| FAO Some Trust Person 14:12 - Nov 26 with 26134 views | Darran |
How many co-oppers have applied for co-option and when will we find out who’s been co-opted? |  |
| |  |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:38 - Nov 29 with 1661 views | SkettyJack |
I'm one of the 14 and haven't been offered a position, interview or a secret handshake!
Guess my impassioned plea to actually get the membership engaged and involved didn't push the right buttons.
I wonder how many of the current board remember there's a membership to represent?
Also is Stuart McDonald in America? Conspicuous in his silence |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:40 - Nov 29 with 1652 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:38 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection |
Darran is repeatedly proven to be the absolute mess he is.
His perceived relationship with Phil Sumbler has led to many an accusation. Now I like Phil and have it on good authority he sees Darran as a major pest who he tolerates in small doses, but the "dirty work" done on here has never been forgotten, and never will when this creature is allowed to still ruin any thread he gets involved with.
Spratty gets banned repeatedly for reasons never explained.
Darran is allowed to troll, belittle, racially bully, mock fringe communities and ruin discussion.
Why the fack has he been allowed to continue? |
Well that’s not true either but if it was it’s probably for the same reason you’re still here after PMing several people threats of violence and personal abuse. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:41 - Nov 29 with 1650 views | Neath_Jack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:36 - Nov 29 by Darran |
It’s not true and even if it was it was nothing to do with Phil. FACT |
So you were privy to Spratty's husband speaking to Phil in person and then the subsequent ban were you?
Seriously, f*ck off. |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:41 - Nov 29 with 1646 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:38 - Nov 29 by SkettyJack |
I'm one of the 14 and haven't been offered a position, interview or a secret handshake!
Guess my impassioned plea to actually get the membership engaged and involved didn't push the right buttons.
I wonder how many of the current board remember there's a membership to represent?
Also is Stuart McDonald in America? Conspicuous in his silence |
Have you had a reply? | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:22 - Nov 29 with 1578 views | SkettyJack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:41 - Nov 29 by Darran |
Have you had a reply? |
Initally after submission on Friday but heard nothing since.
Seems the trust know who they want | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:39 - Nov 29 with 1543 views | exiledclaseboy |
Has anyone else had an email about interviews or is it just me? I’ve just checked to make sure I didn’t imagine it. I didn’t. |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:40 - Nov 29 with 1535 views | ATFV |
Did the Trust Board co-opt Gerald Ratner to handle Public Relations? If some seriously capable people that applied pull out due to the haphazard way the "selection process" has been handled then it is a serious own goal. Again.
For Heaven's sake just get on with it, select the new members, install a new Chairman (one that can stay in post for more than 5 days, never mind 12 freakin' years this time) and then get on with the business of telling the Yanks to shove their ever changing offer where the sun don't shine (and I'm not talking about Alaska there).
FFS. |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:47 - Nov 29 with 1507 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:41 - Nov 29 by Neath_Jack |
So you were privy to Spratty's husband speaking to Phil in person and then the subsequent ban were you?
Seriously, f*ck off. |
No it’s not true that I was banning Spratty. I’ve never banned anyone I don’t believe in banning.
Seriously, you f*ck off. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:53 - Nov 29 with 1481 views | E20Jack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:47 - Nov 29 by Darran |
No it’s not true that I was banning Spratty. I’ve never banned anyone I don’t believe in banning.
Seriously, you f*ck off. |
You asked for whoflungdung to be banned the other day though? Or at least told the mods he should be? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:58 - Nov 29 with 1469 views | Neath_Jack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:47 - Nov 29 by Darran |
No it’s not true that I was banning Spratty. I’ve never banned anyone I don’t believe in banning.
Seriously, you f*ck off. |
I never said you banned anyone you dopey get. I didn't even mention your f*cking name!
Have the last word, because you are tapped. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:00 - Nov 29 with 1444 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:53 - Nov 29 by E20Jack |
You asked for whoflungdung to be banned the other day though? Or at least told the mods he should be? |
And? I still didn’t ban him you thick twát. I’m being blamed for banning people,I’ve never been into banning. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:01 - Nov 29 with 1436 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:58 - Nov 29 by Neath_Jack |
I never said you banned anyone you dopey get. I didn't even mention your f*cking name!
Have the last word, because you are tapped. |
Thank you,apology accepted. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:26 - Nov 29 with 1386 views | E20Jack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:00 - Nov 29 by Darran |
And? I still didn’t ban him you thick twát. I’m being blamed for banning people,I’ve never been into banning. |
And you said you don't believe in banning. Yet you ask for people to be banned or state that they should.
Makes no sense what you are saying. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:31 - Nov 29 with 1361 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:26 - Nov 29 by E20Jack |
And you said you don't believe in banning. Yet you ask for people to be banned or state that they should.
Makes no sense what you are saying. |
Oh FFS please go away. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:32 - Nov 29 with 1355 views | E20Jack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:31 - Nov 29 by Darran |
Oh FFS please go away. |
Don't say such stupid things then, you don't make any sense. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:35 - Nov 29 with 1341 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:32 - Nov 29 by E20Jack |
Don't say such stupid things then, you don't make any sense. |
How long have you been here under various usernames?
Just fuçk off and leave me alone you fool.
You have the last word I won’t be replying. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:37 - Nov 29 with 1324 views | E20Jack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:35 - Nov 29 by Darran |
How long have you been here under various usernames?
Just fuçk off and leave me alone you fool.
You have the last word I won’t be replying. |
You continue to not make sense, what are you wittering on about?
