By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 00:04 - Feb 20 by chad
Frankly Lisa I think the Trust Board is discrediting itself if it is considered at all professional to allow the Vice Chair to repeatedly insult the members he is elected to represent and to tell outright and demonstrable lies about same.
It is certainly bringing back memories of some of the unacceptable behaviours around the last vote. I had hoped we had moved on from then.
And I think I have certainly made my feelings known about the behaviour of the sellouts and the new majority owners, the latter who I quite clearly spelt it out to face to face in that recorded meeting almost 2 years ago.
One question Spratty...what outright and demonstrable lie have I told?
The good news in all this, from what I understand (and by all means any fellow Trust members come on to correct) is that in spite of the various attempts by those with a different agenda to deflect from the real issue here, proportionately more new members have joined the Trust in the last few weeks than for a long time before.
And plainly anyone would be kidding themselves if they thought the vast majority of those people joining were not doing so in order to vote in one particular way.
It’s pleasing to note that the all too obvious and poorly conceived attempts by those looking to discredit the Trust is seemingly having the opposite effect and many fans are now rallying round the Trust, rather than having the effect the detractors have been looking for.
Good. Fans in not naive shocker after all.
Oh,..Dave, what's occuring?
1
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 07:32 - Feb 20 with 951 views
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 06:42 - Feb 20 by marchamjack
The good news in all this, from what I understand (and by all means any fellow Trust members come on to correct) is that in spite of the various attempts by those with a different agenda to deflect from the real issue here, proportionately more new members have joined the Trust in the last few weeks than for a long time before.
And plainly anyone would be kidding themselves if they thought the vast majority of those people joining were not doing so in order to vote in one particular way.
It’s pleasing to note that the all too obvious and poorly conceived attempts by those looking to discredit the Trust is seemingly having the opposite effect and many fans are now rallying round the Trust, rather than having the effect the detractors have been looking for.
Good. Fans in not naive shocker after all.
Irritable Bowel Syndrome law were unavailable for comment
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 06:42 - Feb 20 by marchamjack
The good news in all this, from what I understand (and by all means any fellow Trust members come on to correct) is that in spite of the various attempts by those with a different agenda to deflect from the real issue here, proportionately more new members have joined the Trust in the last few weeks than for a long time before.
And plainly anyone would be kidding themselves if they thought the vast majority of those people joining were not doing so in order to vote in one particular way.
It’s pleasing to note that the all too obvious and poorly conceived attempts by those looking to discredit the Trust is seemingly having the opposite effect and many fans are now rallying round the Trust, rather than having the effect the detractors have been looking for.
Good. Fans in not naive shocker after all.
What is this phenomenon where people speak in riddles and expect it not to be pressed for specifics?
What is the agenda?
Who harbours it?
And why?
People avoid answering these three simple questions (or making them clear in their initial post) because it makes them sound utterly mental. The only agenda is to get a strong body working for the fans that is focussed on the right things - currently, and for quite some time actually, we have had none of the above.
The Trust detractors, as you call them, were the main voices behind legal action from the very beginning (and remain so), you know, round about when the Trust and all their supporters were enduring their members would vote against it and instead in favour to make deals with the owners... Banning, discrediting and ridiculing the calls from us to take legal action in the process.
Now you have all changed your mind and it is ‘US’ that are in bed with the sellouts because we are speaking out after being completely let down continuously by the organisation for such actions as the vote? The previous lies, underhand actions and the ones that continue to this day... It really makes very little sense.
If you are going to make silly comments, know the situation and know the history.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 8:33]
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 09:16 - Feb 20 with 859 views
I wasn’t going to post on this thread as it has, in various forms, been done to death.
Two comments though
My thoughts on HC was that he was doing the best for the Trust and the fans, in the end he was too trusting ( as most would) of people he thought he knew well, and in the end was maybe naive in recognizing the unfolding events. To sum up he’s not one of the bad guys and deserves some respect.
As far as voices being behind legal action from the beginning, the only way of getting that outcome (initially and now) is to join the Trust and vote accordingly.
If the majority feel that way there is only one outcome from the ballot.
