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.
FAO Some Trust Person on 20:49 - Nov 28 by E20Jack
Jesus Christ I am speechless.
What an absolute liberty (pardon the pun). I would do exactly the same ECB.
Just proves what a closed shop its become, if in interview they can see that you are not one to toe the party line, its thanks but no thanks we run a tight ship here and we don't want the infidels upsetting the status quo.
FAO Some Trust Person on 10:43 - Nov 28 by OptimisticJack
In my opinion it would be grossly unfair to make a decision on the basis of a mere 250 word account. In the interests of fairness all suitable applicants should be given the opportunity to be interviewed. This is an ideal opportunity for the trust to get things right and to be able to appoint the very best persons for the posts (not necessarily the ones making the most noise).
Who are the ones making the most noise anyway?
And sometimes all the Trust needs is a firm but fair voice. But they obviously need a voice in the first place, firm, fair or otherwise.
So as for your little suggestion and doing the right thing as you call it, I'd be saying in no uncertain terms NO.
Well done though, it seems you've managed to get rid of somebody I would dearly love to see on there.
For the Trust Board - I was told I would hear Sat/Sun/Monday latest. Well it's now after 9 on the bloody Tuesday so that didn't pan out did it. Now you're talking about interviews.
How many more times - sort your shit out once and for all. Send another bloody email to Clase and tell him he's on. Do that and do it now.
You are scoring more own goals than facking Carra!! It really isn't good enough and hasn't been for too bloody long.
* 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
And sometimes all the Trust needs is a firm but fair voice. But they obviously need a voice in the first place, firm, fair or otherwise.
So as for your little suggestion and doing the right thing as you call it, I'd be saying in no uncertain terms NO.
Well done though, it seems you've managed to get rid of somebody I would dearly love to see on there.
For the Trust Board - I was told I would hear Sat/Sun/Monday latest. Well it's now after 9 on the bloody Tuesday so that didn't pan out did it. Now you're talking about interviews.
How many more times - sort your shit out once and for all. Send another bloody email to Clase and tell him he's on. Do that and do it now.
You are scoring more own goals than facking Carra!! It really isn't good enough and hasn't been for too bloody long.
Can we interview the current board members and get rid of any we dont feel cut the mustard?
FAO Some Trust Person on 10:44 - Nov 28 by DafyddHuw
"...or at least sharing the load on posting on here"
1 - top marks for sticking your head above the parapet, although it's the least we should be expecting from our Trust board
2 - the load wouldn't be on you if the Trust had decidied to have a forum on their website. Can't you see all the questions on here? People are thirsting for Trust information. And yet the Trust board decided (for whetever reason) not to have a forum on their website. And these little snippets of information that we've managed to glean from you in this thread - how do Trust members who don't use Planet Swnas get to know these details?
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:11 - Nov 28 with 1373 views
I'm honestly not sure which way to read this....there are two options:
1. They want to make sure that they haven't got some lunatics who are completely different from their online persona and they feel a meeting (or interview!) with the applicants will give them a better idea of the calibre of that person. It also gives them a chance to fully understand what that person offers the Board so they can make sure they've got a nice variety of skill-sets on the Board. With 14 applicants, it would make sense to choose the best balance, wouldn't it? For example, if there are 7 accountants and 7 marketing experts, it wouldn't make sense to take 14 accountants.
If they interview one, they surely have to interview all though!?!?!
2. Some of them don't want anyone upsetting the hierarchy and apple cart so will make it difficult for those who are applying. They'll push people until they just give up and walk away as some of them don't want a threat to their own position.
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:11 - Nov 28 by MoscowJack
I'm honestly not sure which way to read this....there are two options:
1. They want to make sure that they haven't got some lunatics who are completely different from their online persona and they feel a meeting (or interview!) with the applicants will give them a better idea of the calibre of that person. It also gives them a chance to fully understand what that person offers the Board so they can make sure they've got a nice variety of skill-sets on the Board. With 14 applicants, it would make sense to choose the best balance, wouldn't it? For example, if there are 7 accountants and 7 marketing experts, it wouldn't make sense to take 14 accountants.
If they interview one, they surely have to interview all though!?!?!
