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.
The Trust has never before been under so much scrutiny or suspicion and one thing has become evidently clear in the last few days, and that's the appointment of Will Morris has made that ever so much worse.
We hear from everyone that takes up a seat on the Trust Board that they want to engage with the fans and put the fans first.
Already it's clear Will Morris will never do that and if he has any respect for the Trust and the supporters of Swansea City he'd make the bold move of wanting to put that right.
12 years and out Will. This is nothing personal but the level of concern you have and will cause could finish the Trust permanently.
It's not your baby, please try and remember that.
Do the right thing and contribute from outside the boardroom if you still feel you want to help.
Things will go from bad to worse if you stay, that seems very clear.
* 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
So let’s boil it down to a simple question. Is the position of associate director of SCFC that Will holds one that he holds because of his being a Trust board member or is it something separate and nothing to do with the Trust?
An honorary position afforded the Trust in about 2005, there have been 3 Supporters Trust associate directors since 2005, Dai Morgan was afforded the honorary position of AD in 2011 (ish) this obviously had nothing to do with the Trust.
0
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:13 - Nov 20 with 1367 views
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:05 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
So let’s boil it down to a simple question. Is the position of associate director of SCFC that Will holds one that he holds because of his being a Trust board member or is it something separate and nothing to do with the Trust?
I've always understood it to be a 2nd position from the Trust.
Not a 100% answer but this tends to point that way
Morris has previously served as the organisation's vice-chairman, as well as holding the ongoing position of associate director of Swansea City Football Club. The latter post has allowed him to observe board meetings when attending alongside supporter director Stuart McDonald.
The role of Associate Director was discussed, wherever possible it would be to support the Supporter Director. However, it was made clear that if for argument the Supporter Director was unavailable for a Club Board meeting it would not mean that the Associate Director would cover.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:11 - Nov 20 by whiterock
An honorary position afforded the Trust in about 2005, there have been 3 Supporters Trust associate directors since 2005, Dai Morgan was afforded the honorary position of AD in 2011 (ish) this obviously had nothing to do with the Trust.
If it has nothing to do with the Trust, then it is a definite conflict of interest. Think my letter should have gone down the no confidence route instead
If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious.
0
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:27 - Nov 20 with 1288 views
-We retain a director on the board who has formal meetings on a weekly basis with key personnel at the football club, including the COO and the Financial Controller, as well as regular communication with the Chairman. This also gives us rights to some key club information such as monthly management accounts and cashflow forecasts, so that we can ensure the club is not heading in the wrong direction off the pitch. -In addition, we have an associate director position, currently held by Will Morris. Whilst being an observer role with no voting rights, Will continues to attend board meetings and provide a second Trust perspective to those meetings
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:27 - Nov 20 by 3swan
Looks like a Trust position
second post on page 1
-We retain a director on the board who has formal meetings on a weekly basis with key personnel at the football club, including the COO and the Financial Controller, as well as regular communication with the Chairman. This also gives us rights to some key club information such as monthly management accounts and cashflow forecasts, so that we can ensure the club is not heading in the wrong direction off the pitch. -In addition, we have an associate director position, currently held by Will Morris. Whilst being an observer role with no voting rights, Will continues to attend board meetings and provide a second Trust perspective to those meetings
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:30 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
Fair enough. That seems clear. Thanks.
Now only the pesky fact that he’s not actually eligible to be a board member anymore to deal with.
I imagine there have been frantic emails and calls going into Supporters Direct HQ all day trying to get some exemption on some technicality or the other.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 19:42 - Nov 20 by Garyjack
"The comment regarding 12 year stints on the Trust Board is a valid one and one which I was unaware. This is currently being checked."
Maybe Will would like to comment further on this, and maybe explain why the Trust board approached Supporters Direct in 2013 regarding a board member who was nearing the end of their 12 year stint?
Wow.
I said it at the time, it is staggering to think these people were unaware of this. Be that incompetence or self interest - staggering all the same. Although it is ever more appearing like the latter may be true.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:30 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
Fair enough. That seems clear. Thanks.
Now only the pesky fact that he’s not actually eligible to be a board member anymore to deal with.
Well plus IF he ‘misspoke’ (thanks Hilly) about knowing about his own illegitimacy, or IF he tried to oust Phil with Hamer, and also ‘misspoke’ about that last night when threatening MJ, both as alleged. Unless of course anyone wants someone of no ethical integrity as chairman of the supporters trust.
