| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence 17:14 - Nov 15 with 21755 views | TheResurrection |
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]
|  |
| |  |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:26 - Nov 16 with 1887 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:17 - Nov 16 by OptimisticJack |
Thanks for outlining that Ux. Am I correct in saying that the 4 posts available because they are co-opted will be decided upon by the remaining trust board members and not the full trust membership by way of a vote ? |
Correct. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:26 - Nov 16 with 1884 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:16 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
What's very strange is you humiliating yourself on this message board for so many years. A quick drag through archived threads paint you into an extremely embarrassing position.
You were and always will be well off the pace when it comes to understanding important matters affecting the Club.
And anyone that sends you a PM isn't worth a mention. There are plenty of posters from all walks of life on here and lots have opened their eyes to the running of our club, both past and present, who's done well for it, who's deserved to.
I'd like to think that far from it have I destroyed anything, more like brought matters to life.
And everytime I've tried to do that, and been proven absolutely correct many times over, it's you are the one trying to destroy.
The Trust has needed a shake up for bloody years, it's gone well past it's useful sell by date, it needs an injection of heart and soul and energy.
Ask the people who are messaging you or on here in general if they'd disagree with that?
You don't have to always be the bitter, down on your luck snide you've become. There's more out there for you away from one single website.
Grasp the nettle and sort yourself out FFS. |
The only thing people agree with is why your principles don’t allow you to join up at such an extraordinary time in our football club. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:27 - Nov 16 with 1883 views | TheResurrection |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:18 - Nov 16 by Darran |
Yeah that’ll be it but I’m a member ready to vote for action.
You’ve just been told that you too can vote for action if you join up and there’s a vote.
You’ve got principles you though eh?
Very strange and a lot of people are asking why. |
Look this is my last one to the sad man.
It's not important what some of your cronies say, even if they exist, which I doubt strongly knowing you.
Your one vote for action doesn't mean a lot, especially when you take into consideration your thinking, your reasoning and your history of getting it all wrong.
As others have said, do yourself a favour and leave this thread. That's not hard to do is it? Start another one with my name on it if you like just leave debate take it's natural course.
If the mods on here or Phil had any balls or sense they'd ban you from it. Why can't you just do that Mods for this one thread?
Can you do us all a favour and be strong for once? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:28 - Nov 16 with 1880 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:09 - Nov 16 by DafyddHuw |
Can someone (preferably someone who would know, like Ux) please confirm this figure of 84/840, before we all go off writing letters and later finding out that the figures being bandied on here are correct?
Thanks. |
Membership is somewhere over 1,000. Not sure of the exact figure. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:32 - Nov 16 with 1859 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:27 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Look this is my last one to the sad man.
It's not important what some of your cronies say, even if they exist, which I doubt strongly knowing you.
Your one vote for action doesn't mean a lot, especially when you take into consideration your thinking, your reasoning and your history of getting it all wrong.
As others have said, do yourself a favour and leave this thread. That's not hard to do is it? Start another one with my name on it if you like just leave debate take it's natural course.
If the mods on here or Phil had any balls or sense they'd ban you from it. Why can't you just do that Mods for this one thread?
Can you do us all a favour and be strong for once? |
I am strong. I was strong at the last vote and I’ll be strong at the next vote if there is one. You won’t though. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:32 - Nov 16 with 1861 views | TheResurrection |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:25 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
Always a dig eh.
I don't anticipate any more resignations at this time. I can't rule it out of course but nobody has indicated that's their plan.
On the second question, I'm not giving names and numbers, but it's safe to say a significant majority think the best approach is to continue the discussions with the Americans to see if the issues can be resolved rather than terminate the discussions before every avenue has been taken.
I think this is the thing has been lost in the debate. It's far from certain how things will pan out. We know that any variations on the deal have to be brought back to the members ... and I'm not aware of anyone who has a contrasting view to that. I don't know what the board recommendation at that time would be and it's far from clear that those on the board would recommend an amended deal. Have to remember, despite the rewriting of history, nobody was saying it was a great deal last time. It's certainly far more likely the board wouldn't if those who would take a stronger line stand at this time. And that goes for everything, not just this deal. I've certainly got no idea how the membership would vote in that regard, on any of the three potential courses of action. |
It wasn't a dig, not in the slightest.
Would you present the 3 options in a more balanced state next time?
Do you feel, in light of the reaction, you all made a mistake in the Summer the way you approached the vote? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:33 - Nov 16 with 1853 views | TheResurrection |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:26 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
Correct. |
Can this be amended, it doesn't seem right? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:44 - Nov 16 with 1817 views | whiterock |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:09 - Nov 16 by DafyddHuw |
Can someone (preferably someone who would know, like Ux) please confirm this figure of 84/840, before we all go off writing letters and later finding out that the figures being bandied on here are correct?