2. Some of them don't want anyone upsetting the hierarchy and apple cart so will make it difficult for those who are applying. They'll push people until they just give up and walk away as some of them don't want a threat to their own position.
You've got a point with option 1, but option 2 is a banker bet.
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:11 - Nov 28 by MoscowJack
I'm honestly not sure which way to read this....there are two options:
1. They want to make sure that they haven't got some lunatics who are completely different from their online persona and they feel a meeting (or interview!) with the applicants will give them a better idea of the calibre of that person. It also gives them a chance to fully understand what that person offers the Board so they can make sure they've got a nice variety of skill-sets on the Board. With 14 applicants, it would make sense to choose the best balance, wouldn't it? For example, if there are 7 accountants and 7 marketing experts, it wouldn't make sense to take 14 accountants.
If they interview one, they surely have to interview all though!?!?!
2. Some of them don't want anyone upsetting the hierarchy and apple cart so will make it difficult for those who are applying. They'll push people until they just give up and walk away as some of them don't want a threat to their own position.
It's the latter as although there are 14 applicants, there are only 4 spaces. They know exactly what they are dealing with here, and rather than just give them all the big NO, they've invited them for interview which not many will attend out of both distance or principle, leaving them free to install the lackeys who they know will tow the party line. As i said earlier, it's time to get the lot of them out if this is the road they wish to take.
0
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:32 - Nov 28 with 1322 views
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:28 - Nov 28 by Garyjack
It's the latter as although there are 14 applicants, there are only 4 spaces. They know exactly what they are dealing with here, and rather than just give them all the big NO, they've invited them for interview which not many will attend out of both distance or principle, leaving them free to install the lackeys who they know will tow the party line. As i said earlier, it's time to get the lot of them out if this is the road they wish to take.
I don't think it's that Max, i think it's more a case of enjoying their little community roles. And whilst i commend them all for that, they are totally missing the point of what the 'Swansea City Supporters Trust' was meant to stand for!
1
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:54 - Nov 28 with 1259 views
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:28 - Nov 28 by Garyjack
It's the latter as although there are 14 applicants, there are only 4 spaces. They know exactly what they are dealing with here, and rather than just give them all the big NO, they've invited them for interview which not many will attend out of both distance or principle, leaving them free to install the lackeys who they know will tow the party line. As i said earlier, it's time to get the lot of them out if this is the road they wish to take.
Well, if there are 14 applicants and only 4 spaces, doesn't it make even more sense to make sure you're getting the right balance? In the perfect world you'd want people from different eras, differing occupations, different family status (single or retired people might have more time on their hands, for example) and even different parts of the stadium (East Stand singer or West Stand prawn sandwich eater) to make up the full quota represented on the Board.
Being on the Trust's Board SHOULD be an honour (I know it's not at the moment, but it should be) so having to meet with the other Board members does make sense to me, to be honest.
Did they actually call it an interview in the email? Or simply a meeting?
I'm genuinely unsure what to believe of the real intentions - for example, did the whole Trust Board know of this idea to meet the candidates or is this one or two looking to protect themselves?
FAO Some Trust Person on 20:13 - Nov 28 by exiledclaseboy
Looks like you’ve got your wish. I’ve just had an email inviting me to be interviewed due to the high number of applicants. This wasn’t mentioned initially when I decided to apply and I’ve no intention of submitting myself for interview for a voluntary post that I’ve now volunteered for on three separate occasions. So I’m out. Good luck to the rest of you, whoever you may be.
Hang fire, you may have been adopted at the last meeting?
Perhaps the interview is just to teach you THE handshake and let you have the keys to the Directors Box?
Swansea City, THE Austerity Club.
2
FAO Some Trust Person on 23:35 - Nov 28 with 1179 views
  Could I ask those standing for the Trust Board a question please
In light of the following background:
At the time the first sale failed (and with foresight) many of the supporters at that Trust meeting (myself included) expressed concern about the cosy relationship between our Board Director and the rest of the sellouts. It was obvious they wanted to sell and we really needed to be on our metal.
Huw C. had already (in the media when representing us) referred to the sale as an “investement”. At the meeting he expressed his sympathy for his fellow SCFC Board members and also seemed confused about the simplest of terms in relation to the sale. Others were also raising conflict of interest concerns for any Board members with contractual relationships with the club, and general concerns about lack of control on length of service of Trust Board members.