You won't reply because you made a c*ck of yourself. You said you dont believe in bannings yet I have seen you request bannings left right and center.
Stop lying and ruining thread after thread with your rubbish. [Post edited 29 Nov 2017 21:39]
| |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:40 - Nov 29 with 1305 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 21:35 - Nov 29 by Darran |
How long have you been here under various usernames?
Just fuçk off and leave me alone you fool.
You have the last word I won’t be replying. |
JUST FACK OFF!!!!!
GO ON.......... GET..................!!!!!!!!
FACKING WEIRDO, WE'VE ALL HAD A GUTSFUL OF YOU |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 18:53 - Nov 30 with 1074 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 13:53 - Nov 29 by londonlisa2001 |
I think that the rule is a difficult one though Chad.
Because in any Board type scenario, there's an expectation that the decisions of the board are collective and that board members shouldn't speak out about internal disagreements. Otherwise it quite quickly turns into a blame game, where individuals are singled out for who said what.
If a board member has a fundamental disagreement they should resign and explain exactly why. Infighting is never a good look, as it could enable others to cause division and turn the whole thing into a farce quite quickly. Going forward, the 'new' Trust needs to be a strong and unified voice on behalf of all fans. If the owners are presented with a split Trust, they'll just ignore it (not that they don't already).
Where the issue lies is not in that, but in a seeming reluctance to stand up to the owners of the club. Those that want to just go along with the club are the problem. |
So to be clear, Lisa supports imposing a gagging order on Trust board members so they can not express dissent in respect of decisions taken.
She is against them being allowed to speak out - as she only very recently encouraged board members to do - and instead wants then to resign in order to speak, in the process removing them from the decision-making process. Who else supports that?
I personally think it is madness, and aptly illustrates the huge pitfalls of indiscriminately calling for the election of people to positions of responsibility without having the first clue about what their intentions or agenda actually are.
The hypocrisy is simply staggering. The simultaneous call is for Trust board application statements to be infused with meaning, but at the same time the call is for certain individuals to be elected uncritically.
And to be clear this has noting to do to with my views on the proposed candidates aptitude either relative to sitting board members or in absolute terms. Instead my objection is entirely procedural.
For me the obvious and sustainable solutions to the Trust's current malaise, is to implement institutional reform.
For example, for me the 12 year rule is something of a red herring. What i would like to see is scope to remove any board member who is doing a bad job regardless of tenure. But for that sort of accountability to exist there must first be transparency, otherwise nobody has a fcuking clue what is going on.
And to preempt any higher level discussion on this subject i will only say that piecemeal institutional reform always trumps short-term fixes based on cult of personality hands down.
But an echo chamber favouring the latter has clearly developed in PS. Plus it is superficially much, much easier, so I really can't be arsed to pursue this argument right now. |  |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:07 - Nov 30 with 1051 views | Darran |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 18:53 - Nov 30 by Shaky |
So to be clear, Lisa supports imposing a gagging order on Trust board members so they can not express dissent in respect of decisions taken.
She is against them being allowed to speak out - as she only very recently encouraged board members to do - and instead wants then to resign in order to speak, in the process removing them from the decision-making process. Who else supports that?
I personally think it is madness, and aptly illustrates the huge pitfalls of indiscriminately calling for the election of people to positions of responsibility without having the first clue about what their intentions or agenda actually are.
The hypocrisy is simply staggering. The simultaneous call is for Trust board application statements to be infused with meaning, but at the same time the call is for certain individuals to be elected uncritically.
And to be clear this has noting to do to with my views on the proposed candidates aptitude either relative to sitting board members or in absolute terms. Instead my objection is entirely procedural.
For me the obvious and sustainable solutions to the Trust's current malaise, is to implement institutional reform.
For example, for me the 12 year rule is something of a red herring. What i would like to see is scope to remove any board member who is doing a bad job regardless of tenure. But for that sort of accountability to exist there must first be transparency, otherwise nobody has a fcuking clue what is going on.
And to preempt any higher level discussion on this subject i will only say that piecemeal institutional reform always trumps short-term fixes based on cult of personality hands down.
But an echo chamber favouring the latter has clearly developed in PS. Plus it is superficially much, much easier, so I really can't be arsed to pursue this argument right now. |
Don’t be so fuçking ridiculous Denzil there got to be some level of confidentiality. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:12 - Nov 30 with 1031 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:07 - Nov 30 by Darran |
Don’t be so fuçking ridiculous Denzil there got to be some level of confidentiality. |
What are the commercial secrets you want to protect?
That you are working in the best interests of the fans is a given. There should be no secret about that, and in fact it should be the yardstick. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:14 - Nov 30 with 1011 views | Darran |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:12 - Nov 30 by Shaky |
What are the commercial secrets you want to protect?
That you are working in the best interests of the fans is a given. There should be no secret about that, and in fact it should be the yardstick. |
You can’t just have people mouthing off about everything you fool. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:17 - Nov 30 with 992 views | Shaky |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:14 - Nov 30 by Darran |
You can’t just have people mouthing off about everything you fool. |
Well as I said I can't really be arsed to argue the point, and certainiy not with you, Des. Orwhite? | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:22 - Nov 30 with 980 views | thornabyswan |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:14 - Nov 30 by Darran |
You can’t just have people mouthing off about everything you fool. |
They don't mouth off about anything much that's part of the reason why the sellouts and the owners treat them with such contempt. | |
| |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:24 - Nov 30 with 975 views | Darran |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 19:17 - Nov 30 by Shaky |
Well as I said I can't really be arsed to argue the point, and certainiy not with you, Des. Orwhite? |
Bye. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
