| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? 11:28 - Oct 26 with 11030 views | CopaMundial |
Just wondering. |  | | |  |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:25 - Oct 26 with 1902 views | Darran |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:19 - Oct 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Nobody 'tipped me off' for God's sake.
The question had been asked on here a number of times and had never been answered.
The reason I asked it again was two things reminded me of it.
One was the Trust's statement, which I had read in full and as a result, had questions in my mind (as did everyone I imagine) about the whole issue of what was known and when and what decisions were being made and when at a board level, shareholder level and in what legal company (I was trying work round the whole legal questions in my own mind as the statement raised legal action for the first time).
The second reason it occurred to me again last week was that the disabled supporters' association had held a meeting in the stadium, and someone said on here, that Huw Cooze had arranged the attendance of Bob Bradley. That sparked a thought in my mind that HC was doing that from a position of someone who was part of the club's hierarchy rather than an 'outsider' and it made me think that he was still quite involved in everything down there, even though legal action was being threatened.
The reason that I'd said afterwards that I was sorry I had asked, (which isn't an apology), was that it had stirred up criticism against the Trust but also that people were criticising HC and I've always had the impression he is a good bloke who has done a huge amount for the Trust and all supporters, so I was a bit gutted if my questions had caused him a problem. I quite genuinely didn't know the answer to the question when I asked it.
I'd also say this. The Trust should have made this all quite clear. No doubt. BUT, someone working for the club around all sorts of supporter related issues that takes up a vast amount of their time, should be paid for it. Everyone else at the club is paid for everything. The only problem as I see it, is that there should have been a clear separation of that vital role, and the role of Board Director representing the Trust shareholder. The new guidelines from the Trust reflect that necessary separation.
Also this. The selling shareholders have behaved with an absolutely shocking disregard for the Trust, and by extension, all us supporters. It is quite probable from what I've seen and read, that the club was in a situation where things had run away financially, and that new investors had to be found to continue our journey. But there was a CLEAR difference between doing what was necessary and right for the club, and doing what was in the best interests of the selling shareholders' own financial position. It is clear in my opinion, which of these two routes was chosen. And in making that choice, the selling shareholders clinically discarded the relationship that they had with the Trust. A relationship that had allowed the club to go from a basket case in the fourth division to a premier league team. A relationship that they had themselves been keen to stress to anyone that would listen for many years.
There is no doubt that the Trust could and should have made sure that governance issues were properly taken care of and disclosed. But that isn't even on the same planet as the actions of others. And for anyone to attempt to use one to justify the other, or to say 'they're all as bad as each other' is farcical. I have no idea why some supporters want to bang that 'equivalence' drum. But don't for one second believe that I do. |
Well said. |  |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:29 - Oct 26 with 1887 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:19 - Oct 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Nobody 'tipped me off' for God's sake.
The question had been asked on here a number of times and had never been answered.
The reason I asked it again was two things reminded me of it.
One was the Trust's statement, which I had read in full and as a result, had questions in my mind (as did everyone I imagine) about the whole issue of what was known and when and what decisions were being made and when at a board level, shareholder level and in what legal company (I was trying work round the whole legal questions in my own mind as the statement raised legal action for the first time).
The second reason it occurred to me again last week was that the disabled supporters' association had held a meeting in the stadium, and someone said on here, that Huw Cooze had arranged the attendance of Bob Bradley. That sparked a thought in my mind that HC was doing that from a position of someone who was part of the club's hierarchy rather than an 'outsider' and it made me think that he was still quite involved in everything down there, even though legal action was being threatened.
The reason that I'd said afterwards that I was sorry I had asked, (which isn't an apology), was that it had stirred up criticism against the Trust but also that people were criticising HC and I've always had the impression he is a good bloke who has done a huge amount for the Trust and all supporters, so I was a bit gutted if my questions had caused him a problem. I quite genuinely didn't know the answer to the question when I asked it.
