Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence 17:14 - Nov 15 with 21503 viewsTheResurrection

As per a post from exhmrc1 on another thread.

""From the supporters trust website. A special meeting shall be called within 28 days if a written request is made by 10% of the members. This would have to specify the matter to be considered""

Link: https://www.swanstrust.co.uk/trust-model-rules/

The Trust had 840 members at the last Board meeting meaning 84 would need to write a letter of no confidence, if indeed, you'd feel strongly enough to do so.

This thread could be used to mobilise the first troops of dissent and the beginnings of a new dawn with a change of approach and mindset within the Trust.

But first for the reasoning...

This wouldn't be a bad place to discuss consequences of both a change in the Trust and thereafter the relationship with the owners that could affect our survival chances.

It would be a big call so let's weigh up all potentials and use this as a platform to see what page most of us are on should a vote and consultation come back to the members.

Otherwise, the 84 could be totted up, organised and accounted for here.

[Post edited 15 Nov 2017 17:15]

* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Poll: Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

1
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:48 - Nov 17 with 2077 viewsE20Jack

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 08:14 - Nov 17 by Phil_S

Adding a couple of things rather than editing

During the time on the Trust board I have always been prepared to meet and discuss with Swans fans to air their concerns and state our point of view. THere are people on here that I have done it with and people elsewhere.

At every forum I have stood at since the first one when Moores and Noell were sniffing around I have fronted every question asked and given an answer that was honest and direct. I think the statement on here refers to the deal last summer not necessarily being a good one, I remember saying that at both forums when we consulted on the deal itself. At no point was it presented as a good deal but it was presented by the board as the deal we felt was the best one given the options and the advice taken. Those that asked questions were given consistent answers

I have corresponded with and spoken to many people who dont want to be members and some have rejoined and others didnt. Personal choice I respect but even so they were good debates. I even confided in a few people that I was about to stand down without going into full and frank reasons why.

The only place I shut myself away from was here. For a simple reason is that this forum has always been addictive. YOu can come on with every intention of just reading a few threads and be here for hours. I would have been that person here for hours and I probably wouldnt have a family around me now had I done so.

The best one though was that some people refused to meet me as I thought I would beat them up. Laughable to the extreme but genuinely true.


As I said, it was not an accusation but more of a point that some will now think it was for other reasons, which they will.

You guys did push for this American deal though - heavily. The terms changing seems a bit of a lame excuse to absolve yourself from the situation. As the terms changing was also extremely likely given their history. As you were all told.

So I cant really accept the fact that some will say you are wrong when it is only an opinion. You WERE wrong to push for this deal as it has now led to a scenario where you have quit as a result and left it in the hands of people happy to accept even worse terms. You personally surely cant describe that anything other than a massive error?

You have to see that the pushing of that deal was a catastrophic failure and a massive error of judgement. The terms changing is almost irrelevant in the great scheme of things. The error was to forgo the obligation to fight for the club and its suporters and decide to deal with them. Something that was always going to go wrong.

The Trust has just the same problem at board level as the club does, lack of foresight. I am sure I remember Ux (may have been someone else) who still wanted to adhere to the original aims of the Trust even though the Trust finds itself in a completely different scenario from when they were written. It is this lack of adapting, three steps behind no forward vision style of organisation that has hampered it for so long.

The Trusts aims HAS TO be at some point in the future becoming a majority shareholder. That should be the bottom line - it is the only real way to protect the club for any sustained period of time. And any decisions along the way geared toward that end goal. I would say no major decisions taken have been qualifying for the above, probably the opposite.

Poll: 6 point deduction and sellouts lose all their cash?

1
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:00 - Nov 17 with 2060 viewsPhil_S

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:48 - Nov 17 by E20Jack

As I said, it was not an accusation but more of a point that some will now think it was for other reasons, which they will.

You guys did push for this American deal though - heavily. The terms changing seems a bit of a lame excuse to absolve yourself from the situation. As the terms changing was also extremely likely given their history. As you were all told.

So I cant really accept the fact that some will say you are wrong when it is only an opinion. You WERE wrong to push for this deal as it has now led to a scenario where you have quit as a result and left it in the hands of people happy to accept even worse terms. You personally surely cant describe that anything other than a massive error?

