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:08 - Nov 12 with 1604 views | MattG |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:04 - Nov 12 by NeathJack |
I completely agree.
It's quite clear that something is really not right if you've got board members resigning in protest at the direction the Trust is going.
I tip my hat to Matt for his principled position but the reasons for any resignation under these circumstances should be made loud and clear to the members. |
I've given my reasons - my views differed from that of the majority of Board members and, as a result, I didn't feel that I could continue in my role.
I certainly won't be calling out any individuals for things they might have said on a particular issue that I disagreed with. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:09 - Nov 12 with 1597 views | ItchySphincter |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:06 - Nov 12 by londonlisa2001 |
I get the argument to be fair.
It's one that each of us had to have with ourselves in deciding whether to renew or not I guess on a smaller scale.
I decided not to as I couldn't see any appetite for what I thought they should be doing.
I did think that if they put out a strong statement this week I would have rejoined, but same again, so I haven't. |
I rejoined simply for he reason that it would be hard for me to criticise if I didn't. That may not be a strong enough reason for everyone but it's the only thing I could think of. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:11 - Nov 12 with 1586 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 11:46 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions from the timing of things. Basically my view of how the Trust should go forward didn't chime with the majority of the Board, hence my decision.
The thing is that different people have different points of view and what matters is that they are making decisions for what they feel are the right reasons. I don't have a monopoly on my point of view being the right one. |
Good for you for having the courage of your convictions and standing up for what you believe in. I genuinely hope that if there are others on the Trust board who feel the same way they do the same as you. It’ll be the first step in the Trust growing some balls again. [Post edited 12 Nov 2017 12:12]
|  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:11 - Nov 12 with 1583 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:09 - Nov 12 by ItchySphincter |
I rejoined simply for he reason that it would be hard for me to criticise if I didn't. That may not be a strong enough reason for everyone but it's the only thing I could think of. |
That was the strongest argument for me as it happens. And one that I still grapple with. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:15 - Nov 12 with 1570 views | NeathJack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:08 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I've given my reasons - my views differed from that of the majority of Board members and, as a result, I didn't feel that I could continue in my role.
I certainly won't be calling out any individuals for things they might have said on a particular issue that I disagreed with. |
My point being that in my opinion it should be made clear to members which disagreements caused you to resign.
It's hugely concerning that board members are feeling they have no option other than to resign due to what is going on. I believe the membership has a right to know and that can be done without calling out any other board members or naming them.
Just my opinion. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:17 - Nov 12 with 1560 views | DafyddHuw |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:11 - Nov 12 by londonlisa2001 |
That was the strongest argument for me as it happens. And one that I still grapple with. |
Me too. But in the end I just couldn't put my name to a body that had such a fundamentally different view from mine - like taking the buying/selling of the club lying down. I wanted no part of that.
That doesn't stop me ctiticising the Trust though. I still feel as if I'm a member'and the Trust board are the interlopers. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:19 - Nov 12 with 1551 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:08 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I've given my reasons - my views differed from that of the majority of Board members and, as a result, I didn't feel that I could continue in my role.
I certainly won't be calling out any individuals for things they might have said on a particular issue that I disagreed with. |
Good for you Matt. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:19 - Nov 12 with 1551 views | E20Jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:15 - Nov 12 by NeathJack |
My point being that in my opinion it should be made clear to members which disagreements caused you to resign.
It's hugely concerning that board members are feeling they have no option other than to resign due to what is going on. I believe the membership has a right to know and that can be done without calling out any other board members or naming them.
Just my opinion. |
I think it is crazy we have elected board members that seemingly have fundamentally different ideas - yet we know none of them. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:22 - Nov 12 with 1540 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:17 - Nov 12 by DafyddHuw |
Me too. But in the end I just couldn't put my name to a body that had such a fundamentally different view from mine - like taking the buying/selling of the club lying down. I wanted no part of that.
That doesn't stop me ctiticising the Trust though. I still feel as if I'm a member'and the Trust board are the interlopers. |
For me it was that I so fundamentally disagreed with the strong recommendation to accept the deal, it was a hurdle I couldn't overcome.