I'd also say this. The Trust should have made this all quite clear. No doubt. BUT, someone working for the club around all sorts of supporter related issues that takes up a vast amount of their time, should be paid for it. Everyone else at the club is paid for everything. The only problem as I see it, is that there should have been a clear separation of that vital role, and the role of Board Director representing the Trust shareholder. The new guidelines from the Trust reflect that necessary separation.
Also this. The selling shareholders have behaved with an absolutely shocking disregard for the Trust, and by extension, all us supporters. It is quite probable from what I've seen and read, that the club was in a situation where things had run away financially, and that new investors had to be found to continue our journey. But there was a CLEAR difference between doing what was necessary and right for the club, and doing what was in the best interests of the selling shareholders' own financial position. It is clear in my opinion, which of these two routes was chosen. And in making that choice, the selling shareholders clinically discarded the relationship that they had with the Trust. A relationship that had allowed the club to go from a basket case in the fourth division to a premier league team. A relationship that they had themselves been keen to stress to anyone that would listen for many years.
There is no doubt that the Trust could and should have made sure that governance issues were properly taken care of and disclosed. But that isn't even on the same planet as the actions of others. And for anyone to attempt to use one to justify the other, or to say 'they're all as bad as each other' is farcical. I have no idea why some supporters want to bang that 'equivalence' drum. But don't for one second believe that I do. |
Well said Lisa. |  | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:52 - Oct 26 with 1815 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:29 - Oct 26 by 34dfgdf54 |
Well said Lisa. |
I've also just read the other thread about what has happened, and I couldn't agree more with what's been said by Monmouth, longlost and A Fan's Dad amongst others.
This whole situation is a sideshow - important, yes, should have been avoided, yes, naive, yes. But get it sorted (the new Trust guidelines will have done that), work out the best way forward (perhaps HC should stay doing all the supporters' liaison stuff with a salary from the club and someone new should take over the very defined role of Supporters' Director, ONLY responsible for representing the Trust at a Board level), and let's concentrate on TOGETHER building a supporters trust that is as strong and vibrant as possible, and make every possible effort to have that Trust work with the new owners to build a club that genuinely listens to supporters' concerns, starts listening to the Supporters' Director, involves them fully in every decision made and can still say with at least some conviction, 'we are the only premier league team part owned and run by its fans'.
If the American owners have ANY sense about them, they will realise that working with a vibrant Trust will actually help them. On the field, and (most importantly for them), off the field as well. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:57 - Oct 26 with 1794 views | vetchonian |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:52 - Oct 26 by londonlisa2001 |
I've also just read the other thread about what has happened, and I couldn't agree more with what's been said by Monmouth, longlost and A Fan's Dad amongst others.
This whole situation is a sideshow - important, yes, should have been avoided, yes, naive, yes. But get it sorted (the new Trust guidelines will have done that), work out the best way forward (perhaps HC should stay doing all the supporters' liaison stuff with a salary from the club and someone new should take over the very defined role of Supporters' Director, ONLY responsible for representing the Trust at a Board level), and let's concentrate on TOGETHER building a supporters trust that is as strong and vibrant as possible, and make every possible effort to have that Trust work with the new owners to build a club that genuinely listens to supporters' concerns, starts listening to the Supporters' Director, involves them fully in every decision made and can still say with at least some conviction, 'we are the only premier league team part owned and run by its fans'.
If the American owners have ANY sense about them, they will realise that working with a vibrant Trust will actually help them. On the field, and (most importantly for them), off the field as well. |
Well said Lisa
The voice of common sense prevails | |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:05 - Oct 26 with 1770 views | Smellyplumz |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:52 - Oct 26 by londonlisa2001 |
I've also just read the other thread about what has happened, and I couldn't agree more with what's been said by Monmouth, longlost and A Fan's Dad amongst others.