You know what, I’ve just decided I couldn’t care less. It’s a bunch of junk. Let the yanks bugger them rigid. It’s a fitting epitaph for all that is wrong with them, and the club. Ah that feels quite carthartic. F*ck ‘em, and their little boys’ big ego committee. Time for a glass of wine.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 20:38 - Nov 20 by E20Jack
Wow.
I said it at the time, it is staggering to think these people were unaware of this. Be that incompetence or self interest - staggering all the same. Although it is ever more appearing like the latter may be true.
But even in last year's AGM minutes Phil in his address said:
"Over the past 12 months — a process slowed down by the previously mentioned takeover discussions — we have undertaken a full governance review of Trust activities that include - Roles and responsibilities of the Trust board - Payments made to Trust board members - Conflicts of interest review - Length of service of Trust board members"
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:07 - Nov 20 by Nookiejack
But even in last year's AGM minutes Phil in his address said:
"Over the past 12 months — a process slowed down by the previously mentioned takeover discussions — we have undertaken a full governance review of Trust activities that include - Roles and responsibilities of the Trust board - Payments made to Trust board members - Conflicts of interest review - Length of service of Trust board members"
So wouldn't this full review of length of service of Trust board members have noted the 12 year term when they discussed this?
In short - yes.
I would again be staggered if a full review of length of service of board members was undertaken, and all conveniently failed to read that specific part. The odds of that are astronomical.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:11 - Nov 20 by E20Jack
In short - yes.
I would again be staggered if a full review of length of service of board members was undertaken, and all conveniently failed to read that specific part. The odds of that are astronomical.
I'm also a bit pissed off Will specifically came on here and said "11 years or so" in what seems a deliberate attempt to remove us from the scent.
This sort of thing isn't an oversight. It's premeditated.
* 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
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 19:11 - Nov 20 by londonlisa2001
I just think we need the answer first on whether he can serve, and then go from there, as it all may become moot.
One thing I'd personally like some clarity on, is this whole associate director bit. There seem to be conflicting opinions. One that it's related to his Trust position in some way (though separate from the observer role) and one that it's a club thing, unconnected with the Trust.
If the second of those is correct, I'd certainly feel uneasy about someone with an existing and separate relationship with the club, also being the Trust Chair. I think everyone should have learnt that lesson by now. Despite the role of associate director being one that on the face of it carries no weight (he's not listed as a legal director of the club, as I looked on Companies House), it's listed on the club website, and there's an associated duty of care with that which would appear in the face of it, at odds with the independence needed to carry out the Trust Chair position effectively.
Agree entirely with para 1. And even then para 2 only follows on if there's been no breach of term rules (although it certainly appears there has).
Second para onwards then becomes a wider issue of Trust/Club relationships, not just restricted to this individual - i.e. clarity is needed moving forward on what roles linked to the Club any Trust Board member can or can't have.
What I don't understand is which order things should be investigated. We've got: - potential breaches of term rules, - that could mean last Summer's vote is void (presumably the independent vote overseer needs informing). And what else was agreed and may be void if there's been a term rule breach? - and even if not, we've got a potential change in term of the sale deal which would require it being brought back to us members, - and overlaying that there are the potential on-going conflicts of interest in terms of Trust Board relationships to the club and the sale brokers.
Who takes all this lot forward? Surely the Trust can't be expected to act in a transparent and independent manner, especially (a) they seem to be suggest in there isn't a problem and (b) given the implied reasoning of Phil's departure (even if he had stayed beyond term too).
And that's just what we know. What else has been going on god only knows.
I feel cheated. I voted for the sale largely on the strength of Phil's (The Trust's) recommendation. The way legal action was presented put me off - in that it could result in an order for the club to buy all the Trust shares. I don't want that.
I want the Trust to own as *big* a part of the club as possible. On the basis that they should be putting the club before the interests of any investors or self interest. Although right now I have little faith that that is the case.
Where do things go from now?
0
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:25 - Nov 20 with 1001 views
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:18 - Nov 20 by TheResurrection
I'm also a bit pissed off Will specifically came on here and said "11 years or so" in what seems a deliberate attempt to remove us from the scent.
This sort of thing isn't an oversight. It's premeditated.
I don’t agree with that. I genuinely don’t think they had any idea about the 12 year rule until it was unearthed on here. Perhaps I’m being too generous.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:25 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
I don’t agree with that. I genuinely don’t think they had any idea about the 12 year rule until it was unearthed on here. Perhaps I’m being too generous.
Even though they had a ''full review'' of Trust board member term limits a matter of months ago?
