| FAO Some Trust Person 14:12 - Nov 26 with 26114 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 00:05 - Nov 29 with 1552 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 23:35 - Nov 28 by chad |
 
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. |
Without going into detail I have said many times I was completely unhappy with the governance review.
Why they chose to have it in the first place - because they felt they had to, as a means to explain away the many issues raised on this site, mostly by me, of conflicts of interest, cronyism, becoming too cosy.
That nothing tangible came from it - once it was finalised, after taking more than a year, it was as if nothing had ever happened.
It concentrated on very little of note - lots of compliance lingo but nothing that meant anything and no real substance.
The only way any real change has been effected is through relentless questioning and pressure being put on the Board Members, because as that governance review proved, not only could they make the rules up as they go along, they could just change them to suit their situations afterwards and whenever they wanted, as well.
Same that's happening now, the pressure of the 12 years rule is mounting and we're already seeing some spurious claims that everything is in hand or above board, but nobody can actually prove anything. It's a case of Supporters Direct are happy with it - we carry on.
I have been accused of attempting to destroy the Trust, to dissolve the Board and collapse the whole thing. That's never been my aim, but without me researching the issues, asking the questions and sticking to my guns, very little would have ever changed and most of us would have been none the wiser.
On tonights news of interviews, the Trust Board know exactly who I am, who Clasie is, who Lisa is, there is no need for an interview.
--------
AND FINALLY - why hasn't anyone listed the remaining Board members and when they began service, and in the case of Knuszka state when he first started, his gap period and when he rejoined.
That ain't hard is it? |  |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 00:09 - Nov 29 with 1540 views | Humpty |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 23:49 - Nov 28 by Garyjack |
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. [Post edited 28 Nov 2017 23:57]
|
I rarely agree with you Gary.
I do on that though. |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 00:17 - Nov 29 with 1523 views | TheResurrection |
The more I think about everything and just as importantly, the way they've just ignored me since I submitted the 250 words, I think I am also going to tell them to stuff it.
These were the words I sent, there was about 545 in the end - I even had a bollocking for sending so many.
They were sent early hours last Friday morning - Nigel Hamer's reply below....
"Hi Nigel,
Hope you are well...
I was told to write a few words and like usual, have probably got carried away. Anyway, here they are.
I have had many a dream growing through life, no doubt, but there was always the one overriding them all, and that was for my football club to reach the promised land of the Premier League.
What a journey…
Being a Swans fan hasn’t always been an easy ride, but it was an easy choice to make, and a choice that I’ve felt truly blessed by. This was bestowed upon me through my father nearly 40 years ago and the alluring entrapment of the old girl, Vetch Field.
For me, like I’m sure it’s the same for most die-hard supporters of SCFC, the true blessing comes from the lifelong attachment and stories it makes, but also the people I’ve met, the fans, that without this most precious of commodities, nothing would feel the same.
This is what’s important to me - Every July or August gone by for the start of new seasons I would be standing in the lane outside the Garibaldi with my pint, just taking it all in, and I’d always look around at the same familiar faces and just notice they were now looking that little bit older, even in the 2 months since I’d seen them last. I’m sure they were all thinking exactly the same about me.
This is because I have been in and around this football club and its people for the most of my life and have seen young men and women grow into much older people, literally in front of my very eyes. I’ve bumped into the same old faces in Mansfield, Wrexham, Carlisle on a Tuesday night and more recently in the more salubrious resorts of Chelsea and Manchester.
This is our football club and we are its one great constant and true magic. It’s the thing that gets us out of bed and always allows us something to look forward to, a never ending story we make and the Supporters Trust can ensure we keep on making.
I’m not applying to sell raffle tickets, at least I’m not planning on doing that, I’m also not applying for a seat in a Directors Box, I couldn’t think of anything worse, I’m a North Bank boy from Aberdare who’s happy Eastside, and one that’s had a lot to say over the years.
I’ve championed the simple fan throughout my time and warned religiously against complacency or idolising anyone who had the control to put themselves first. I’ve nagged and pestered and sometimes more and believe strongly that the Trust is the Trust and the Club is the Club, and the two should be separate entities but with hopefully the same goal.
It’s not a Trust Board members job to enjoy just being involved with it, it’s their job to make sure the fans are heard, those same fans that have been growing older with me for 40 years and with others for a whole lot more. Those fans who are not with us anymore, god rest their souls, and the fans we will see in the future.
This football club is our legacy and we should always demand there be a duty of care no matter who is in the big seat. We, the fans have more than played our part, we always have and always will, let them hear that loud and clear.