This whole situation is a sideshow - important, yes, should have been avoided, yes, naive, yes. But get it sorted (the new Trust guidelines will have done that), work out the best way forward (perhaps HC should stay doing all the supporters' liaison stuff with a salary from the club and someone new should take over the very defined role of Supporters' Director, ONLY responsible for representing the Trust at a Board level), and let's concentrate on TOGETHER building a supporters trust that is as strong and vibrant as possible, and make every possible effort to have that Trust work with the new owners to build a club that genuinely listens to supporters' concerns, starts listening to the Supporters' Director, involves them fully in every decision made and can still say with at least some conviction, 'we are the only premier league team part owned and run by its fans'.
If the American owners have ANY sense about them, they will realise that working with a vibrant Trust will actually help them. On the field, and (most importantly for them), off the field as well. |
All well and good but I still cannot believe the trust kept this quiet from us, it's mind boggling, also how in the world was hc supposed to and be seen as impartial when he was taking a big wedge from the club and socialising with them! Don't under estimate the damage done and don't use the separate issue of the board and new owners to brush this under the carpet. |  |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:25 - Oct 26 with 1723 views | Return_of_the_Jack |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:52 - Oct 26 by londonlisa2001 |
I've also just read the other thread about what has happened, and I couldn't agree more with what's been said by Monmouth, longlost and A Fan's Dad amongst others.
This whole situation is a sideshow - important, yes, should have been avoided, yes, naive, yes. But get it sorted (the new Trust guidelines will have done that), work out the best way forward (perhaps HC should stay doing all the supporters' liaison stuff with a salary from the club and someone new should take over the very defined role of Supporters' Director, ONLY responsible for representing the Trust at a Board level), and let's concentrate on TOGETHER building a supporters trust that is as strong and vibrant as possible, and make every possible effort to have that Trust work with the new owners to build a club that genuinely listens to supporters' concerns, starts listening to the Supporters' Director, involves them fully in every decision made and can still say with at least some conviction, 'we are the only premier league team part owned and run by its fans'.
If the American owners have ANY sense about them, they will realise that working with a vibrant Trust will actually help them. On the field, and (most importantly for them), off the field as well. |
Its hard to "trust" the Trust when they have lied to the supporters they are meant to be representing - You are basically advocating that we forget about all this and carry on.
I won't be touching the trust with a barge pole unless major changes are made. |  | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:25 - Oct 26 with 1723 views | Lohengrin |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 12:30 - Oct 26 by monmouth |
And she's a woman, don't forget that. Unforgivable for some. |
I would, Mon. I'd forgive her anything.  |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:32 - Oct 26 with 1698 views | monmouth |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:25 - Oct 26 by Lohengrin |
I would, Mon. I'd forgive her anything. |
 It's getting like strictly come dancing on here. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:39 - Oct 26 with 1654 views | vetchonian |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:05 - Oct 26 by Smellyplumz |
All well and good but I still cannot believe the trust kept this quiet from us, it's mind boggling, also how in the world was hc supposed to and be seen as impartial when he was taking a big wedge from the club and socialising with them! Don't under estimate the damage done and don't use the separate issue of the board and new owners to brush this under the carpet. |
No one is trying to brush this under the carpet.
Lets get a sense of perspective the Trust have put in place things to correct this mistake...we all make them the problem comes when we dont learn from them and stop them happening again.
Lisa makes fair points regarding the Supporter liason role and the Trusts Director being split
Lets all get together and work to one common aim. | |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:40 - Oct 26 with 1646 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:05 - Oct 26 by Smellyplumz |
All well and good but I still cannot believe the trust kept this quiet from us, it's mind boggling, also how in the world was hc supposed to and be seen as impartial when he was taking a big wedge from the club and socialising with them! Don't under estimate the damage done and don't use the separate issue of the board and new owners to brush this under the carpet. |
I've already said that I think they were wrong to keep this quiet.
I think they probably think the same.
Bu we are where we are, and I personally believe in the whole idea of the Trust enough to still think it's the way forward.
I'm not attempting to brush anything under the carpet - I want full disclosure (which I would think was obvious) but at the moment, the situation with the new owners is the most important for me. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:43 - Oct 26 with 1629 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:25 - Oct 26 by Return_of_the_Jack |
Its hard to "trust" the Trust when they have lied to the supporters they are meant to be representing - You are basically advocating that we forget about all this and carry on.
