| FAO Some Trust Person 14:12 - Nov 26 with 26285 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 22:17 - Nov 26 with 1749 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:14 - Nov 26 by TheResurrection |
There we are, I feel like I've already played my part...
I can now resign and look back on an extremely successful stint in office during a golden era for the Trust.
Signed with love,
The Box |
Oh - I only applied as it was the only way of proving to you that it wasn't me in that bloody picture you posted up you sneaky sod... |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:18 - Nov 26 with 1745 views | max936 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:12 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
You'd have a point if the previous model rules approved at AGM a couple of years ago hadn't also excluded that rule. |
Well, after all that's been written on here I assumed it was still in existence that's why we had a major fuss last week, unless I dreamt it all.?
12yrs is far to long in any case, so my point is a valid one whether its palatable or not, Thanks for replying though as no one replied to my two previous ones. |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:19 - Nov 26 with 1742 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:17 - Nov 26 by Uxbridge |
Well, yes, obvs. I said that a few pages ago. Max seems to think this is being done purely because of this clause, when there's pretty clear proof this was supposed to have happened previously, and had been passed at AGM. [Post edited 26 Nov 2017 22:19]
|
Just keeping you honest Ux... | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:21 - Nov 26 with 1729 views | donkonky |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:13 - Nov 26 by londonlisa2001 |
I had to bloody rejoin to make an application. |
Well good luck to you all. From reading your posts on here I’m sure it’s going to make the Trust a lot more vocal. What’s the timescale on this process? |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:22 - Nov 26 with 1724 views | londonlisa2001 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:21 - Nov 26 by donkonky |
Well good luck to you all. From reading your posts on here I’m sure it’s going to make the Trust a lot more vocal. What’s the timescale on this process? |
Absolutely no idea to be honest. | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:23 - Nov 26 with 1713 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:17 - Nov 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh - I only applied as it was the only way of proving to you that it wasn't me in that bloody picture you posted up you sneaky sod... |
Haha, well I'm glad that wasn't you...
You've said we've met haven't you? Where? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:24 - Nov 26 with 1710 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:18 - Nov 26 by max936 |
Well, after all that's been written on here I assumed it was still in existence that's why we had a major fuss last week, unless I dreamt it all.?
12yrs is far to long in any case, so my point is a valid one whether its palatable or not, Thanks for replying though as no one replied to my two previous ones. |
Yes, well, while there are reasons for why the things were never properly filed which, for reasons I'd happily share in private but not on here, if had happened this would be a complete non issue.
Anyway, my point was that this isn't being done now because someone passed the threshold, it was supposed to have happened previously and in fact should happen, or be reviewed and updated, periodically anyway. |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:24 - Nov 26 with 1710 views | donkonky |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:22 - Nov 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Absolutely no idea to be honest. |
Well hope you lot get to voice your concerns on the share sale before it gets done n dusted. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:37 - Nov 26 with 1642 views | Landore_Jack |
Does anybody have a list of Trust board members that have served 12 years or more? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 22:52 - Nov 26 with 1601 views | Darran |
Can I just say that I don’t think 12 years is too long,I don’t think 50 years is too long as long as there’s proper genuine elections and there has been.
Saying that if the 12 year thing was written in that’s a different story.
If people were going in unopposed as they were in the past that’s another story again. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 23:05 - Nov 26 with 1563 views | chad |
| 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. |
“If any posters from here applied and are hiding behind aliases then I'd be interested to know who they are”. - I bet you would you naughty person
“Not that I'll be basing my own decision on their posting history” — of course not
surely you would not pick a candidate based even partially on posts on an internet forum, and what about others who post on other forums. That would go totally against fair and equal selection. But why else would you want the inside track.
Although in this case all you have is what the candidate says about themselves
In truth you don’t even know if they are real people!
A bit like those late joiners who were allowed a vote on the deal so long as they joined pretty much just prior to the vote
(BTW was that a decision validated by a quorum — uninfluenced by any over 12 yearers)
At the last meeting before the vote I did ask, was the Trust concerned about the large amount of late joiners, voting in a vote that had been promised long before, and the outcome of which was very likely worth millions to both the buyers and possibly sellouts.
A few hundred tenners or even fivers would be a bargain to get that through.
Was told the Trust Board actually discussed this as a concern, but decided to take no action.