Note before anyone starts - it wasn't because of the vote, it was because of the recommendation around the vote. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:26 - Nov 12 with 1516 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:08 - Nov 12 by MattG |
I've given my reasons - my views differed from that of the majority of Board members and, as a result, I didn't feel that I could continue in my role.
I certainly won't be calling out any individuals for things they might have said on a particular issue that I disagreed with. |
Man of principle.
Good on you Matt. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:49 - Nov 12 with 1463 views | Dewi1jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:09 - Nov 12 by ItchySphincter |
I rejoined simply for he reason that it would be hard for me to criticise if I didn't. That may not be a strong enough reason for everyone but it's the only thing I could think of. |
Hadn't thought of that but it really makes sense.
Although as it is a body that came about to represent the fans, then every person who has a love for the Swans should be able to criticise them without being shouted down.
Criticism yes.
Personal abuse, no.
And that isn't aimed at anyone in particular. Personal abuse just detracts from any serious points being debated and may mean good points made are overlooked
My reason was to try and stop the cosy club giving the Yanks the share money straight back in the stadium lease deal. |  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:01 - Nov 12 with 1439 views | TheResurrection |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 12:04 - Nov 12 by MattG |
Suggest that may be one for the next election rather now. As I said in another post, my views were different but not necessarily right. |
Just have the decency to explain to the fans, the ones that obviously care about what's going on, why you and Ian James resigned?
And who else is due to resign?
The time is now, not next election, the members won't know what they're voting for if people like you continually keep them in the dark.
Get on with it....... |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:10 - Nov 12 with 1407 views | Shaky |
Good lad, Matt.
Understand your comments about collective responsibility but it seems to me the Trust's implementation is somewhat flexible.
For example, the Trust board was seemingly fully briefed on Cozy's paid job with the club, but on that occasion he had to carry the can alone when the shit hit the fan.
Anyway, another area where collective responsibility supposedly rules is in government, but this nevertheless also acknowledges the time honoured tradition of the resignation statement.
No need to necessarily name names but some transparency is without doubt in the public interest. . . |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:14 - Nov 12 with 1388 views | Swanseajill |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 08:57 - Nov 12 by Darran |
I think you’ve done yourself a lot of favours posting that instead of bickering late at night with Gary. |
Indeed he has.
Particularly the point that those attending the Q&A forums, have a differing view on the Trust Board in general.
Personally , I need to keep reminding myself that this forums views are a small percentage of the fan base, and that as a trust member I will support them as long as I'm able. |  | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:15 - Nov 12 with 1387 views | E20Jack |
I echo the above really. You do not have to go naming names.
Tell us what your principles were that were opposed. We can then assume the ones that remain largely hold the opposite opinion.
However I dont see why the direction of the Teust is such a closely guarded secret? Arent they acting on the fans behalf? Not their own. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:16 - Nov 12 with 1368 views | max936 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 22:32 - Nov 11 by MoscowJack |
It felt, to me, as if they wanted to say something important but either just didn't or couldn't! It was so lacking in anything that it seems as if the important or interesting parts had been edited out.
I am also starting to think that the Trust is just so far out of touch with the feelings of the average fans nowadays. I don't know why it feels like this, but that's how it feels. Sometimes the perception is spot on, sometimes it's not, but I think having someone to focus on the PR and communications is a must now. |
Wouldn't be surprised if the one of the conditions of the ridiculous deal that they've agreed to is to watch their P's and Q's and not divulge to much to us fans. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:18 - Nov 12 with 1367 views | ItchySphincter |
I think we need to decide what kind of trust we want and elect the board on that basis.
This is what we voted for, it was all in black and white. Not sure what people expect. Resignations forcing a new electing might help but without people signing up it won't be much of a vote and the same old, same old continues. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:23 - Nov 12 with 1354 views | TheResurrection |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:14 - Nov 12 by Swanseajill |
Indeed he has.
Particularly the point that those attending the Q&A forums, have a differing view on the Trust Board in general.
