| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence 17:14 - Nov 15 with 21839 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 21:53 - Nov 16 with 1513 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 21:33 - Nov 16 by Garyjack |
So did Phil become Chairman immediately after Dineen's departure or was there an interim chairman in between? Anyone know? |
Phil wasn’t Chairman straight away there was at least one other,Brian Rees.
Why don’t you know that?  |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 22:01 - Nov 16 with 1498 views | Garyjack |
| 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? |
Dar, when i take hols from work i can't remember preoples names when i go back!
Anyway, the reason i was asking is because, if this 12 year thing is correct, then how long has this chap been on the board?
RON KNUSZKA
One of the original Members of the Supporters Trust that met in Cwmbwrla Community Centre in July 2001. Helped to organise the rally attended by 2000 fans to wrest control of the Club from Tony Petty. Other activities include, serving as Trust Chairman, setting up and running Fans Forums, organising Ten Pin Bowling Nights with Club players attending, originator of the ‘Ivor Allchurch’ statue (raised £23,000), member of a group of fans that designed, developed “The Vetch Field” box sets (£30,000 raised), Annual Trust Raffles. Firm believer in one of the Trust aims of “bringing the Club closer to its local Community”. |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 22:10 - Nov 16 with 1473 views | Darran |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 22:01 - Nov 16 by Garyjack |
Dar, when i take hols from work i can't remember preoples names when i go back!
Anyway, the reason i was asking is because, if this 12 year thing is correct, then how long has this chap been on the board?
RON KNUSZKA
One of the original Members of the Supporters Trust that met in Cwmbwrla Community Centre in July 2001. Helped to organise the rally attended by 2000 fans to wrest control of the Club from Tony Petty. Other activities include, serving as Trust Chairman, setting up and running Fans Forums, organising Ten Pin Bowling Nights with Club players attending, originator of the ‘Ivor Allchurch’ statue (raised £23,000), member of a group of fans that designed, developed “The Vetch Field” box sets (£30,000 raised), Annual Trust Raffles. Firm believer in one of the Trust aims of “bringing the Club closer to its local Community”. |
Indeed. So that’s two before Phil. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 22:12 - Nov 16 with 1472 views | builthjack |
It surely wouldn't take much to recruit a few hundred, even thousands, of new and old members to join the trust. A bit of work from some of you on here perhaps. If you are up for it?
No point talking about it if you are not. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| from trust site on 22:41 - Nov 16 with 1402 views | donkonky |
Due to the recent changes to the Swans Trust board, there are up to four vacancies for co-opted Board members, to serve until July 2018.
Applications are invited from Swans Trust members who are aged 18 or over. Trust members are those who have paid a membership fee for the 2017/18 membership year. As well as name and full address, each applicant should include approximately 250 words on why they wish to join the Trust board and what attributes/skills they can bring to the role. Specific thoughts on how the Trust can further develop its representation of members and the wider fan base would be particularly welcome.
All applications or enquiries should be forwarded to the Secretary nigelhamer@gmail.com, no later than Friday 24th November.
Applications for co-option will be considered by the Trust Board who will then vote to appoint up to four co-opted members. |  | | |
| from trust site on 23:18 - Nov 16 with 1352 views | TheResurrection |
| from trust site on 22:41 - Nov 16 by donkonky |
Due to the recent changes to the Swans Trust board, there are up to four vacancies for co-opted Board members, to serve until July 2018.
Applications are invited from Swans Trust members who are aged 18 or over. Trust members are those who have paid a membership fee for the 2017/18 membership year. As well as name and full address, each applicant should include approximately 250 words on why they wish to join the Trust board and what attributes/skills they can bring to the role. Specific thoughts on how the Trust can further develop its representation of members and the wider fan base would be particularly welcome.
All applications or enquiries should be forwarded to the Secretary nigelhamer@gmail.com, no later than Friday 24th November.
