| FAO Some Trust Person 14:12 - Nov 26 with 26234 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 16:31 - Nov 26 with 1289 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:28 - Nov 26 by Neath_Jack |
Going by Uxy's post t'other night, it seems that they are going to ignore (or word it however they want) the 12 year rule and carry on regardless anyway. |
It does seem that way but the rule I mentioned is separate to that. I don’t think that there are 12 current board members even if you include the ones who aren’t eligible cos they’ve been there too long. I may be wrong but there have been at least four resignations so I doubt it. The Trust board as it’s currently constituted should be doing nothing other than arranging to fill the vacancies. |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:43 - Nov 26 with 1267 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:21 - Nov 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Actually, that's a very good point. Even counting ones that should be timed out there are only 11 members at the moment aren't there. And there were only 11 when these latest negotiations have been happening in the past couple of weeks.
I imagine the new model rules allow less and so we'll pretend that the Trust rules are the same. As with the term limits. |
The “meet the board” page on the Trust site lists 11 board members but one of them is Will Morris who as we all know resigned last week to spend more time with his libel lawyer. So there are 10 current board members, including any who are still there despite being in breach of the rules. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:51 - Nov 26 with 1250 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Thats JENKINSOUT, Jackfath and Eilian who have applied for co-option so far from this forum.
Any others? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:56 - Nov 26 with 1240 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:43 - Nov 26 by exiledclaseboy |
The “meet the board” page on the Trust site lists 11 board members but one of them is Will Morris who as we all know resigned last week to spend more time with his libel lawyer. So there are 10 current board members, including any who are still there despite being in breach of the rules. |
I never realised Will resigned from the board I thought it was only the chair. I need to pay more attention. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:01 - Nov 26 with 1224 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:56 - Nov 26 by Darran |
I never realised Will resigned from the board I thought it was only the chair. I need to pay more attention. |
Well seeing as it’s in the first line of the resignation statement I can only agree.  | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:03 - Nov 26 with 1213 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:01 - Nov 26 by exiledclaseboy |
Well seeing as it’s in the first line of the resignation statement I can only agree. |
Perhaps I forgot.  | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:23 - Nov 26 with 1179 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:28 - Nov 26 by Neath_Jack |
Going by Uxy's post t'other night, it seems that they are going to ignore (or word it however they want) the 12 year rule and carry on regardless anyway. |
I'm going to go with "take the advice of Supporters Direct's and the Trust’s legal counsel's ideas of due process, rather than the more militant interpretations which may be somewhat biased in their own regard" if it's alright with you  AGMs soon enough anyway, the members will ultimately decide then.
Not that there's any real major decisions to be taken in the immediate week or two, apart from who's next to drink from the poisoned chalice of course.
If any posters from here applied and are hiding behind aliases then I'd be interested to know who they are. Not that I'll be basing my own decision on their posting history, that'll be largely on what their statements say they'll bring to the role and what they aim to do in the role (I've not seen them yet so currently blind on that), but it'd give me some insight. I know who Eilian is anyway, we had a very interesting chat earlier in the week. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:44 - Nov 26 with 1133 views | NeathJack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:23 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
I'm going to go with "take the advice of Supporters Direct's and the Trust’s legal counsel's ideas of due process, rather than the more militant interpretations which may be somewhat biased in their own regard" if it's alright with you AGMs soon enough anyway, the members will ultimately decide then.
Not that there's any real major decisions to be taken in the immediate week or two, apart from who's next to drink from the poisoned chalice of course.
If any posters from here applied and are hiding behind aliases then I'd be interested to know who they are. Not that I'll be basing my own decision on their posting history, that'll be largely on what their statements say they'll bring to the role and what they aim to do in the role (I've not seen them yet so currently blind on that), but it'd give me some insight. I know who Eilian is anyway, we had a very interesting chat earlier in the week. |
Have the Trust been consulted on the soon to be announced season ticket prices for next season? |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:52 - Nov 26 with 1115 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 16:43 - Nov 26 by exiledclaseboy |
The “meet the board” page on the Trust site lists 11 board members but one of them is Will Morris who as we all know resigned last week to spend more time with his libel lawyer. So there are 10 current board members, including any who are still there despite being in breach of the rules. |
Ah, perhaps they had one fewer than the rules allowed then.