You have to see that the pushing of that deal was a catastrophic failure and a massive error of judgement. The terms changing is almost irrelevant in the great scheme of things. The error was to forgo the obligation to fight for the club and its suporters and decide to deal with them. Something that was always going to go wrong.

The Trust has just the same problem at board level as the club does, lack of foresight. I am sure I remember Ux (may have been someone else) who still wanted to adhere to the original aims of the Trust even though the Trust finds itself in a completely different scenario from when they were written. It is this lack of adapting, three steps behind no forward vision style of organisation that has hampered it for so long.

The Trusts aims HAS TO be at some point in the future becoming a majority shareholder. That should be the bottom line - it is the only real way to protect the club for any sustained period of time. And any decisions along the way geared toward that end goal. I would say no major decisions taken have been qualifying for the above, probably the opposite.


AH hindisght the wonderful answer to everything. Very easy to say that we were wrong when it plays itself out fully - anything before that is an opinion and a difference of views. I remember at the time you (at least I think it was you, my apologies if it wasnt) saying that anyone who voted to take the deal was led by us, uninformed (and almost by insinuation) stupid. Right up there with those that claimed the same of those who voted Brexit. Sure I am convinced some were but many werent.

I am not absolving myself from anything by the way. The deal as presented at the time was based on a whole host of things and being the right thing to do based on a whole host of people involved in the decision making. The terms changing will be a different view for everyone as to what that means, for me it was significant enough to make the deal not right and therefore I could not be the person recommending it any more.

It is interesting that you talk about the Trust aim's being a major shareholder in the future, there are a vast number of people who believed that should never be the case which comes back to that opinion piece again. Without the benefit of hindsight.

In fairness, you have never seen an opposing view on the matter regards this deal, it has just played out as you saw it (by the way thats not a criticism, I admire conviction of beliefs) would we have been wrong if it had played another way (your comeback will be that it couldnt)

Edit: And I add this not in the usual flippant way that it can get banded about, I would hope/love to see the likes of you, nookie, Res, Lisa, ECB all get involved (and others that have similar levels of view and expertise)

This post has been edited by an administrator
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:09 - Nov 17 with 2043 viewsmonmouth

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:39 - Nov 17 by Shaky

Sure, but they didn't have the confidence of their Chairman, and that didn't make them blink.


As CG is about overcoming the agency problem (the board acting in their own interest rather than that of the membership) it might be argued that continuing to push for the agreed deal is in line with that.

I would argue very strongly though (probably strongly enough to rejoin and have a vote and a say in a minute) that, as others have said, a major part of the deal was that it would strengthen trust with a small 't' and working relationships with the owners.

This is blatantly not the case, and thus I would further argue that the Board is now not acting in the interests of their members and neither are they fulfilling a fiduciary duty to act in good faith in terms of the best interests of the organisation of which they are meant to be custodians.

Not any kind of threat, just a prediction, that they will not be forgiven as individuals for the line they are taking when it turns out that they have been stitched up and shafted by cleverer, more ruthless and more experienced businessmen (thats no shame, these people make a living from it). If you recommend a worse deal than the poor one that was on the table you are recommending your own future humiliation.

So, unlikely, but If you do read this, are on the Board, and you are against further discussion, forget this nonsense of cabinet responsibility, this is too important. I would suggest you make your opposition known publicly. We need to know who we can really 'Trust', whichever course of action people support.
[Post edited 17 Nov 2017 11:10]

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

3
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:29 - Nov 17 with 2009 viewsShaky

i think you're probably right, Monmouth, but in the absence of any real transparency - never mind accountability - it's all really just supposition on a nod and a wink from the dissenters.

I am still interested in where the notion of collective responsibility comes from, but if Chris were for example to stand for election on a platform of explicitly shedding light on what the hell is going on internally, I don;t see how that could be ignored or prevented; sunlight is after all the best disinfectant.