Applications for co-option will be considered by the Trust Board who will then vote to appoint up to four co-opted members. |
Anyone want to help me with my 250 words? | |
| |
| from trust site on 23:22 - Nov 16 with 1340 views | builthjack |
| from trust site on 23:18 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Anyone want to help me with my 250 words? |
Spent a tenner then? | |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| from trust site on 23:45 - Nov 16 with 1315 views | donkonky |
| from trust site on 23:18 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Anyone want to help me with my 250 words? |
Good on you lad , go for it. Hope you can shake things up a bit as it all seems a little to cosy up there in Trust HQ. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 07:54 - Nov 17 with 1190 views | Phil_S |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 22:01 - Nov 16 by Garyjack |
Dar, when i take hols from work i can't remember preoples names when i go back!
Anyway, the reason i was asking is because, if this 12 year thing is correct, then how long has this chap been on the board?
RON KNUSZKA
One of the original Members of the Supporters Trust that met in Cwmbwrla Community Centre in July 2001. Helped to organise the rally attended by 2000 fans to wrest control of the Club from Tony Petty. Other activities include, serving as Trust Chairman, setting up and running Fans Forums, organising Ten Pin Bowling Nights with Club players attending, originator of the ‘Ivor Allchurch’ statue (raised £23,000), member of a group of fans that designed, developed “The Vetch Field” box sets (£30,000 raised), Annual Trust Raffles. Firm believer in one of the Trust aims of “bringing the Club closer to its local Community”. |
I'm fairly certain (but you would need a Trust board member to confirm) that the model rules on the website are the original ones - the updated ones were adopted at one of the AGMs in the last few years. Model rules are proposed by Supporters Direct and passed by a majority at the AGM (Ux maybe able to confirm this)
For Chair of the Trust there have been four - Dineen, John Parkhouse (Sparky), Ron and myself. Clearly there will be a 5th.
So to E20Jack, it is not communication, I don't think the model rules state that there should be maximum terms (although it should be noted that there was agreed maximum terms agreed as part of the governance review in 2016. Both Ux and I were key parts of that view and wanted this change despite the usual taunts of we didnt want new blood)
The reasons for my departure are as I have stated. It becomes more tiresome that people suggest otherwise (as they have done on here already) and all the threads show that despite the expert advice that is referred to, people wanted different outcomes from what could or couldnt happen.
To answer Gary's post specifically (which is why I quoted it) Ron has not served 12 years on the Trust board - I cannot remember dates but I think he took 3+ years away from the board at a certain time in his life.
Good luck to anyone that wants to stand and I am prepared to answer questions from anyone if you want to have a view of what the 'job' brings or entails, it's great to see people wanting to be involved. Something I wish had happened so much sooner (and it was never discouraged that part just became convenient)
FWIW i agree election statements should be less bland and this was discussed after the last election, I guess again this is just something that carried on over time and never needed changing. Reason being it only became obvious when an election happened and there has always been too few of those.
I admire anyone that ends up involved (or wants to be involved) as this thread (and others elsewhere) have shown you probably get more flack than praise. Or at least until you leave and then it reverses :) Add in the libellous comments, accusations of only being in it for your own ego or gain and a host of other things and then you have the full collection.
Do you know what though? I'll support anyone who wants to take on the roles because I know hard it is when everyone with a different opinion just assumes you are wrong
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 08:14 - Nov 17 with 1168 views | 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. | | | |
| from trust site on 08:39 - Nov 17 with 1142 views | pencoedjack |
| from trust site on 23:18 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Anyone want to help me with my 250 words? |
I am so disappointed we sold Gylfi & Llorente
I am so disappointed we sold Gylfi & Llorente
I am so disappointed we sold Gylfi & Llorente
I am so disappointed we sold Gylfi & Llorente
I am so disappointed we sold Gylfi & Llorente
I am so disappointed we sold Gylfi & Llorente
I am so disappointed we sold Gylfi & Llorente
 |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 08:57 - Nov 17 with 1109 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 07:54 - Nov 17 by Phil_S |
I'm fairly certain (but you would need a Trust board member to confirm) that the model rules on the website are the original ones - the updated ones were adopted at one of the AGMs in the last few years. Model rules are proposed by Supporters Direct and passed by a majority at the AGM (Ux maybe able to confirm this)
For Chair of the Trust there have been four - Dineen, John Parkhouse (Sparky), Ron and myself. Clearly there will be a 5th.