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:37 - Nov 20 by E20Jack
Even though they had a ''full review'' of Trust board member term limits a matter of months ago?
Yeah. Don’t ask me why but I don’t think they’ve been deliberately dishonest. At least on the 12 year thing. I just genuinely think no one knew about the rule.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:25 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
I don’t agree with that. I genuinely don’t think they had any idea about the 12 year rule until it was unearthed on here. Perhaps I’m being too generous.
You are, as they contacted Supporters Direct concerned that some of them would be reaching and surpassing that limit with the re-elctection of a term some time ago.
It was only last year they had a complete spring clean of their whole governance, and this took a whole year or more to conclude.
This doesn't just slip ones mind and you'd always remember the month and year you joined the Trust, that wouldn't just become hazy over time.
* 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
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:40 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
Yeah. Don’t ask me why but I don’t think they’ve been deliberately dishonest. At least on the 12 year thing. I just genuinely think no one knew about the rule.
But surely any sort of full review regarding term limits suggests actually reading the current ones? Otherwise what are they reviewing? Not to mention they were clearly discussed, drafted and signed originally. All this stepping down and skulduggery coming to the fore conveniently 12 years into these peoples association...
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:45 - Nov 20 by E20Jack
But surely any sort of full review regarding term limits suggests actually reading the current ones? Otherwise what are they reviewing? Not to mention they were clearly discussed, drafted and signed originally. All this stepping down and skulduggery coming to the fore conveniently 12 years into these peoples association...
Is that your heart or your head talking?
[Post edited 20 Nov 2017 21:53]
Probably my heart. I usually like to think the best of people. But I’d forgotten about the apparent/alleged query with Supporters Direct on this very issue.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:25 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
I don’t agree with that. I genuinely don’t think they had any idea about the 12 year rule until it was unearthed on here. Perhaps I’m being too generous.
Your probably right other than Hamer must have known as he was a signatory to the original rules and initialled the amendments.
0
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 22:03 - Nov 20 with 796 views
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 21:40 - Nov 20 by exiledclaseboy
Yeah. Don’t ask me why but I don’t think they’ve been deliberately dishonest. At least on the 12 year thing. I just genuinely think no one knew about the rule.
Oh I think they knew well enough, just thought it was something that could be safely ignored or circumvented. I can understand that actually. I can’t understand that they, or particularly he, pretended otherwise now though. That was always going to unravel, and really is ethically abhorrent in an organisation that tries to claim the moral high ground. As well as pig stupid. The 12 years isn’t really a big issue to me because I think 5 is too many anyway. So 11, 12, who cares about the form. In substance he should be history anyway.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 22:01 - Nov 20 by exhmrc1
Your probably right other than Hamer must have known as he was a signatory to the original rules and initialled the amendments.
He certainly should have known because as board secretary that sort of thing is his responsibility.
Anyway, it seems from other posts that they clearly did know about the 12 year rule but seemingly chose to ignore it. Poor show that. At the very least.
If Will puts the Trust before himself, he'd step down immediately on 22:03 - Nov 20 by monmouth
Oh I think they knew well enough, just thought it was something that could be safely ignored or circumvented. I can understand that actually. I can’t understand that they, or particularly he, pretended otherwise now though. That was always going to unravel, and really is ethically abhorrent in an organisation that tries to claim the moral high ground. As well as pig stupid. The 12 years isn’t really a big issue to me because I think 5 is too many anyway. So 11, 12, who cares about the form. In substance he should be history anyway.
[Post edited 20 Nov 2017 22:09]
I have said this privately but will make it public in light of recent events coming to light, and this may slightly cross with ECB's view to find a very clumsy middle ground.
I think a lot of this has been certain individuals raison d'etre. They knew their term limits were up or coming to an end and wanted to see their 12 years of graft through to a conclusion. Human nature.
So although there are certain elements of sinister connection such as Harris - I think the overwhelming feeling was that they wanted closure on a big part of their lives. Legal action would take years and something they could not see through. Taking the deal would almost feel like their work meant something and earning £5m at the end of it, something that would happily see them to the end of their term time and something they can always say they ''achieved''.
Whether it was conscious selfishness or subconscious - this certainly played a part I have little doubt. The fact that those who swayed the fanbase originally and have now realised that error yet failed to admit the error or indeed attempt to redress that balance suggests selfish reasons are very much at the fore over club well-being. Too much ego.
And this becoming peoples life work, which could sway decisions on a personal level is the exact reason why term times are so important. It should always be seen as simply carrying the baton and not someones personal battle. But of course they would never admit this was the case anyway.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