Interesting that, especially as any ringers would be voting for the Trust Boards recommended and pushed option.
Unfortunate that the votes were not numbered, so no retrospective independent broad analysis can be conducted on the voting patterns of the substantial percentage of those that joined after it was known there would be a vote.
p.s Heard a whisper Spratty was thinking of applying, but don’t thing that is Mx Spratty’s real name. Perhaps “hiding behind” an “alias”
- BTW is Uxbridge your actual name? |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 23:19 - Nov 26 with 1515 views | chad |
| 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. |
So the "militant" view is one that thinks the Trust should abide by its formal current rules.
The rules are clear and you confirmed they are the ones by which we are currently governed…
“The rules on the website are the ones that currently govern the Trust. “
You even explained why the subsequent rules were not adopted, and said the information came from out legal affiliate
I think the fair minded would call the "militant" view, that that wanted to abrogate the rules at their own convenience and make weak and transparent excuses to do that, whilst making thinly disguised jibes at the members they purport to represent.
BTW what right has supporters direct to override our current rules?
The answer is none and based on a spurious excuse of difficulty in recruiting, when receiving over 3 fold applications for the current vacancies (and I am sure many others willing to step up if needed). | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:28 - Nov 27 with 1382 views | MoscowJack |
Ux, I thought the reason the 12 year rule was questioned (in Supporters Direct HQ) was because Huw Cooze was coming up to his 12 years around the same time as you say the new rule (or change of rule) was requested?
Does this also mean that anything else "filed but rejected" can also be adapted under SD rules?
It just seems like a flagrant breach of the rules, especially given the excellent numbers applying to join the Trust Board. It seems like a great chance to get some fresh blood involved so why not encourage the enforcement of the 12 year rule instead of ignoring (or evading) it? | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:56 - Nov 27 with 1350 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:28 - Nov 27 by MoscowJack |
Ux, I thought the reason the 12 year rule was questioned (in Supporters Direct HQ) was because Huw Cooze was coming up to his 12 years around the same time as you say the new rule (or change of rule) was requested?
Does this also mean that anything else "filed but rejected" can also be adapted under SD rules?
It just seems like a flagrant breach of the rules, especially given the excellent numbers applying to join the Trust Board. It seems like a great chance to get some fresh blood involved so why not encourage the enforcement of the 12 year rule instead of ignoring (or evading) it? |
You need better sources mate. Particularly as SD don't have term limits in their model rules. They had no issues with the proposed Trust rules.
I've said enough of what I think on the rest of it, so no point labouring it. SD disagree with you, and I think referring to them as our umbrella organisation is the appropriate way to go. As for what happens next, that's up to the members at the AGM. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 08:48 - Nov 27 with 1283 views | Uxbridge |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 23:05 - Nov 26 by chad |
“If any posters from here applied and are hiding behind aliases then I'd be interested to know who they are”. - I bet you would you naughty person
“Not that I'll be basing my own decision on their posting history” — of course not
surely you would not pick a candidate based even partially on posts on an internet forum, and what about others who post on other forums. That would go totally against fair and equal selection. But why else would you want the inside track.
Although in this case all you have is what the candidate says about themselves
In truth you don’t even know if they are real people!
A bit like those late joiners who were allowed a vote on the deal so long as they joined pretty much just prior to the vote
(BTW was that a decision validated by a quorum — uninfluenced by any over 12 yearers)
At the last meeting before the vote I did ask, was the Trust concerned about the large amount of late joiners, voting in a vote that had been promised long before, and the outcome of which was very likely worth millions to both the buyers and possibly sellouts.
A few hundred tenners or even fivers would be a bargain to get that through.
Was told the Trust Board actually discussed this as a concern, but decided to take no action.
Interesting that, especially as any ringers would be voting for the Trust Boards recommended and pushed option.
Unfortunate that the votes were not numbered, so no retrospective independent broad analysis can be conducted on the voting patterns of the substantial percentage of those that joined after it was known there would be a vote.
p.s Heard a whisper Spratty was thinking of applying, but don’t thing that is Mx Spratty’s real name. Perhaps “hiding behind” an “alias”
- BTW is Uxbridge your actual name? |
Yep. Changed by deed poll last year. True story.