The other good news is that according to Uxbridge the nex AGM is in January where change could be effected; that's not long to wait and allows some time to develop a clear strategy.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:31 - Nov 17 with 2005 viewsE20Jack

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:00 - Nov 17 by Phil_S

AH hindisght the wonderful answer to everything. Very easy to say that we were wrong when it plays itself out fully - anything before that is an opinion and a difference of views. I remember at the time you (at least I think it was you, my apologies if it wasnt) saying that anyone who voted to take the deal was led by us, uninformed (and almost by insinuation) stupid. Right up there with those that claimed the same of those who voted Brexit. Sure I am convinced some were but many werent.

I am not absolving myself from anything by the way. The deal as presented at the time was based on a whole host of things and being the right thing to do based on a whole host of people involved in the decision making. The terms changing will be a different view for everyone as to what that means, for me it was significant enough to make the deal not right and therefore I could not be the person recommending it any more.

It is interesting that you talk about the Trust aim's being a major shareholder in the future, there are a vast number of people who believed that should never be the case which comes back to that opinion piece again. Without the benefit of hindsight.

In fairness, you have never seen an opposing view on the matter regards this deal, it has just played out as you saw it (by the way thats not a criticism, I admire conviction of beliefs) would we have been wrong if it had played another way (your comeback will be that it couldnt)

Edit: And I add this not in the usual flippant way that it can get banded about, I would hope/love to see the likes of you, nookie, Res, Lisa, ECB all get involved (and others that have similar levels of view and expertise)

This post has been edited by an administrator


It is not really hindsight though. It was quite a strong stance on here that the risk is just too high to accept a deal from these people. The fact that it then happened and was pointed out, cannot be labelled as hindsight.

Adversely, If this deal were to have gone smoothly, future sales gone smoothly and we found ourselves in a position where the Trust had a real warchest for future protection (not a pointless £5m) then I would happily hold my hands up and say I was wrong - I would not be playing the hindsight card.

As to what I said regarding people voting to take the deal, that sounds somewhat similar to my opinion but not fully. I accept that some have their views as to why take the deal and will vote that way. However there will also be the members that vote who dont understand the situation (many wont), dont want to understand the situation (many wont) and happy to follow The Trusts lead. This was my problem with the vote before even getting into the structure of it. The upshot being that 'The Legal' option of course had the ones vehemently agreeing with it - 'The Deal' option had everyone else including those that were unsure. To be unsure and go against a recomendation seems a highly unlikely scenario.

I think my point in the main is that there has been very little revisionary admission since the resignations (that is not just aimed at you by the way). The focus has been on what you and others have done well (and that is entirely recognised by me as it goes). However the club finds itself in a position where unfortunately it would be far more benefitial for you - as someome who clearly now sees negotiating with the Americans as the wrong way to go - to stand up and say, it is my belief we were wrong and the wrong recomendation was made. You are perfectly within your rights to do that.

The above would possibly have enough sway of the members who hold you in high regard that could correct any future re-vote of which there looks likely to be. That is my frustration anyway, the focus seems to be on past positives rather than change invoking admitting that those you led (intentionally or otherwise - its a whole other debate all together) to vote a certain way may have done so due to an error of judgement in the recommendation.

Ideally there would be no need to sway anyone in any direction. However the initial swaying may have a lasting effect even on a re-vote so redressing the balance seems the only viable alternative.

I hope my clear anger and frustration now seems like it has a point now?

(By the way, if people on the Trust board do not have an eventual end ambition of the organisation being major shareholders in the future then that is a terrifying prospect. How on earth do they expect to protect this club? Just by being amicable partners with every owner?! Surely they see how this model cannot and will not work - it hasnt at the first attempt and will continue to fail. That also may be something needing mentioning in Trust bios).
[Post edited 17 Nov 2017 11:43]

Poll: 6 point deduction and sellouts lose all their cash?

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:07 - Nov 17 with 1920 viewslondonlisa2001

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 21:53 - Nov 16 by Darran

Phil wasn’t Chairman straight away there was at least one other,Brian Rees.
Why don’t you know that?


The 12 year rule wasn't in a single position Darran. It was in any position.
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:13 - Nov 17 with 1907 viewsDarran

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:07 - Nov 17 by londonlisa2001

The 12 year rule wasn't in a single position Darran. It was in any position.


Excuse me here but I only answered Gary’s question.
Which was was Phil Chairman straight after Dineen?