Personally , I need to keep reminding myself that this forums views are a small percentage of the fan base, and that as a trust member I will support them as long as I'm able. |
We need fresh ideas, new blood, younger people who give a damn, maybe someone like you 30 years ago. But times moved on and the Trust needs to as well. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:25 - Nov 12 with 1339 views | E20Jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:23 - Nov 12 by TheResurrection |
We need fresh ideas, new blood, younger people who give a damn, maybe someone like you 30 years ago. But times moved on and the Trust needs to as well. |
With respect to her, it is views like SwanseaJills that allow the Trust to push through whatever motion they want. It is the typical standpoint of many members who back them regardless and blindly. | |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:30 - Nov 12 with 1323 views | Neath_Jack |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:14 - Nov 12 by Swanseajill |
Indeed he has.
Particularly the point that those attending the Q&A forums, have a differing view on the Trust Board in general.
Personally , I need to keep reminding myself that this forums views are a small percentage of the fan base, and that as a trust member I will support them as long as I'm able. |
I hope this does not offend you as i understand you have done more for this club than i ever have, but...
It is views like yours (IMO) that blindly follow and support the Trust no matter what, is why we are in this position now.
We are not a league 2 club anymore, we are a multi million pound international concern. Difficult decisions need making, people need to be taken out of their comfort zones.
We are doomed to fail the way we are going. |  |
| |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:47 - Nov 12 with 1266 views | Swanseajill |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:23 - Nov 12 by TheResurrection |
We need fresh ideas, new blood, younger people who give a damn, maybe someone like you 30 years ago. But times moved on and the Trust needs to as well. |
Ux is younger,and as sure as th sun rises.. he gives a damn. He was a good neighbour to me for some years although We rarely spoke about cutting the hedge or weeding.
He is passionate about all things Swans ( as I'm sure you know that fact..deep down)
30 years ago with no internet, just land lines. It was easy getting the fans on board as one. It was a few thousand supporters who were all of the same mindset.
It's time to get to the nitty gritty on this. It wasn't the Trust that sold our club to whoever came up with the money first. A Trust that was kept in the dark, because the sellers didn't give a damn about us as fans ...because we don't count..do we.
Different 30 years ago, the main income was from the fans. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:58 - Nov 12 with 1231 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:47 - Nov 12 by Swanseajill |
Ux is younger,and as sure as th sun rises.. he gives a damn. He was a good neighbour to me for some years although We rarely spoke about cutting the hedge or weeding.
He is passionate about all things Swans ( as I'm sure you know that fact..deep down)
30 years ago with no internet, just land lines. It was easy getting the fans on board as one. It was a few thousand supporters who were all of the same mindset.
It's time to get to the nitty gritty on this. It wasn't the Trust that sold our club to whoever came up with the money first. A Trust that was kept in the dark, because the sellers didn't give a damn about us as fans ...because we don't count..do we.
Different 30 years ago, the main income was from the fans. |
"It's time to get to the nitty gritty on this. It wasn't the Trust that sold our club to whoever came up with the money first. A Trust that was kept in the dark, because the sellers didn't give a damn about us as fans ...because we don't count..do we. "
It's that anger though that makes the current position so odd. Because it wasn't only the sellers that didn't give a damn, it was the buyers as well. And yet there's a scramble to get on board with them.
They were not then, are not now, and won't be in the future, trustworthy.
They are in it to make money.
There's often talk on here about money ball. The whole deal is money ball.
They targeted this club because it managed to stay comfortably mid table on a relative shoe string and without ANY outside investment, ever. They looked at it and realised that there were easy improvements that could be made. The stadium, commercial deals, etc etc. There were a few big earners that could be sold, wages massively reduced, and we may slip from mid table to just above the relegation zone but they didn't ever give a sh*t about that. Their entire intention was to keep the club up as cheaply as possible, get control over the stadium, put some decent commercial deals in place, and sell it for a profit as soon as they possibly could.
The reason it's all gone a bit wrong, is because they didn't actually realise that being comfortably mid table was sod all to do with the people running the club and everything to do with a few good managers, who had gone by the time they took over. And they never realised, coming from an environment where there isn't no relegation, that staying just above the relegation zone is difficult.