You'd have had my vote Spratty if you'd applied. I was merely curious, seeing as I knew a few of the posters who had applied.
You're on fantasy island with the rest of it though. IIRC the membership deadline was cut off the moment the vote was announced, there was no mass influx of members. Everyone had the opportunity to join before that point. And, let's be honest here, the margin of the vote doesn't exactly back up your argument.
To those who have applied, and are ultimately successful, I'm looking forward to passing on the baton or at least sharing the load on posting on here. If anyone fancies administrating the Facebook Group as well, you're going to get my vote! | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:40 - Nov 27 with 1227 views | exhmrc1 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 08:48 - Nov 27 by Uxbridge |
Yep. Changed by deed poll last year. True story.
You'd have had my vote Spratty if you'd applied. I was merely curious, seeing as I knew a few of the posters who had applied.
You're on fantasy island with the rest of it though. IIRC the membership deadline was cut off the moment the vote was announced, there was no mass influx of members. Everyone had the opportunity to join before that point. And, let's be honest here, the margin of the vote doesn't exactly back up your argument.
To those who have applied, and are ultimately successful, I'm looking forward to passing on the baton or at least sharing the load on posting on here. If anyone fancies administrating the Facebook Group as well, you're going to get my vote! |
what is really needed is that confidence is restored in the trust. It will not happen doing this as the trust continues to look shady as a club where the rules are used to protect individuals continuing their roles. For the sake of the trust if those individuals really care they would resign immediately and allow new members to take over. They could reapply next year if the members adopt the new rules. There is a possibility the members might reject the proposals and the 12 year rule could stay whatever supporters direct say. It is the members who will decide this matter not the board or supporters direct. I don't know why supporters direct were involved. There were rules and they should have been followed. | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 10:00 - Nov 27 with 1206 views | max936 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:40 - Nov 27 by exhmrc1 |
what is really needed is that confidence is restored in the trust. It will not happen doing this as the trust continues to look shady as a club where the rules are used to protect individuals continuing their roles. For the sake of the trust if those individuals really care they would resign immediately and allow new members to take over. They could reapply next year if the members adopt the new rules. There is a possibility the members might reject the proposals and the 12 year rule could stay whatever supporters direct say. It is the members who will decide this matter not the board or supporters direct. I don't know why supporters direct were involved. There were rules and they should have been followed. |
Great Post  | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 10:04 - Nov 27 with 1200 views | trampie |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:40 - Nov 27 by exhmrc1 |
what is really needed is that confidence is restored in the trust. It will not happen doing this as the trust continues to look shady as a club where the rules are used to protect individuals continuing their roles. For the sake of the trust if those individuals really care they would resign immediately and allow new members to take over. They could reapply next year if the members adopt the new rules. There is a possibility the members might reject the proposals and the 12 year rule could stay whatever supporters direct say. It is the members who will decide this matter not the board or supporters direct. I don't know why supporters direct were involved. There were rules and they should have been followed. |
Nice post.  |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 10:10 - Nov 27 with 1193 views | swancity |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:40 - Nov 27 by exhmrc1 |
what is really needed is that confidence is restored in the trust. It will not happen doing this as the trust continues to look shady as a club where the rules are used to protect individuals continuing their roles. For the sake of the trust if those individuals really care they would resign immediately and allow new members to take over. They could reapply next year if the members adopt the new rules. There is a possibility the members might reject the proposals and the 12 year rule could stay whatever supporters direct say. It is the members who will decide this matter not the board or supporters direct. I don't know why supporters direct were involved. There were rules and they should have been followed. |
' There were rules and they should have been followed '
Indeed. A simple concept. But seemingly not. Why have rules in place and then try to ignore or bypass them. Astonishing. In any case, twelve years is too long. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 10:29 - Nov 27 with 1175 views | E20Jack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:40 - Nov 27 by exhmrc1 |
what is really needed is that confidence is restored in the trust. It will not happen doing this as the trust continues to look shady as a club where the rules are used to protect individuals continuing their roles. For the sake of the trust if those individuals really care they would resign immediately and allow new members to take over. They could reapply next year if the members adopt the new rules. There is a possibility the members might reject the proposals and the 12 year rule could stay whatever supporters direct say. It is the members who will decide this matter not the board or supporters direct. I don't know why supporters direct were involved. There were rules and they should have been followed. |
But you know what will happen...