So to E20Jack, it is not communication, I don't think the model rules state that there should be maximum terms (although it should be noted that there was agreed maximum terms agreed as part of the governance review in 2016. Both Ux and I were key parts of that view and wanted this change despite the usual taunts of we didnt want new blood)
The reasons for my departure are as I have stated. It becomes more tiresome that people suggest otherwise (as they have done on here already) and all the threads show that despite the expert advice that is referred to, people wanted different outcomes from what could or couldnt happen.
To answer Gary's post specifically (which is why I quoted it) Ron has not served 12 years on the Trust board - I cannot remember dates but I think he took 3+ years away from the board at a certain time in his life.
Good luck to anyone that wants to stand and I am prepared to answer questions from anyone if you want to have a view of what the 'job' brings or entails, it's great to see people wanting to be involved. Something I wish had happened so much sooner (and it was never discouraged that part just became convenient)
FWIW i agree election statements should be less bland and this was discussed after the last election, I guess again this is just something that carried on over time and never needed changing. Reason being it only became obvious when an election happened and there has always been too few of those.
I admire anyone that ends up involved (or wants to be involved) as this thread (and others elsewhere) have shown you probably get more flack than praise. Or at least until you leave and then it reverses :) Add in the libellous comments, accusations of only being in it for your own ego or gain and a host of other things and then you have the full collection.
Do you know what though? I'll support anyone who wants to take on the roles because I know hard it is when everyone with a different opinion just assumes you are wrong
This post has been edited by an administrator |
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. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:37 - Nov 17 with 1078 views | Vetchfielder |
| 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. |
Ux - Sorry I'm not clear about the Model rules.
Phil said "- the updated ones were adopted at one of the AGMs in the last few years"
You said "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."
Surely those contract one another, unless I've misunderstood. Phil says new ones have already been adopted and you say they'll be adopted at the next AGM.
Could you please clarify and confirm whether the model rules on the Trust website are the current ones or whether that is a superseded version? |  |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| from trust site on 09:39 - Nov 17 with 1071 views | KGriz16 |
| from trust site on 23:18 - Nov 16 by TheResurrection |
Anyone want to help me with my 250 words? |
Can I ask, as a trust member, what are you going to be doing differently to the current trust board members ? |  | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:42 - Nov 17 with 1068 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:37 - Nov 17 by Vetchfielder |
Ux - Sorry I'm not clear about the Model rules.
Phil said "- the updated ones were adopted at one of the AGMs in the last few years"
You said "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."
Surely those contract one another, unless I've misunderstood. Phil says new ones have already been adopted and you say they'll be adopted at the next AGM.
Could you please clarify and confirm whether the model rules on the Trust website are the current ones or whether that is a superseded version? |
The model rules from Supporters Direct are updated at various periods of time. There's a 2017 version I believe. I understand the plan is to propose updating to those at the next AGM.
The model rules on the Trust site are the ones that I'm told the Trust is currently governed by. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:48 - Nov 17 with 1059 views | Vetchfielder |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:42 - Nov 17 by Uxbridge |
The model rules from Supporters Direct are updated at various periods of time. There's a 2017 version I believe. I understand the plan is to propose updating to those at the next AGM.
The model rules on the Trust site are the ones that I'm told the Trust is currently governed by. |
Ok, that's clear, thanks Ux | |
| Proud to have been one of the 231 |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:52 - Nov 17 with 1053 views | TheResurrection |
| 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. |
Phil I think your last 2 posts are a little unfair in part as you, i'm sorry to say, have brought a lot of the flak on yourself. What happens then in the world of football and forums is emotions run high and things get said in the heat of the moment. A simple message now and again 9 times out of 10 puts that right. We never got those messages.
Without going chapter and verse and dredging old news up again, just a couple of points...
1 We are finding out a lot of information now that we should have been made aware of throughout. It should have been a part of your remit to explain how the Trust works, tell us what you do but make it a bit more exciting than those God awful minutes once a month. Explain what you're still doing on it after 11 years and why new, fresh blood aren't applying or getting on.