1
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 09:31 - Feb 20 with 835 views
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 09:16 - Feb 20 by 3swan
I wasn’t going to post on this thread as it has, in various forms, been done to death.
Two comments though
My thoughts on HC was that he was doing the best for the Trust and the fans, in the end he was too trusting ( as most would) of people he thought he knew well, and in the end was maybe naive in recognizing the unfolding events. To sum up he’s not one of the bad guys and deserves some respect.
As far as voices being behind legal action from the beginning, the only way of getting that outcome (initially and now) is to join the Trust and vote accordingly.
If the majority feel that way there is only one outcome from the ballot.
It’s not about the outcome of the vote, I have every faith this time the correct decision will be reached as the Trust have publicly backtracked (although avoided coming clean that it was indeed their initial error... and instead blamed others).
However, this will now be years after it should have been done, it will be conducted by people who have acted awfully in the fans name (and continue to do so) and waste tens of thousands of pounds of fans money - ironically not too dissimilar to why they wanted the sellouts out of the club - deception, lying and wasting money - yet people think they should be beyond reproach. Why?
The Trust is the most important piece of the fan ownership jigsaw I have been banging on about for years, but for that to happen successfully the arrogance, lying, underhand tactics and pig headed bullishness needs to leave the organisation.
Currently I see no signs of that happening.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 9:40]
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 09:44 - Feb 20 with 813 views
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 09:31 - Feb 20 by The_E20
It’s not about the outcome of the vote, I have every faith this time the correct decision will be reached as the Trust have publicly backtracked (although avoided coming clean that it was indeed their initial error... and instead blamed others).
However, this will now be years after it should have been done, it will be conducted by people who have acted awfully in the fans name (and continue to do so) and waste tens of thousands of pounds of fans money - ironically not too dissimilar to why they wanted the sellouts out of the club - deception, lying and wasting money - yet people think they should be beyond reproach. Why?
The Trust is the most important piece of the fan ownership jigsaw I have been banging on about for years, but for that to happen successfully the arrogance, lying, underhand tactics and pig headed bullishness needs to leave the organisation.
Currently I see no signs of that happening.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 9:40]
How was it an error when, at the time, that seemed the most obvious way to go.
Yes, hindsight is a great thing and all that, but the reality is that it MIGHT have worked. It didn't work, but at least the 'easiest' option was explored, tried and eventually dumped. That will probably also work in the Trust's favour in court as they've been seen to be trying to do everything possible to find a solution.
I actually find it a bit childish that some people are questioning this. It wasn't a bad idea, at the time, and we're now in a position to right that "wrong".
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 09:44 - Feb 20 by MoscowJack
How was it an error when, at the time, that seemed the most obvious way to go.
Yes, hindsight is a great thing and all that, but the reality is that it MIGHT have worked. It didn't work, but at least the 'easiest' option was explored, tried and eventually dumped. That will probably also work in the Trust's favour in court as they've been seen to be trying to do everything possible to find a solution.
I actually find it a bit childish that some people are questioning this. It wasn't a bad idea, at the time, and we're now in a position to right that "wrong".
Because it never seemed the most obvious thing, it was horrifically thought out and all the obvious reasons why was highlighted at the time. The voices were ignored, banned, then they colluded to get the deal vote pushed through with the most corrupt tactics that could have been imagined with the ‘recommendation’ and subsequent voting system.
Amazed to see you say they are righting a wrong. They aren’t “righting a wrong” though are they?
They are claiming their course of action is now changed due to other parties failing. Can you show me one single release admitting their near fatal error? Just one? Of course you can’t, it doesn’t exist. That is frightening.
To have people currently at the helm to harbour the lack of foresight and business nouse to give 18m worth of the fans shares away for less than 4m after tax in exchange for no legal action ever, after continuous errors and cover ups prior is something we cannot have.
I was prepared to give them another chance after the mini reform in the hope lessons have been learned, said it publicly, but to continue where they left off is unforgivable. The initial silencing of opposition voices followed up by the now lying regarding Coozegate is frankly hideous.