Although known to the Trust Board, it was not made known to us at the time that our Trust Director was also receiving significant financial payments from the club. In fact subsequently the Trust Vice Chair (another who it was said had benefitted from contractual relationship with the club) repeatedly went into print to state Huw C was receiving no payment.
No comment was made to correct these totally false public statements by a senior official of the Trust to its members, until it eventually was forced out when direct questions were repeatedly asked here some time later.
Even when that official subsequently resigned, no criticism of those false statements, nor formal apology for deceiving the members was made by the Trust.
With all these concerns including general concerns about perceived closed shop, length of service / the same people in post long term, came the review (which the Chair had promised, when the concerns were originally raised at the meeting at the time the first sale failed).
Here’s the question
Are you happy that a review of the Trust rules based primarily on the 3 pillars of addressing
- Conflicts of interests - Overlong service - Transparency and communication
Resulted in:
1. Ongoing plans to drop even the protections provided by the 12 year limit rule on service and refusal to adhere to the current rules in the meantime
2. formalised and contractual suppression of Board members serious concerns from the new operating rules that resulted I quote...
9. Definition of Disciplinary Offences are: - It shall be considered a disciplinary offence for a Society Board member to publicly criticise or to otherwise undermine any decision or policy of the Board.
It seems incongruous to me that a review driven by those specific concerns, should result in significant parts, in rules / planned rules, to cement into Trust statute, suppression of concerns of Trust Board members and removal of even already extremely loose limits on time served.
Surely as a Trust Board member you would be required to sign up to these rules (which I know go against many previously held principles) and presumably this means all your concerns in the world would be as naught if you were outvoted, you would be gagged by your contractual requirements and dragged along.
Is this a serious concern to you, as a major drawback when trying to reform from within?
If so would you think mentioning this at interview would put you at a disadvantage
And for those of you unhappy about interviews do you not think it a fair way to validate the written statements in a situation where applications exceed vacancies. It is certainly not a novel idea and everyone must be treated equally, to do otherwise would be unprofessional and give rise to the same concerns of cronyism that have been directed at the previous Board.
However if the Board may pick who they wish, then certainly in humankind there is a natural inclination for survival of self and one’s own ideas and principles and these certainly would be best protected by not bringing in too many with strongly opposing views and values.
However without strongly and tirelessly opposing views we will not evolve into an organisation fit for purpose.
3
FAO Some Trust Person on 23:49 - Nov 28 with 1163 views
FAO Some Trust Person on 22:54 - Nov 28 by MoscowJack
Well, if there are 14 applicants and only 4 spaces, doesn't it make even more sense to make sure you're getting the right balance? In the perfect world you'd want people from different eras, differing occupations, different family status (single or retired people might have more time on their hands, for example) and even different parts of the stadium (East Stand singer or West Stand prawn sandwich eater) to make up the full quota represented on the Board.
Being on the Trust's Board SHOULD be an honour (I know it's not at the moment, but it should be) so having to meet with the other Board members does make sense to me, to be honest.
Did they actually call it an interview in the email? Or simply a meeting?
I'm genuinely unsure what to believe of the real intentions - for example, did the whole Trust Board know of this idea to meet the candidates or is this one or two looking to protect themselves?
Nick, don't get all naive at this stage of the game. They well know that Lisa would jump over their heads on most issues especially the 'selling of shares' and the legalities of it. But they know damn well she isn't going to come down from London for a fvcking interview! Same as Chris, he ain't going to travel down for an interview either! EXCB has already said he wont be interviewed out of principle. It's got fvck all to do with people from different backgrounds and balancing. But all to do with keeping the Status Quo. The Trust is meant to be about the club itself and maintaining professional football in our city, the going is getting tough now, yet trust board members want nothing more than to protect their hobbies instead of standing up for what they were elected for. It's all well and good having a Welsh speaking society, and board members going around nurseries having coffee and changing nappies etc. The tide has turned, and it's time we got back to the basics of what the trust is about. Unfortunately, we now have the wrong people on the trust board who can meet that challenge. They have to go. All of them.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