I just knew they were allowed 15 and 4 have gone. |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:54 - Nov 26 with 1108 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:44 - Nov 26 by NeathJack |
Have the Trust been consulted on the soon to be announced season ticket prices for next season? |
Yes | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:55 - Nov 26 with 1104 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:23 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
I'm going to go with "take the advice of Supporters Direct's and the Trust’s legal counsel's ideas of due process, rather than the more militant interpretations which may be somewhat biased in their own regard" if it's alright with you AGMs soon enough anyway, the members will ultimately decide then.
Not that there's any real major decisions to be taken in the immediate week or two, apart from who's next to drink from the poisoned chalice of course.
If any posters from here applied and are hiding behind aliases then I'd be interested to know who they are. Not that I'll be basing my own decision on their posting history, that'll be largely on what their statements say they'll bring to the role and what they aim to do in the role (I've not seen them yet so currently blind on that), but it'd give me some insight. I know who Eilian is anyway, we had a very interesting chat earlier in the week. |
The Trust's legal counsel is on the board of SD isn't he? Or something similar, I'm sure I recall. | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:02 - Nov 26 with 1081 views | exiledclaseboy |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:52 - Nov 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Ah, perhaps they had one fewer than the rules allowed then.
I just knew they were allowed 15 and 4 have gone. |
The board can have anything between 12 and 15 members. If the number drops below 12 the board can’t do anything apart from fill the vacancies until it’s up to 12 again. So if any decisions have been taken while the board was below 12 members, those decisions aren’t valid. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:03 - Nov 26 with 1079 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:55 - Nov 26 by londonlisa2001 |
The Trust's legal counsel is on the board of SD isn't he? Or something similar, I'm sure I recall. |
He is indeed, but they also have their own expertise of course. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:04 - Nov 26 with 1074 views | exhmrc1 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 17:23 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
I'm going to go with "take the advice of Supporters Direct's and the Trust’s legal counsel's ideas of due process, rather than the more militant interpretations which may be somewhat biased in their own regard" if it's alright with you AGMs soon enough anyway, the members will ultimately decide then.
Not that there's any real major decisions to be taken in the immediate week or two, apart from who's next to drink from the poisoned chalice of course.
If any posters from here applied and are hiding behind aliases then I'd be interested to know who they are. Not that I'll be basing my own decision on their posting history, that'll be largely on what their statements say they'll bring to the role and what they aim to do in the role (I've not seen them yet so currently blind on that), but it'd give me some insight. I know who Eilian is anyway, we had a very interesting chat earlier in the week. |
utter load of nonsense rules are there for a purpose. This is purely people protecting their own interest. Unless the over 12 year people go the trust will always be known as a body who protects itself. For the sake of the future of the trust anyone who has been there over 12 years should go now including the secretary. The old boys club should go and be replaced with new blood. The future respect of the trust needs to be restored and that can only be done by following its constitution. These guys might be the best in the world but that doesn't matter. | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:09 - Nov 26 with 1044 views | Jackfath |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:01 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
I do hope you're one of the 4, even if I usually make it a rule to keep civil servant types well way from things. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the discussions between yourself and our esteemed legal affiliate! |
Has he applied then? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:09 - Nov 26 with 1044 views | exiledclaseboy |
And how can you have a “militant interpretation” of a rule that says “no person can be a member of the...board who has been a member of the board for 12 consecutive years”?
There’s no room for interpretation there. It just...is. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:10 - Nov 26 with 1043 views | max936 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:04 - Nov 26 by exhmrc1 |
utter load of nonsense rules are there for a purpose. This is purely people protecting their own interest. Unless the over 12 year people go the trust will always be known as a body who protects itself. For the sake of the future of the trust anyone who has been there over 12 years should go now including the secretary. The old boys club should go and be replaced with new blood. The future respect of the trust needs to be restored and that can only be done by following its constitution. These guys might be the best in the world but that doesn't matter. |
I really hope those co-opted bring some back bone to the Trust and fight back against the Yanks and stop this pathetic deal and I also hope that this 12 yrs and out rule is stood by and the ones involved go ASAP.