These are people we are expected to put our full trust in. Bringing that up is perfectly valid and not in the least bit “childish”. It is the exact reasons people wanted Jenkins out FFS. Why are we accepting it from the Trust? Tell me.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 10:16]
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 10:44 - Feb 20 with 728 views
For clarity I'm a member of the Trust & voted against legal action last time around & still to be convinced it is the right call when I get to vote this time around - that has nothing to do with my opinion on how the Yanks/sell-outs handled the sale just the reality (having spent 37 years & counting in the Commercial/Corporate world) that in my experience the only real winners in these type of disputes are the lawyers regardless of the actual outcome and if they chose to open them the owners/sell-outs have much deeper pockets that the Trust do . . . . . Unless of course the members are willing to contribute to a legal pot.
Unless I'm misinformed (& I could be) the Trust Board are unpaid & volunteering their time to run the Trust on behalf of the members - I'm sure they get some expenses & the occasional sandwich/coffee & maybe better ticket/club access than the "standard" member or fan - so to suggest that now the club has a multi-million turnover that they should become all things to all fans & be judged as such is an interesting one - if they are should they not receive an appropriate Corporate level salary package?
From everything I've seen/read they try hard & give it a decent go - possibly been a tad naive with their dealings with both the sell-outs & the Americans plus been weak on communication with members & wider fans & more reactive than proactive........but for some on here to throw in accusations on deception/lying/lining their own pockets etc is a long way from the mark in my opinion & actually holds us back & damages the club.
On the OP financial gain debate it, for me, is around what does that mean - in the wider business world a 21% ownership would typically involve cross company trading, potentially at beneficial commercial rates noting that common ownership - their is no legal requirement to go out to tender on any/all work. That said openness with the Trust members & wider fans would be smart & would, potentially, build a better forward looking relationship. That would include, in my opinion, in the Trust minutes any club hospitality received during the previous period.
Clearly some posters have 'history' with the Trust & what is has/hasn't done & appear to struggle to get past that so feel the need to continually reiterate their feelings/points - whilst they may have validity in their stance it helps not a jot & reduces the chance that we could materially grow the Trust's membership - again that is my opinion, feel free to keep putting the knife it if it makes you sleep better.
On the next vote, as stated above, I'm on the fence & would need convincing we have a very strong case to drag the Trust/club/owners/sell-outs into an expensive probably long legal battle without very clear benefits to both the Trust & the club - I have no interest in whether the owners/sell-outs could benefit other than to say if they think they can (or at least not lose any!) I'd expect them to fight the case regardless of how much/long it takes.
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 10:54 - Feb 20 with 717 views
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 10:44 - Feb 20 by Thornburyswan
My 2p or if you prefer 2 cents FWIW . . .
For clarity I'm a member of the Trust & voted against legal action last time around & still to be convinced it is the right call when I get to vote this time around - that has nothing to do with my opinion on how the Yanks/sell-outs handled the sale just the reality (having spent 37 years & counting in the Commercial/Corporate world) that in my experience the only real winners in these type of disputes are the lawyers regardless of the actual outcome and if they chose to open them the owners/sell-outs have much deeper pockets that the Trust do . . . . . Unless of course the members are willing to contribute to a legal pot.
Unless I'm misinformed (& I could be) the Trust Board are unpaid & volunteering their time to run the Trust on behalf of the members - I'm sure they get some expenses & the occasional sandwich/coffee & maybe better ticket/club access than the "standard" member or fan - so to suggest that now the club has a multi-million turnover that they should become all things to all fans & be judged as such is an interesting one - if they are should they not receive an appropriate Corporate level salary package?
From everything I've seen/read they try hard & give it a decent go - possibly been a tad naive with their dealings with both the sell-outs & the Americans plus been weak on communication with members & wider fans & more reactive than proactive........but for some on here to throw in accusations on deception/lying/lining their own pockets etc is a long way from the mark in my opinion & actually holds us back & damages the club.
On the OP financial gain debate it, for me, is around what does that mean - in the wider business world a 21% ownership would typically involve cross company trading, potentially at beneficial commercial rates noting that common ownership - their is no legal requirement to go out to tender on any/all work. That said openness with the Trust members & wider fans would be smart & would, potentially, build a better forward looking relationship. That would include, in my opinion, in the Trust minutes any club hospitality received during the previous period.