Thanks. |
Some one got the figure from the October minutes, we're now in mid November so I would imagine a few more would have joined, some for the motion and some against. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:47 - Nov 16 with 1804 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:32 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
It wasn't a dig, not in the slightest.
Would you present the 3 options in a more balanced state next time?
Do you feel, in light of the reaction, you all made a mistake in the Summer the way you approached the vote? |
I've never really agreed with Lisa et al on the balance angle. There are plenty of members who think the Trust have to give a recommendation, and chapter and verse was given to the members in terms of the pros and cons of all three options. The documents and process were reviewed and overseen by an Independent scrutineer. I've got no desire to revisit old ground though, it took 50 pages last time.
The funny thing is that on here it was always Deal vs Legal Action. Elsewhere, and I know nobody on here believes it but it's true, it was always Deal vs Keep the shareholding. We tried to be as fair as we could. There's things I'd tweak in hindsight but nothing fundamental.
I don't regret my decision to vote in favour of the deal ... always said it was the least worst option, but it was a better path to follow at that time for a variety of factors which have been gone over so many times in the past. We had to try and make it work IMO. None of the options were ever ideal, and that's still the case. However, anyone who says any of the three options is a certainty, or as near as, is dead wrong, or at least contrary to the advice I've heard. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:50 - Nov 16 with 1786 views | TheResurrection |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:47 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
I've never really agreed with Lisa et al on the balance angle. There are plenty of members who think the Trust have to give a recommendation, and chapter and verse was given to the members in terms of the pros and cons of all three options. The documents and process were reviewed and overseen by an Independent scrutineer. I've got no desire to revisit old ground though, it took 50 pages last time.
The funny thing is that on here it was always Deal vs Legal Action. Elsewhere, and I know nobody on here believes it but it's true, it was always Deal vs Keep the shareholding. We tried to be as fair as we could. There's things I'd tweak in hindsight but nothing fundamental.
I don't regret my decision to vote in favour of the deal ... always said it was the least worst option, but it was a better path to follow at that time for a variety of factors which have been gone over so many times in the past. We had to try and make it work IMO. None of the options were ever ideal, and that's still the case. However, anyone who says any of the three options is a certainty, or as near as, is dead wrong, or at least contrary to the advice I've heard. |
And now you personally think it CAN'T work? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:50 - Nov 16 with 1786 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:33 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Can this be amended, it doesn't seem right? |
I'm not even sure it could, without an AGM/EGM. I do think transparency is important though.
Ensuring the right people get the nod, assuming more than 4 (or even 4) apply, is a test the Trust board will have to pass. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:52 - Nov 16 with 1774 views | pencoedjack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:33 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Can this be amended, it doesn't seem right? |
This I certainly agree with ... The 7 remaining candidates choose who have what posts ?Should never happen, its like a closed shop.
Surely someone who has the role 'Community and IT' should have a background in IT , commercial/fundraising/media the persons appointed should has some expertise in this area.
That's why its imperative something is known about those seeking election prior to them being elected. |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:58 - Nov 16 with 1740 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:50 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
And now you personally think it CAN'T work? |
As it stands, no. It's only my opinion though, which is why I think a lot of the criticism of others on the board has been pretty unfair.
I may yet be surprised. I have been plenty of times recently. Things are pretty fluid. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:59 - Nov 16 with 1736 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:52 - Nov 16 by pencoedjack |
This I certainly agree with ... The 7 remaining candidates choose who have what posts ?Should never happen, its like a closed shop.
Surely someone who has the role 'Community and IT' should have a background in IT , commercial/fundraising/media the persons appointed should has some expertise in this area.
That's why its imperative something is known about those seeking election prior to them being elected. |
11, not 7. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:02 - Nov 16 with 1723 views | Landore_Jack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:47 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
I've never really agreed with Lisa et al on the balance angle. There are plenty of members who think the Trust have to give a recommendation, and chapter and verse was given to the members in terms of the pros and cons of all three options. The documents and process were reviewed and overseen by an Independent scrutineer. I've got no desire to revisit old ground though, it took 50 pages last time.
The funny thing is that on here it was always Deal vs Legal Action. Elsewhere, and I know nobody on here believes it but it's true, it was always Deal vs Keep the shareholding. We tried to be as fair as we could. There's things I'd tweak in hindsight but nothing fundamental.