I hope that helps.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: Who’s got the most experts

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:23 - Nov 17 with 1779 viewsexiledclaseboy

So we don’t actually know which rules the Trust is currently being governed by then? That’s handy.

Poll: Tory leader

0
Login to get fewer ads

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:26 - Nov 17 with 1775 viewslondonlisa2001

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:23 - Nov 17 by exiledclaseboy

So we don’t actually know which rules the Trust is currently being governed by then? That’s handy.


The ones on their web site. As we were.
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:33 - Nov 17 with 1760 viewsexiledclaseboy

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:26 - Nov 17 by londonlisa2001

The ones on their web site. As we were.


Ah. I thought I read somewhere in this thread earlier that they’d been superseded but no one seemed quite sure.

Poll: Tory leader

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 23:30 - Nov 17 with 1700 viewsDewi1jack

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 19:33 - Nov 17 by exiledclaseboy

Ah. I thought I read somewhere in this thread earlier that they’d been superseded but no one seemed quite sure.


Read they'd been brought/ voted on before an AGM but not adopted into fact.

And as many people living in Swansea, let alone any distance away cannot make meetings, then the Internet should be used as well as a room with some members in it, to hold meetings/ forums etc.

Important votes may just have a bigger turnout.
Although with the apathy shown towards the last major vote, even with freepost envelopes, then it wouldn't surprise me if the important votes were totally ignored
Just over 50% turnout is atrocious.
Especially as it involves the club we all love and the underhand way business has been conducted

If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious.

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 23:51 - Nov 17 with 1683 viewsTheResurrection

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:42 - Nov 17 by Uxbridge

It seems we were both right. After speaking to our friendly legal chap (who's also on the SD board), adoption of the 2014 rules were passed at a prior AGM, but due to issues between SD and the FCA, these were not technically adopted. Guidance from SD is to adopt the latest (2016) model rules at the next AGM. Which, I gather, is in January.

And to answer Shaky's question, these could only be adopted at an AGM/EGM.


ECB

Not technically adopted.

Make of that what you will.

It's a bloody farce.

* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Poll: Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 00:51 - Nov 18 with 1653 viewswhiterock

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 23:30 - Nov 17 by Dewi1jack

Read they'd been brought/ voted on before an AGM but not adopted into fact.

And as many people living in Swansea, let alone any distance away cannot make meetings, then the Internet should be used as well as a room with some members in it, to hold meetings/ forums etc.

Important votes may just have a bigger turnout.
Although with the apathy shown towards the last major vote, even with freepost envelopes, then it wouldn't surprise me if the important votes were totally ignored
Just over 50% turnout is atrocious.
Especially as it involves the club we all love and the underhand way business has been conducted


And the last gam saw over 120 members, the January one might see a few more which has to be a good thing
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 08:54 - Nov 18 with 1576 viewsEilian

So what is the official cut off date for members to sign up to be able to vote?

Or does nobody really know what is going on in good old fashion Trust tradition?
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:01 - Nov 18 with 1563 viewsItchySphincter

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:00 - Nov 17 by Phil_S

AH hindisght the wonderful answer to everything. Very easy to say that we were wrong when it plays itself out fully - anything before that is an opinion and a difference of views. I remember at the time you (at least I think it was you, my apologies if it wasnt) saying that anyone who voted to take the deal was led by us, uninformed (and almost by insinuation) stupid. Right up there with those that claimed the same of those who voted Brexit. Sure I am convinced some were but many werent.

I am not absolving myself from anything by the way. The deal as presented at the time was based on a whole host of things and being the right thing to do based on a whole host of people involved in the decision making. The terms changing will be a different view for everyone as to what that means, for me it was significant enough to make the deal not right and therefore I could not be the person recommending it any more.

It is interesting that you talk about the Trust aim's being a major shareholder in the future, there are a vast number of people who believed that should never be the case which comes back to that opinion piece again. Without the benefit of hindsight.

In fairness, you have never seen an opposing view on the matter regards this deal, it has just played out as you saw it (by the way thats not a criticism, I admire conviction of beliefs) would we have been wrong if it had played another way (your comeback will be that it couldnt)

Edit: And I add this not in the usual flippant way that it can get banded about, I would hope/love to see the likes of you, nookie, Res, Lisa, ECB all get involved (and others that have similar levels of view and expertise)

This post has been edited by an administrator


1/6 of your last paragraph is absolute lunacy.

‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Poll: Planet Swans or Planet Swans? Which one's you favourite.

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:21 - Nov 18 with 1536 viewsexhmrc1

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 08:57 - Nov 17 by Uxbridge

Well, this feels weird!

I agree with Phil's statement on the adoption of updated model rules, as from Supporters Direct. I believe that is planned for next AGM.

Just on the term limit implemented in the governance review, I think that only applies to the officers (Chair/VC/SD/AD) rather than at board level. If that should apply to board level itself is something the forthcoming (and I suspect annual) review of these documents (as noted in the minutes) will need to consider. I'd tend to agree personally, but it's not in the document as it stands.

I can only agree with Phil's comments regarding his views on welcoming new blood onto the Trust board. I know this from personal experience from when I joined 3 or so years ago, but also from that review. To be honest, i think that's a general view on the Trust board, and even more so at this exact moment in time.

I can only agree with that last sentence though. I can disagree strongly with other views at times, but I respect anyone who applies and puts themselves out there. Nobody has the monopoly on being right, and I think the way valid criticism turns personal and downright nasty at times is out of order.


I must say I find this business with the constitution absolutely unbelievable. There are a set of rules ie constitution on the website for all and sundry to see but the actual rules being used are kept away from members in favour of the few on the board. If this is not your constitution where is. What rules have you been adopting. Is there even a constitution at all. How can you decide things like quorum and who has what position. What has been the position of your legal advisor in this. Why hasn't he ensured a proper constitution isheld. Given that how can he be considered trustworthy over the advice given on sales. Your secretary was an actual signature to the original model rules. How can anyone have confidence in him.

This leaves more questions than answers. Surely more than anything else this should be a case for the whole incompetent board resigning. Personal opinions over whether to be renegotiating with the Yanks is one things. Incompetence like this is a totally more worrying matter.
2
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:31 - Nov 18 with 1525 viewsUxbridge

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:21 - Nov 18 by exhmrc1

I must say I find this business with the constitution absolutely unbelievable. There are a set of rules ie constitution on the website for all and sundry to see but the actual rules being used are kept away from members in favour of the few on the board. If this is not your constitution where is. What rules have you been adopting. Is there even a constitution at all. How can you decide things like quorum and who has what position. What has been the position of your legal advisor in this. Why hasn't he ensured a proper constitution isheld. Given that how can he be considered trustworthy over the advice given on sales. Your secretary was an actual signature to the original model rules. How can anyone have confidence in him.

This leaves more questions than answers. Surely more than anything else this should be a case for the whole incompetent board resigning. Personal opinions over whether to be renegotiating with the Yanks is one things. Incompetence like this is a totally more worrying matter.


You may want to read the whole thread.

The rules on the website are the ones that currently govern the Trust.

The 2016 model rules will be proposed for adoption in the forthcoming AGM. These can be reviewed on the Supporters Direct website.

The reason the 2014 rules couldn't be formally adopted after being passed at the AGM is due to issues between Supporters Direct and the FCA, leading to the advice of SD being that we should move to 2016 rules at next available AGM. As I got this from our legal affiliate, I would suggest he concurs.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:19 - Nov 18 with 1485 viewsShaky

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:31 - Nov 18 by Uxbridge

You may want to read the whole thread.

The rules on the website are the ones that currently govern the Trust.

The 2016 model rules will be proposed for adoption in the forthcoming AGM. These can be reviewed on the Supporters Direct website.

The reason the 2014 rules couldn't be formally adopted after being passed at the AGM is due to issues between Supporters Direct and the FCA, leading to the advice of SD being that we should move to 2016 rules at next available AGM. As I got this from our legal affiliate, I would suggest he concurs.


Hmmmm.

Neither the board or the FCA have the authority to overrule or ignore the express wishes of shareholders voting on a valid resolution at a shareholders' meeting; that is what makes it formally adopted!

Instead there is a firm legal principle that if a clause/term/whatever in a legal agrement is held to be invalid by a competent authority (court/government regulation/etc), that bit and that bit only is struck out with the rest of it surviving.