I won't be touching the trust with a barge pole unless major changes are made. |
No. I'm advocating that we don't lose sight of the bigger picture and allow this to distract, and, indeed, detract, from that.
I am annoyed with what has happened. Very annoyed. But it's not on the same planet of annoyance as what happened with the sale of the club, and short of starting again, the Trust is in the best position to represent me and my views, on that issue. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:44 - Oct 26 with 1622 views | Smellyplumz |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:39 - Oct 26 by vetchonian |
No one is trying to brush this under the carpet.
Lets get a sense of perspective the Trust have put in place things to correct this mistake...we all make them the problem comes when we dont learn from them and stop them happening again.
Lisa makes fair points regarding the Supporter liason role and the Trusts Director being split
Lets all get together and work to one common aim. |
I don't pretend for one minute I know all the ins and outs of this issue but come on this is more than a mistake, are you telling me that they forgot to tell the fans since 2011 that hc was getting paid? Really. It was imperative that the trust was seen to be above board and squeaky clean especially at this point in time, how can you go after people doing wrong when you have skeletons in your own closet.
Not sure they can really recover from this. | |
|
""Although I cannot promise or predict the future, I can guarantee one thing - the current board of directors will always fight, as we have done over the last 12 years, to work together as one with the Supporters Trust to make 100% sure that Swansea City football club remains the number one priority in all our thoughts and in every decision we make." | | Poll: | Huw Jenkins |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:00 - Oct 26 with 1551 views | vetchonian |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:44 - Oct 26 by Smellyplumz |
I don't pretend for one minute I know all the ins and outs of this issue but come on this is more than a mistake, are you telling me that they forgot to tell the fans since 2011 that hc was getting paid? Really. It was imperative that the trust was seen to be above board and squeaky clean especially at this point in time, how can you go after people doing wrong when you have skeletons in your own closet.
Not sure they can really recover from this. |
Lets see what their next moves are .....then hopefully we can all move on as I said in my response to our new owners statement words are fine deeds are more important | |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:00 - Oct 26 with 1551 views | Nookiejack |
I just hope if there is anything else like this - that the Trust will disclose it now - rather than when all this goes to court.
Clear any skeletons out of the cupboard now. Also if Huw Cooze was told about the sale by the Yanks and/or ex shareholders before the takeover (and I realise he has clearly refuted it) - hope he comes clean now and tells the Trust. (Just smells a bit fishy re: the Yanks comments in the press that they had previously met with Trust representatives). | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:00 - Oct 26 with 1546 views | Wingstandwood |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:44 - Oct 26 by Smellyplumz |
I don't pretend for one minute I know all the ins and outs of this issue but come on this is more than a mistake, are you telling me that they forgot to tell the fans since 2011 that hc was getting paid? Really. It was imperative that the trust was seen to be above board and squeaky clean especially at this point in time, how can you go after people doing wrong when you have skeletons in your own closet.
Not sure they can really recover from this. |
If I found out there was no bone-fide genuine and credible level of impartiality/detachment of Trust from SCFC chairman and its directors then I would never have put my money where my mouth is. Insane to expect someone to be unpopular with the club and speak against the club when he/she is being generously being paid by that very club in the first place. Bite the hands that feeds? Hands tied behind back stuff?
Yes let Huw Cooze drink down Morgans, have printing contracts, sit in the directors box and get paid £40,000 a year for community relations but let it be solely as a SCFC employee and a SCFC employee only. |  |
| |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:12 - Oct 26 with 1374 views | Nookiejack |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:52 - Oct 26 by londonlisa2001 |
I've also just read the other thread about what has happened, and I couldn't agree more with what's been said by Monmouth, longlost and A Fan's Dad amongst others.