Just simply bringing the Trust to life again.
If you wanted to spend more time with your family, which no one would ever, ever have a go at you for, why not allow someone else to get involved that could do all of the above? This is not me having a go, just being frank.
2. You told me in the Summer you had drafted a letter of concern to all Directors, did you ever send that by the way? You also said the decision maker likes to suppress lines of communication into him, so why did it take so long for that letter of concern? The whole Club and its fans were pulling their hair out and its affected our transfer window. Yeah, I know they have the voting rights and call the shots but where's the "pain in the ass" Trust making public their legitimate concerns? And how was that an example of a good working relationship.
I've met up with you and Stu at your request and avoided the beating up. I know how capable and on the button you are and how much the Club means to you. A lot of the frustration has never meant to be personal but you're in the firing line because you put yourself there. And with such pathetic communication levels, that have actually got ten times worse lately, those frustrations will sometimes run over.
I hope you can see the merit in the above points and not see them as confrontational. Isn't it best to get all cards on the table and have concerns and criticisms laid out in front of you by someone you know rather than some faceless username that could be just anyone?
As you say, the Trust maybe some completely thankless task, the toughest labour of love, but bringing the fans closer to the organisation and keeping them informed would release most of the pressure and make us stronger as a whole.
Don't you think? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:58 - Nov 17 with 1045 views | TheResurrection |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:42 - Nov 17 by Uxbridge |
The model rules from Supporters Direct are updated at various periods of time. There's a 2017 version I believe. I understand the plan is to propose updating to those at the next AGM.
The model rules on the Trust site are the ones that I'm told the Trust is currently governed by. |
So what Phil said....
"I'm fairly certain (but you would need a Trust board member to confirm) that the model rules on the website are the original ones - the updated ones were adopted at one of the AGMs in the last few years."
....is wrong? | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:11 - Nov 17 with 1027 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:58 - Nov 17 by TheResurrection |
So what Phil said....
"I'm fairly certain (but you would need a Trust board member to confirm) that the model rules on the website are the original ones - the updated ones were adopted at one of the AGMs in the last few years."
....is wrong? |
i don't see how the Trust can change its governing rules without the explicit approval of the members, regardless of what Supporters Direct say or do. |  |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:23 - Nov 17 with 1006 views | TheResurrection |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:11 - Nov 17 by Shaky |
i don't see how the Trust can change its governing rules without the explicit approval of the members, regardless of what Supporters Direct say or do. |
And more to the point wouldn't the current Trust Board react accordingly if a vote of no confidence came in from a sizeable contingent of members, even if it didn't meet some stuffy governing rules which have not been looked at in 15 years or so?
Surely there's a matter of pride and realism that must come to the fore above anything else. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:31 - Nov 17 with 989 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:23 - Nov 17 by TheResurrection |
And more to the point wouldn't the current Trust Board react accordingly if a vote of no confidence came in from a sizeable contingent of members, even if it didn't meet some stuffy governing rules which have not been looked at in 15 years or so?
Surely there's a matter of pride and realism that must come to the fore above anything else. |
The problem is a "vote of no confidence" has no real meaning in corporate governance terms.
What matters is removing and appointing board members.
Edit:
----
. . .who then act as the agents for shareholders/members in taking decisions that actually matter. [Post edited 17 Nov 2017 10:33]
| |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:37 - Nov 17 with 972 views | Phil_S |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:52 - Nov 17 by TheResurrection |
Phil I think your last 2 posts are a little unfair in part as you, i'm sorry to say, have brought a lot of the flak on yourself. What happens then in the world of football and forums is emotions run high and things get said in the heat of the moment. A simple message now and again 9 times out of 10 puts that right. We never got those messages.
Without going chapter and verse and dredging old news up again, just a couple of points...
1 We are finding out a lot of information now that we should have been made aware of throughout. It should have been a part of your remit to explain how the Trust works, tell us what you do but make it a bit more exciting than those God awful minutes once a month. Explain what you're still doing on it after 11 years and why new, fresh blood aren't applying or getting on.