"Ladies and Gentleman, we have called you here today to vote on whether the board members of 12 years should stay or we should... change the rule (nods head and winks). Changing the rule would be preferrable to the Trust and we think it would be damaging if we took action to enforce this rule.... Vote as you wish." |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 11:06 - Nov 27 with 1132 views | Shaky |
| 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. |
So the new rules weren't actually filed? The dog didn't eat the homework, you simply didn't bother to hand it in!
Two things come to mind: First of all that means all the stuff related to Severability I was discussing clearly doesn't apply. The basic principles of justice still seem to me to demand that members' clearly expressed democratic voting is respected as far as possible, but there is apparently more to this than is in the public domain.
Speaking of which the second point is that Lisa was evidently right all along that the new rules hadn't been filed. But she clearly didn't get that from your past utterances on this board that strongly suggested there was a dispute with the regulator. Since you are basically offering to give ECB the lowdown privately I see no reason to suppose Lisa got this information in any other way.
I have to say I think this is absolutely ridiculous. You're like a bunch of old wimmin gossiping, or primary school children trading secrets in the playground.
And when two of the most serious charges the Trust is facing are cronyism and amateurishness this is not only silly but very, very stupid.
No doubt "the Res" will have more than enough on his plate delivering on the apparent campaign pledge to Make Abertawe Great Again #MAGA2, but i sincerely hope somebody else hits on the significantly less ambitious but still no doubt unbelievably difficult objective of bringing some genuine transparency to Trust affairs. |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 11:12 - Nov 27 with 1123 views | Shaky |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 20:32 - Nov 26 by exiledclaseboy |
That’s a decision for members, not the board. |
 | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 11:22 - Nov 27 with 1106 views | max936 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 11:06 - Nov 27 by Shaky |
So the new rules weren't actually filed? The dog didn't eat the homework, you simply didn't bother to hand it in!
Two things come to mind: First of all that means all the stuff related to Severability I was discussing clearly doesn't apply. The basic principles of justice still seem to me to demand that members' clearly expressed democratic voting is respected as far as possible, but there is apparently more to this than is in the public domain.
Speaking of which the second point is that Lisa was evidently right all along that the new rules hadn't been filed. But she clearly didn't get that from your past utterances on this board that strongly suggested there was a dispute with the regulator. Since you are basically offering to give ECB the lowdown privately I see no reason to suppose Lisa got this information in any other way.
I have to say I think this is absolutely ridiculous. You're like a bunch of old wimmin gossiping, or primary school children trading secrets in the playground.
And when two of the most serious charges the Trust is facing are cronyism and amateurishness this is not only silly but very, very stupid.
No doubt "the Res" will have more than enough on his plate delivering on the apparent campaign pledge to Make Abertawe Great Again #MAGA2, but i sincerely hope somebody else hits on the significantly less ambitious but still no doubt unbelievably difficult objective of bringing some genuine transparency to Trust affairs. |
Great Post. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 11:23 - Nov 27 with 1105 views | max936 |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 11:06 - Nov 27 by Shaky |
So the new rules weren't actually filed? The dog didn't eat the homework, you simply didn't bother to hand it in!
Two things come to mind: First of all that means all the stuff related to Severability I was discussing clearly doesn't apply. The basic principles of justice still seem to me to demand that members' clearly expressed democratic voting is respected as far as possible, but there is apparently more to this than is in the public domain.
Speaking of which the second point is that Lisa was evidently right all along that the new rules hadn't been filed. But she clearly didn't get that from your past utterances on this board that strongly suggested there was a dispute with the regulator. Since you are basically offering to give ECB the lowdown privately I see no reason to suppose Lisa got this information in any other way.
I have to say I think this is absolutely ridiculous. You're like a bunch of old wimmin gossiping, or primary school children trading secrets in the playground.
And when two of the most serious charges the Trust is facing are cronyism and amateurishness this is not only silly but very, very stupid.
No doubt "the Res" will have more than enough on his plate delivering on the apparent campaign pledge to Make Abertawe Great Again #MAGA2, but i sincerely hope somebody else hits on the significantly less ambitious but still no doubt unbelievably difficult objective of bringing some genuine transparency to Trust affairs. |
The old school tie brigade is alive and well in 2017. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