Indeed there always used to be an express term to that effect in any agreement worth its salt, but few bother anymore becasue the principle is so firmly established.

i am very surprised at the position of Little your convey.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Greatest PS Troll Hunter of all time

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:40 - Nov 18 with 1450 viewsEilian

Phil said ''and others that have similar levels of view and expertise''

Why of a certain level of expertise then Phil? This smacks of the lack of inclusiveness that alienates the trust from the fans.

Surely there are roles for people of all levels of understanding within the Trust.

The whole Trust stinks of stuffy old men running a committee. That's all it is in actual fact.

Its completly lost its way and is totally unfit for purpose IMO
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:14 - Nov 18 with 1411 viewsPhil_S

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:40 - Nov 18 by Eilian

Phil said ''and others that have similar levels of view and expertise''

Why of a certain level of expertise then Phil? This smacks of the lack of inclusiveness that alienates the trust from the fans.

Surely there are roles for people of all levels of understanding within the Trust.

The whole Trust stinks of stuffy old men running a committee. That's all it is in actual fact.

Its completly lost its way and is totally unfit for purpose IMO


This is the issue when comments are taken out of context

I just agree with line 3
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:29 - Nov 18 with 1392 viewsdickythorpe

What is this thread about?
0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:49 - Nov 18 with 1370 viewsEilian

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:14 - Nov 18 by Phil_S

This is the issue when comments are taken out of context

I just agree with line 3


yep, and its a perfectly natural thing to happen. It's amplified if communication is minimal.

We literally need more date to form a more accurate opinion. Otherwise, we are left taking statements out of context and making stabs in the dark.

HJ suffers from this exact same problem. Football fans are highly emotional beings and not communicating with emotional beings is a great way to get them to drive themselves mad.

What initiatives have the trust taken in recent years to be able to facilitate the participation of fans from all levels?
2
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:54 - Nov 18 with 1361 viewsTheResurrection

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:31 - Nov 18 by Uxbridge

You may want to read the whole thread.

The rules on the website are the ones that currently govern the Trust.

The 2016 model rules will be proposed for adoption in the forthcoming AGM. These can be reviewed on the Supporters Direct website.

The reason the 2014 rules couldn't be formally adopted after being passed at the AGM is due to issues between Supporters Direct and the FCA, leading to the advice of SD being that we should move to 2016 rules at next available AGM. As I got this from our legal affiliate, I would suggest he concurs.


OK so Andrew, and respectfully.

All current Trust Board members of 12 years or more should immediately stand down?

Who exactly has gone over this mark and can you explain why they are still serving?

Cheers

* BOX OFFICE POST ABOVE* TM I am the resurrection and i am the light. I couldn’t ever bring myself to hate you as i’d like
Poll: Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 12:55 - Nov 18 with 1302 viewsUxbridge

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:54 - Nov 18 by TheResurrection

OK so Andrew, and respectfully.

All current Trust Board members of 12 years or more should immediately stand down?

Who exactly has gone over this mark and can you explain why they are still serving?

Cheers


I honestly don't know if anyone falls foul of that clause. It's possible they do. I can ask the question anyway.

Whether the rule should apply is the more relevant one I suspect, given that I know it's not in the later versions of the Supporters Direct model rules (wasn't in 2014 which we reviewed as part of the governance review).

Personally I'm in favour of term limits. We got those imposed for the officer positions. I think that question in terms of board membership itself needs to be looked at as part of the next review of those documents which is ongoing (and as a review should not take as long as last time). Arguments either way.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 13:26 - Nov 18 with 1279 viewsexiledclaseboy

84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 12:55 - Nov 18 by Uxbridge

I honestly don't know if anyone falls foul of that clause. It's possible they do. I can ask the question anyway.

Whether the rule should apply is the more relevant one I suspect, given that I know it's not in the later versions of the Supporters Direct model rules (wasn't in 2014 which we reviewed as part of the governance review).

Personally I'm in favour of term limits. We got those imposed for the officer positions. I think that question in terms of board membership itself needs to be looked at as part of the next review of those documents which is ongoing (and as a review should not take as long as last time). Arguments either way.


It’s not really relevant whether the rule should apply at the moment. Fact is that it does apply under the current rules.

Poll: Tory leader

1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024