This whole situation is a sideshow - important, yes, should have been avoided, yes, naive, yes. But get it sorted (the new Trust guidelines will have done that), work out the best way forward (perhaps HC should stay doing all the supporters' liaison stuff with a salary from the club and someone new should take over the very defined role of Supporters' Director, ONLY responsible for representing the Trust at a Board level), and let's concentrate on TOGETHER building a supporters trust that is as strong and vibrant as possible, and make every possible effort to have that Trust work with the new owners to build a club that genuinely listens to supporters' concerns, starts listening to the Supporters' Director, involves them fully in every decision made and can still say with at least some conviction, 'we are the only premier league team part owned and run by its fans'.
If the American owners have ANY sense about them, they will realise that working with a vibrant Trust will actually help them. On the field, and (most importantly for them), off the field as well. |
The only way the Trust were going to have 2 Directors on the board was if they signed a document to say there was no original Shareholders Agreement.
Though you know my position on this Lisa - sell, sell, sell on same terms as the ex shareholders. Save the money for the inevitable rainy day - where we can rebuild with total control of our club. They are professional venture capital investors in it to make a profit for their fund and their investors. The Trust is a total distraction for them. They don't want fans on the Board complaining about this and that - they just want to get on with pursuing their commercial strategy. How long will it be before Monthly board meetings are cut to six monthly board meetings or something similar - if they can get away with it? | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:34 - Oct 26 with 1311 views | cockneyswan |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 12:10 - Oct 26 by jack247 |
Absolutely Bluey.
Whatever people think of HC being paid and the lack of transparency, they are our only slim hope of protecting the club from the current owners (should it need it). It's not good whichever way you look at it, but let's not cut our nose off to spite our face. |
"Only slim hope"? You're having a larf mate. If Huw cozy and co hadn't been in the pockets of the scumbag sellers this whole debacle would have been avoided 😡 |  | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:40 - Oct 26 with 1286 views | jack247 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:34 - Oct 26 by cockneyswan |
"Only slim hope"? You're having a larf mate. If Huw cozy and co hadn't been in the pockets of the scumbag sellers this whole debacle would have been avoided 😡 |
Not sure what you are getting at there, you think we would be better off being owned outright by Steve and Jase's mob? | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:50 - Oct 26 with 1248 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:12 - Oct 26 by Nookiejack |
The only way the Trust were going to have 2 Directors on the board was if they signed a document to say there was no original Shareholders Agreement.
Though you know my position on this Lisa - sell, sell, sell on same terms as the ex shareholders. Save the money for the inevitable rainy day - where we can rebuild with total control of our club. They are professional venture capital investors in it to make a profit for their fund and their investors. The Trust is a total distraction for them. They don't want fans on the Board complaining about this and that - they just want to get on with pursuing their commercial strategy. How long will it be before Monthly board meetings are cut to six monthly board meetings or something similar - if they can get away with it? |
For clarity - I wasn't suggesting two directors. I was suggesting a separation of the work being done by Huw Cooze at the club, which should be paid for by the club, and a supporters director on the board who is only responsible for representing the trust at board level and has no other responsibilities. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:55 - Oct 26 with 1212 views | dobjack2 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 15:25 - Oct 26 by Return_of_the_Jack |
Its hard to "trust" the Trust when they have lied to the supporters they are meant to be representing - You are basically advocating that we forget about all this and carry on.
I won't be touching the trust with a barge pole unless major changes are made. |
Don't think anybody is saying forget about it.
We need to carry on. Clearly up to you how you feel about the trust but what do you propose as an alternative? Do nothing? | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 17:31 - Oct 26 with 1127 views | cockneyswan |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 16:40 - Oct 26 by jack247 |
Not sure what you are getting at there, you think we would be better off being owned outright by Steve and Jase's mob? |
I would believe in the trust (I just renewed) but needs a change of personnel starting with mr Cozy and then anyone else who had knowledge of the lies we have been fed for years. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 17:34 - Oct 26 with 1119 views | CopaMundial |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 14:19 - Oct 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Nobody 'tipped me off' for God's sake.
The question had been asked on here a number of times and had never been answered.
The reason I asked it again was two things reminded me of it.