I don't regret my decision to vote in favour of the deal ... always said it was the least worst option, but it was a better path to follow at that time for a variety of factors which have been gone over so many times in the past. We had to try and make it work IMO. None of the options were ever ideal, and that's still the case. However, anyone who says any of the three options is a certainty, or as near as, is dead wrong, or at least contrary to the advice I've heard. |
So, it was never the intention of the Supporters Trust to take legal action no matter how strong the case was? |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:03 - Nov 16 with 1719 views | pencoedjack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:59 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
11, not 7. |
So until the 4 new members are elected no positions will change ? Anyway 7 or 11 my view remains as in my previous post. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:08 - Nov 16 with 1691 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:03 - Nov 16 by pencoedjack |
So until the 4 new members are elected no positions will change ? Anyway 7 or 11 my view remains as in my previous post. |
Chair will be appointed from the current board. It needs to be, pronto. That can't wait IMO.
The chairman is only one vote though, and a figurehead. They're not the only person who will be involved in the activities of the Trust. They do need to be in tune with the majority view of course, but this whole argument that people should blindly back the chairman's view is nonsense. That's why I understand why Phil felt he had to resign.
Anyone who applies will be as involved as they want to be. If they have the skills and the desire to take on, or assist with, one of the more critical activities of the Trust then I'm sure that path is open. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:10 - Nov 16 with 1684 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:02 - Nov 16 by Landore_Jack |
So, it was never the intention of the Supporters Trust to take legal action no matter how strong the case was? |
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
Particularly as you have to remember that negotiations on the deal happened in parallel with obtaining the legal advice. Both completed at roughly the same time. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:11 - Nov 16 with 1675 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:33 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Can this be amended, it doesn't seem right? |
You think any old non-member be allowed to join the Trust board?
Fuçking hell fair play.  | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:15 - Nov 16 with 1655 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:11 - Nov 16 by Darran |
You think any old non-member be allowed to join the Trust board?
Fuçking hell fair play. |
I suspect it's to do with whether positions should be coopted or elected.
Even if the mechanism was there, which I'm not sure it is, we'd be into January before that could be completed. Anyway, rules and precedent are the correct approach to follow IMO. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:26 - Nov 16 with 1633 views | Neath_Jack |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:52 - Nov 16 by pencoedjack |
This I certainly agree with ... The 7 remaining candidates choose who have what posts ?Should never happen, its like a closed shop.
Surely someone who has the role 'Community and IT' should have a background in IT , commercial/fundraising/media the persons appointed should has some expertise in this area.
That's why its imperative something is known about those seeking election prior to them being elected. |
You are now championing what the Res has been saying for 2 years or more, yet that's all people can come up with, is that he isn't a member and he's just causing trouble.
Can you see how bonkers that is now?
People need to forget his username, and read what his posts are actually about. Same goes for Shakey too. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:35 - Nov 16 with 1599 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:15 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
I suspect it's to do with whether positions should be coopted or elected.
Even if the mechanism was there, which I'm not sure it is, we'd be into January before that could be completed. Anyway, rules and precedent are the correct approach to follow IMO. |
Of course it is FFS. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:36 - Nov 16 with 1595 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:38 - Nov 16 by Uxbridge |
Just to clear this up ...
The members elect the elected board members (11 positions I believe), for a term of 2 years. There are then 4 coopted positions the Trust board can fill, for a term of 1 year. It is out of those people that the Chairman and other positions are chosen. This happens every summer.
There'll be an announcement later today advertising for applications for the 4 vacant board member positions, which would be co-opted positions for the coming year. A statement outlining what you can bring to the role, what your views are on certain things and how you feel you can help the Trust better represent the members etc would be a good thing.
For what it's worth, from the other board members I've spoken to, I think applications from those who think they can bring a different voice to discussions would be a very desirable thing.
I hope people on here who feel that things are not heading in the direction they want take this opportunity. |
An EGM normally has the power to appoint **and** remove directors though.
Are you saying the 2 year term for sitting board members trumps the ability of the members at an EGM to exerciese their customary powers? |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:39 - Nov 16 with 1588 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:36 - Nov 16 by Shaky |
An EGM normally has the power to appoint **and** remove directors though.
Are you saying the 2 year term for sitting board members trumps the ability of the members at an EGM to exerciese their customary powers? |
Nope | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:47 - Nov 16 with 1556 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 11:26 - Nov 16 by Neath_Jack |
You are now championing what the Res has been saying for 2 years or more, yet that's all people can come up with, is that he isn't a member and he's just causing trouble.
Can you see how bonkers that is now?
People need to forget his username, and read what his posts are actually about. Same goes for Shakey too. |
He could cause a lot more trouble if he was a member and up for co-opting.
There’s absolutely no reason why he can’t join up for he fight,apart from his principles of course. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