They are not interested in the long term of the club. The Trust need to stop believing that they are. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 14:03 - Nov 12 with 1212 views | whiterock |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:58 - Nov 12 by londonlisa2001 |
"It's time to get to the nitty gritty on this. It wasn't the Trust that sold our club to whoever came up with the money first. A Trust that was kept in the dark, because the sellers didn't give a damn about us as fans ...because we don't count..do we. "
It's that anger though that makes the current position so odd. Because it wasn't only the sellers that didn't give a damn, it was the buyers as well. And yet there's a scramble to get on board with them.
They were not then, are not now, and won't be in the future, trustworthy.
They are in it to make money.
There's often talk on here about money ball. The whole deal is money ball.
They targeted this club because it managed to stay comfortably mid table on a relative shoe string and without ANY outside investment, ever. They looked at it and realised that there were easy improvements that could be made. The stadium, commercial deals, etc etc. There were a few big earners that could be sold, wages massively reduced, and we may slip from mid table to just above the relegation zone but they didn't ever give a sh*t about that. Their entire intention was to keep the club up as cheaply as possible, get control over the stadium, put some decent commercial deals in place, and sell it for a profit as soon as they possibly could.
The reason it's all gone a bit wrong, is because they didn't actually realise that being comfortably mid table was sod all to do with the people running the club and everything to do with a few good managers, who had gone by the time they took over. And they never realised, coming from an environment where there isn't no relegation, that staying just above the relegation zone is difficult.
They are not interested in the long term of the club. The Trust need to stop believing that they are. |
The Trust though are interested in the long term future of the club and whilst, I’m sure no one likes the situation all out war would see us fall like a stone. | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 14:05 - Nov 12 with 1207 views | Swanseajill |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:30 - Nov 12 by Neath_Jack |
I hope this does not offend you as i understand you have done more for this club than i ever have, but...
It is views like yours (IMO) that blindly follow and support the Trust no matter what, is why we are in this position now.
We are not a league 2 club anymore, we are a multi million pound international concern. Difficult decisions need making, people need to be taken out of their comfort zones.
We are doomed to fail the way we are going. |
I'm not offended at all. You have an opinion ..like all of us.
We are doomed to fail because the team are playing at times like a bunch of fairies.
The rest of it is club management and we, as fans, all feel useless to do anything about it.
The one way we have of showing our feelings is through the trust.And I can assure you NJ, I've never blindly supported anyone.
... Well, maybe Gary Stanley... | | | |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 14:23 - Nov 12 with 1143 views | Swanseajill |
| Genuine question - from a Trust Member on 13:58 - Nov 12 by londonlisa2001 |
"It's time to get to the nitty gritty on this. It wasn't the Trust that sold our club to whoever came up with the money first. A Trust that was kept in the dark, because the sellers didn't give a damn about us as fans ...because we don't count..do we. "
It's that anger though that makes the current position so odd. Because it wasn't only the sellers that didn't give a damn, it was the buyers as well. And yet there's a scramble to get on board with them.
They were not then, are not now, and won't be in the future, trustworthy.
They are in it to make money.
There's often talk on here about money ball. The whole deal is money ball.
They targeted this club because it managed to stay comfortably mid table on a relative shoe string and without ANY outside investment, ever. They looked at it and realised that there were easy improvements that could be made. The stadium, commercial deals, etc etc. There were a few big earners that could be sold, wages massively reduced, and we may slip from mid table to just above the relegation zone but they didn't ever give a sh*t about that. Their entire intention was to keep the club up as cheaply as possible, get control over the stadium, put some decent commercial deals in place, and sell it for a profit as soon as they possibly could.
The reason it's all gone a bit wrong, is because they didn't actually realise that being comfortably mid table was sod all to do with the people running the club and everything to do with a few good managers, who had gone by the time they took over. And they never realised, coming from an environment where there isn't no relegation, that staying just above the relegation zone is difficult.
They are not interested in the long term of the club. The Trust need to stop believing that they are. |
All painfully true Lisa, and it was a chance still in taking them ( the whole lot of them) to court.
The cost would have cleaned out Trust Funds. That's the fans money, so they had a say on whether to sell shares/ Sue/or do nothing. The Trust is not to blame for the mess we're in.
I don't believe for one moment that the Trust are guilty of your last paragraph. But always a pleasure to read your posts. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
