Please log in or register
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
FAO Some Trust Person 14:12 - Nov 26 with 13215 viewsDarran

How many co-oppers have applied for co-option and when will we find out who’s been co-opted?

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:17 - Nov 26 with 1075 viewslondonlisa2001

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...
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:18 - Nov 26 with 1071 viewsmax936

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.

Poll: Will it Snow this coming Winter

1
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:19 - Nov 26 with 1068 viewslondonlisa2001

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 22:19]


Just keeping you honest Ux...
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:21 - Nov 26 with 1055 viewsdonkonky

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?
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:22 - Nov 26 with 1050 viewslondonlisa2001

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.
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:23 - Nov 26 with 1039 viewsTheResurrection

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?

* 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
Poll: Is it time for the Trust to make change happen?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:24 - Nov 26 with 1036 viewsUxbridge

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.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:24 - Nov 26 with 1036 viewsdonkonky

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.
1
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:35 - Nov 26 with 976 viewsmax936

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 22:19]


Clear proof this was Supposed to have happened previously ? that doesn't mean it was unless I'm a bit thick here, Clear Proof and supposed have two different meanings.

Anyway you'll have to excuse me as I'm mightily pissed off with it all, as I feel that rightly or wrongly that the Trust has been is far to close to the sellouts, understandable at the beginning when the two were all singing off the same hymn sheet, but then even after going behind the Trusts back it still feels the same.

Fair play to you for fronting up though

Poll: Will it Snow this coming Winter

0

FAO Some Trust Person on 22:37 - Nov 26 with 968 viewsLandore_Jack

Does anybody have a list of Trust board members that have served 12 years or more?
0

FAO Some Trust Person on 22:52 - Nov 26 with 927 viewsDarran

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.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: How may Trust threads will The Box Office start on Sunday?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 23:05 - Nov 26 with 889 viewschad

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?
1
FAO Some Trust Person on 23:19 - Nov 26 with 841 viewschad

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).
4

FAO Some Trust Person on 07:28 - Nov 27 with 708 viewsMoscowJack

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?
2
FAO Some Trust Person on 07:56 - Nov 27 with 676 viewsUxbridge

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.

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 08:48 - Nov 27 with 609 viewsUxbridge

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!

Blog: Whose money is it anyway?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 09:40 - Nov 27 with 553 viewsexhmrc1

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.
4
FAO Some Trust Person on 10:00 - Nov 27 with 532 viewsmax936

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

Poll: Will it Snow this coming Winter

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 10:04 - Nov 27 with 526 viewstrampie

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.

Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
Poll: UK European Union membership referendum poll

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 10:10 - Nov 27 with 519 viewsswancity

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

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 10:29 - Nov 27 with 501 viewsE20Jack

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."

Poll: ****The pre Swexit opinion poll****

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 11:06 - Nov 27 with 458 viewsShaky

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.

Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Simple question: Do you have confidence in Darran as a moderator?

1
FAO Some Trust Person on 11:12 - Nov 27 with 449 viewsShaky

FAO Some Trust Person on 20:32 - Nov 26 by exiledclaseboy

That’s a decision for members, not the board.



Misology -- It's a bitch
Poll: Simple question: Do you have confidence in Darran as a moderator?

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 11:22 - Nov 27 with 432 viewsmax936

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.

Poll: Will it Snow this coming Winter

0
FAO Some Trust Person on 11:23 - Nov 27 with 431 viewsmax936

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.

Poll: Will it Snow this coming Winter

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2017 hosted by FastHosts