Clearly some posters have 'history' with the Trust & what is has/hasn't done & appear to struggle to get past that so feel the need to continually reiterate their feelings/points - whilst they may have validity in their stance it helps not a jot & reduces the chance that we could materially grow the Trust's membership - again that is my opinion, feel free to keep putting the knife it if it makes you sleep better.
On the next vote, as stated above, I'm on the fence & would need convincing we have a very strong case to drag the Trust/club/owners/sell-outs into an expensive probably long legal battle without very clear benefits to both the Trust & the club - I have no interest in whether the owners/sell-outs could benefit other than to say if they think they can (or at least not lose any!) I'd expect them to fight the case regardless of how much/long it takes.
I don’t understand that view at all.
You think that because they are unpaid then they should be able to act with impunity?
Are you happy the Trust lie to their membership because they are unpaid and shouldn’t be challenged? Or do you think fans of the club have a right to be concerned if this behaviour is a consistent theme? Especially when the organisation is clearly being earmarked to run the club we support.
I find it amazing so many questions get raised about owners and potential owners yet the Trust can lie and act as underhand as they like and anyone questioning them or noting this is being out of order, it’s just weird.
Of course, I would have approached the chairman of the Trust with this however the last email so sent to his trust email address was ignored and the pm function on my proxy server I am forced to use after countless silencing bans doesn’t work. There is a direct consequence to these actions.
So are you happy with a Trust organisation that deceives its membership and lies to them for personal self preservation? Honest answer please.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 10:54]
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 11:00 - Feb 20 with 704 views
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 10:54 - Feb 20 by The_E20
I don’t understand that view at all.
You think that because they are unpaid then they should be able to act with impunity?
Are you happy the Trust lie to their membership because they are unpaid and shouldn’t be challenged? Or do you think fans of the club have a right to be concerned if this behaviour is a consistent theme? Especially when the organisation is clearly being earmarked to run the club we support.
I find it amazing so many questions get raised about owners and potential owners yet the Trust can lie and act as underhand as they like and anyone questioning them or noting this is being out of order, it’s just weird.
Of course, I would have approached the chairman of the Trust with this however the last email so sent to his trust email address was ignored and the pm function on my proxy server I am forced to use after countless silencing bans doesn’t work. There is a direct consequence to these actions.
So are you happy with a Trust organisation that deceives its membership and lies to them for personal self preservation? Honest answer please.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 10:54]
It's obvious you are not banned now, so why don't you stop using your proxy server and PM him now??
Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 11:03 - Feb 20 with 692 views
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 11:00 - Feb 20 by theloneranger
It's obvious you are not banned now, so why don't you stop using your proxy server and PM him now??
Because the original E20 account has been deleted and unable to be unbanned meaning the connecting device/ip is banned. He has had many chances to have the discussion privately, I have been more than fair, while he was busy doing his best to join in with the bullying campaign on behalf of his online mates and club affiliated organisation.
So would you be happy with a Trust that lies to their members and covers things up to preserve their own personal interests? This on top with all the other hideously thought out and bullish actions? This from the organisation trusted with driving toward ownership of the club?
You tell me. Someone answer that question.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2019 11:08]
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 11:35 - Feb 20 with 657 views
So, back on topic, is someone willing to clear up the lie that Huw Cooze resigned without any instruction to do so from the Trust? You know, the people that lied to their members about those payments.
0
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 12:38 - Feb 20 with 579 views
Should THE TRUSTS Board of Directors have personal financial gain from the club? on 20:28 - Feb 19 by Garyjack
Ok, i have to call this as i see it. I have just exchanged messages with Huw Cooze as we do from time to time, and he has categorically stated that he resigned voluntarily from the trust. Make of that what you will. I will add that some people are talking about a real person on here over something that has been done to death over and over again. The man would like some peace, please respect that.
[Post edited 19 Feb 2019 20:29]
This seems to be missed and having spoken to huw this morning this is a simple and correct stance
Thread locked as a result if you can't respect that then please find somewhere else to post