Just simply bringing the Trust to life again.
If you wanted to spend more time with your family, which no one would ever, ever have a go at you for, why not allow someone else to get involved that could do all of the above? This is not me having a go, just being frank.
2. You told me in the Summer you had drafted a letter of concern to all Directors, did you ever send that by the way? You also said the decision maker likes to suppress lines of communication into him, so why did it take so long for that letter of concern? The whole Club and its fans were pulling their hair out and its affected our transfer window. Yeah, I know they have the voting rights and call the shots but where's the "pain in the ass" Trust making public their legitimate concerns? And how was that an example of a good working relationship.
I've met up with you and Stu at your request and avoided the beating up. I know how capable and on the button you are and how much the Club means to you. A lot of the frustration has never meant to be personal but you're in the firing line because you put yourself there. And with such pathetic communication levels, that have actually got ten times worse lately, those frustrations will sometimes run over.
I hope you can see the merit in the above points and not see them as confrontational. Isn't it best to get all cards on the table and have concerns and criticisms laid out in front of you by someone you know rather than some faceless username that could be just anyone?
As you say, the Trust maybe some completely thankless task, the toughest labour of love, but bringing the fans closer to the organisation and keeping them informed would release most of the pressure and make us stronger as a whole.
Don't you think? |
Consultation is a key word today purely as I need to prepare consultation papers for work right now!
Anyhow, a few things around here in response (not that I am disagreeing but just coming back)
There is a difference to wanting to spend more time with family and giving up every hour that you have to discuss Swansea City. Nobody should be asked to do that and I suspect if/when you get on the board then you will be exactly the same. Your daughter (I hope I have that right) will want time with her Dad so you may elect that attending the meetings, driving your view there and giving up time on here to ensure she gets what she deserves will be your way of managing and balancing time. That was my way anyway.
The letter of concern. Yes it was drafted and sent. I'm not breaking any confidence in saying that Stuart sent it in my absence as I was on holiday at the time but I saw a copy. Being on the outside it is not my place to share the exact wording or content but I dont think it was any different to what was expressed on here at the time.
I think the statement referred to accepting criticism. And I always did. When it was delivered in the right way. I found the meeting with you and Illtyd exactly what I wanted it to be, informative and a fair exchange of views. We didnt agree (on everything) and I wouldnt want to.
Criticism, opinions and ideas are always welcome in any environment - work, home or these situations - I am sure though you will also accept that at times (through passion or just plain inability to do anything else) that the line was crossed and the criticism/opinions turned into personal abuse. Rightly or wrongly when that happened I generally switched off. I have had some great debates with very close mates of mine on whether the Trust direction was right or wrong, thats the way it should always be.
To your last question, the answer is yes. And we weren't good enough at it. I will hold my counsel as to why I think that went wrong but as the figurehead (of the time) I accept my share of the responsibility (in fact probably the largest share)
I await the official announcement of my successor, I do know the answer as I asked the question and I wish them the very best in the role. And if the Trust progresses as a result of me leaving I promise I will be happy. | | | |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:37 - Nov 17 with 972 views | TheResurrection |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:31 - Nov 17 by Shaky |
The problem is a "vote of no confidence" has no real meaning in corporate governance terms.
What matters is removing and appointing board members.
Edit:
----
. . .who then act as the agents for shareholders/members in taking decisions that actually matter. [Post edited 17 Nov 2017 10:33]
|
These aren't Corporate Governors, these are football fans from Swansea. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:39 - Nov 17 with 967 views | Shaky |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:37 - Nov 17 by TheResurrection |
These aren't Corporate Governors, these are football fans from Swansea. |
Sure, but they didn't have the confidence of their Chairman, and that didn't make them blink. | |
| |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 10:42 - Nov 17 with 957 views | Uxbridge |
| 84 Trust Members needed for a vote of no confidence on 09:58 - Nov 17 by TheResurrection |
So what Phil said....
"I'm fairly certain (but you would need a Trust board member to confirm) that the model rules on the website are the original ones - the updated ones were adopted at one of the AGMs in the last few years."
....is wrong? |
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. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