One was the Trust's statement, which I had read in full and as a result, had questions in my mind (as did everyone I imagine) about the whole issue of what was known and when and what decisions were being made and when at a board level, shareholder level and in what legal company (I was trying work round the whole legal questions in my own mind as the statement raised legal action for the first time).
The second reason it occurred to me again last week was that the disabled supporters' association had held a meeting in the stadium, and someone said on here, that Huw Cooze had arranged the attendance of Bob Bradley. That sparked a thought in my mind that HC was doing that from a position of someone who was part of the club's hierarchy rather than an 'outsider' and it made me think that he was still quite involved in everything down there, even though legal action was being threatened.
The reason that I'd said afterwards that I was sorry I had asked, (which isn't an apology), was that it had stirred up criticism against the Trust but also that people were criticising HC and I've always had the impression he is a good bloke who has done a huge amount for the Trust and all supporters, so I was a bit gutted if my questions had caused him a problem. I quite genuinely didn't know the answer to the question when I asked it.
I'd also say this. The Trust should have made this all quite clear. No doubt. BUT, someone working for the club around all sorts of supporter related issues that takes up a vast amount of their time, should be paid for it. Everyone else at the club is paid for everything. The only problem as I see it, is that there should have been a clear separation of that vital role, and the role of Board Director representing the Trust shareholder. The new guidelines from the Trust reflect that necessary separation.
Also this. The selling shareholders have behaved with an absolutely shocking disregard for the Trust, and by extension, all us supporters. It is quite probable from what I've seen and read, that the club was in a situation where things had run away financially, and that new investors had to be found to continue our journey. But there was a CLEAR difference between doing what was necessary and right for the club, and doing what was in the best interests of the selling shareholders' own financial position. It is clear in my opinion, which of these two routes was chosen. And in making that choice, the selling shareholders clinically discarded the relationship that they had with the Trust. A relationship that had allowed the club to go from a basket case in the fourth division to a premier league team. A relationship that they had themselves been keen to stress to anyone that would listen for many years.
There is no doubt that the Trust could and should have made sure that governance issues were properly taken care of and disclosed. But that isn't even on the same planet as the actions of others. And for anyone to attempt to use one to justify the other, or to say 'they're all as bad as each other' is farcical. I have no idea why some supporters want to bang that 'equivalence' drum. But don't for one second believe that I do. |
So....the fact that the fans elected representative on the board arranged for Bradley to come and speak to a disabled fans group suddenly alerted you to the fact that something wasn't quite right,that's one hell of a leap
I also read the Trusts statement in full and where I agree there are a number of areas that raise concern about the legality of it all I'm struggling to see a connection to HC apart from questioning how much he may or may not have known about the takeover.
Maybe you're just the suspicious type,lucky I'm not married to you,if you ever found lipstick on my collar I doubt very much that you'd buy the old bumped into the make up girl in Boots story.
Anyway it doesn't really matter,you asked the question and now we have the answer,as unpalatable as it may be for everyone at least now it's out there. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 18:02 - Oct 26 with 1060 views | jack247 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 17:31 - Oct 26 by cockneyswan |
I would believe in the trust (I just renewed) but needs a change of personnel starting with mr Cozy and then anyone else who had knowledge of the lies we have been fed for years. |
That's absolutely fine. As long as we can approach the someone capable, who is willing to work full time for free. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 18:14 - Oct 26 with 1015 views | cockneyswan |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 18:02 - Oct 26 by jack247 |
That's absolutely fine. As long as we can approach the someone capable, who is willing to work full time for free. |
I don't have a problem with the new incumbents being paid by the trust so long as everything is transparent and we can be sure our representatives are working only for the benefit of the trust. | | | |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 18:18 - Oct 26 with 1004 views | jack247 |
| Lisa Who Tipped You Off ? on 18:14 - Oct 26 by cockneyswan |
I don't have a problem with the new incumbents being paid by the trust so long as everything is transparent and we can be sure our representatives are working only for the benefit of the trust. |
Agree on that, though I can't see how the trust can pay them, especially if it's the kind of wage we are talking about. Am I missing some slush fund they have somewhere? Serious question. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