Perhaps then I'll chuck my tenner in.
When is the "Supporters Director" gonna say something to the ACTUAL supporters? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:28 - Nov 26 with 1009 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:09 - Nov 26 by exiledclaseboy |
And how can you have a “militant interpretation” of a rule that says “no person can be a member of the...board who has been a member of the board for 12 consecutive years”?
There’s no room for interpretation there. It just...is. |
Oh on the clarity of the rule I agree, although I suspect we disagree on the application of the remedy, or at least the timing. FWIW, advice from SD was clear that people should remain in situ until the AGM.
It's hardly ideal of course, although the circumstances are far from clear cut. Newer version of the rules were passed in an earlier AGM which exclude the rule. True there were issues with the adoption (partly the Trust's responsibility but also at Supporters Direct... I'll happily tell you why that is offline, but it wouldn't be right to post it here, or you can judge if it is, up to you) but they were legitimately adopted if not filed.
As for what happens next, well that'll be interesting. AGM plan was always to adopt the latest model rules. Whether there should be a clause in there regarding term limits is a fair one, and I tend to agree, but to reiterate an old point, it's only recently that any bugger has shown any inclination to stand. That shouldn't be forgotten IMO. We're not here because a couple of people (it may only be 1, there's some argument on that, I think it's 2) have decided to stay on at the expense of others. If they're not passed then I suspect we're in a very different position entirely. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:07 - Nov 26 with 939 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:28 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
Oh on the clarity of the rule I agree, although I suspect we disagree on the application of the remedy, or at least the timing. FWIW, advice from SD was clear that people should remain in situ until the AGM.
It's hardly ideal of course, although the circumstances are far from clear cut. Newer version of the rules were passed in an earlier AGM which exclude the rule. True there were issues with the adoption (partly the Trust's responsibility but also at Supporters Direct... I'll happily tell you why that is offline, but it wouldn't be right to post it here, or you can judge if it is, up to you) but they were legitimately adopted if not filed.
As for what happens next, well that'll be interesting. AGM plan was always to adopt the latest model rules. Whether there should be a clause in there regarding term limits is a fair one, and I tend to agree, but to reiterate an old point, it's only recently that any bugger has shown any inclination to stand. That shouldn't be forgotten IMO. We're not here because a couple of people (it may only be 1, there's some argument on that, I think it's 2) have decided to stay on at the expense of others. If they're not passed then I suspect we're in a very different position entirely. |
If there've been 14 applications, one thing that possibly shows is there hasn't been an lack of inclination, but more a perceived lack of invitation? The perception wasn't necessarily correct of course. | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:15 - Nov 26 with 922 views | Phil_S |
I’m not taking it at all personally that these people didn’t want to get involved in my watch 😂 |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 19:18 - Nov 26 with 906 views | max936 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 18:28 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
Oh on the clarity of the rule I agree, although I suspect we disagree on the application of the remedy, or at least the timing. FWIW, advice from SD was clear that people should remain in situ until the AGM.
It's hardly ideal of course, although the circumstances are far from clear cut. Newer version of the rules were passed in an earlier AGM which exclude the rule. True there were issues with the adoption (partly the Trust's responsibility but also at Supporters Direct... I'll happily tell you why that is offline, but it wouldn't be right to post it here, or you can judge if it is, up to you) but they were legitimately adopted if not filed.
As for what happens next, well that'll be interesting. AGM plan was always to adopt the latest model rules. Whether there should be a clause in there regarding term limits is a fair one, and I tend to agree, but to reiterate an old point, it's only recently that any bugger has shown any inclination to stand. That shouldn't be forgotten IMO. We're not here because a couple of people (it may only be 1, there's some argument on that, I think it's 2) have decided to stay on at the expense of others. If they're not passed then I suspect we're in a very different position entirely. |
Yeah, they should stay in place until the Deal that they all agreed to with the Yanks is all signed and sealed, then they can go out to grass, so can the rest as well because there'll be nothing left it would have all been turned over to the Yanks after they'd all had their bellies tickled by Levien and Kaplan and flushed any hope of fighting back down the Tawe. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