This is our Club"
---------
Hi Chris,
Thank you for your e-mail. In many ways I am pleased that you have made the decision to put your name forward to become
a part of the Trust Board.
I don't believe that we have ever met, but I have been made aware of your passion for the football club. I well remember back
in 2001 when I had to speak at the Patti Pavilion that the journey before us was a marathon not a sprint. I never thought that
back then I would be priviliged to watch Premier League football in the guise of Swansea City FC.
Over the years it has been a difficult task in getting Trust Members to put their names forward for election or co-option to the
Trust Board, meaning that we have had the same names as part of the Trust Board. Believe it or not we have had 60 TBM's
who have either been Elected or Co-opted onto the Trust Board, some of the co-opteds became elected through annual/
bi-annual elections.
We will be intouch over the weekend/Monday to let you know the next step.
Cheers,
Nigel | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 00:47 - Nov 29 with 1485 views | Nookiejack |
https://revisesociology.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/2-lukes-3-faces-of-power/
"The second face — Setting the Agenda
Lukes said you have real power if you can set the agenda. This is because you can decide what will be argued about, therefore dictating the situation."
Who is left on the Trust Board that is setting the Agenda?
Who decided that these interviews are necessary?
Someone came forward with the idea?
Did Nigel Hamer who isn't even elected?
Who exactly proposed this? |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:01 - Nov 29 with 1461 views | chad |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 00:05 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection |
Without going into detail I have said many times I was completely unhappy with the governance review.
Why they chose to have it in the first place - because they felt they had to, as a means to explain away the many issues raised on this site, mostly by me, of conflicts of interest, cronyism, becoming too cosy.
That nothing tangible came from it - once it was finalised, after taking more than a year, it was as if nothing had ever happened.
It concentrated on very little of note - lots of compliance lingo but nothing that meant anything and no real substance.
The only way any real change has been effected is through relentless questioning and pressure being put on the Board Members, because as that governance review proved, not only could they make the rules up as they go along, they could just change them to suit their situations afterwards and whenever they wanted, as well.
Same that's happening now, the pressure of the 12 years rule is mounting and we're already seeing some spurious claims that everything is in hand or above board, but nobody can actually prove anything. It's a case of Supporters Direct are happy with it - we carry on.
I have been accused of attempting to destroy the Trust, to dissolve the Board and collapse the whole thing. That's never been my aim, but without me researching the issues, asking the questions and sticking to my guns, very little would have ever changed and most of us would have been none the wiser.
On tonights news of interviews, the Trust Board know exactly who I am, who Clasie is, who Lisa is, there is no need for an interview.
--------
AND FINALLY - why hasn't anyone listed the remaining Board members and when they began service, and in the case of Knuszka state when he first started, his gap period and when he rejoined.
That ain't hard is it? |
Excellent thanks very much for that Chris and well done showing us what you wrote admirable honest and openness something the Trust is crying out for
With you all the way except about the interviews as the selection process has to be seen to be fair. If it is then used to exclude dissenting voices then more serious action needs to be taken
Also remember the likes of Shaky and Spratty and quite a number of others who were constantly challenging when we weren't banned for it
In fact I was one of the few who challenged jason at the Trust meeting where we were told by the chair not to raise the sale. I repeatedly questioned him in detail to account for their actions and left him in no doubt how unacceptable they had behaved and how difficult it would be for us to trust them.
I also challenged wathan at another meeting about his biased coverage of the sale.
There is no doubt we need to drastically change things and many more of us stand up for what really matters and support each other when we do
The problem is if we are successful at getting on the Board we are gagged by the rules we must agree to abide by. The rules must change and should never have been put in that form in the first place it was the opposite of what was required |  | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:05 - Nov 29 with 1445 views | chad |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 23:49 - Nov 28 by Garyjack |
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. [Post edited 28 Nov 2017 23:57]
|
The point is there may be applications from others who are equally or more qualified and it is plain you cannot have trial by planet swans when the Trust should represent all fans.
Maybe there are others who would take a stronger stance. Should they be ignored ?
Interviews have been carried out by phone and video for years, so travel need not necessarily be an obstacle
I cannot think how interview should be a problem. If it is perceived that they were used to bring in those of similar views to the majority of the rest of the Board; then surely demanding an EGM and vote of no confidence looms.
As I pointed out above, those who join the Board, will anyway be contractually gagged from speaking out about things they disagree with
I think the best approach at interview would be to ask the 12 yearers to identify themselves then ask them to withdraw as they are no longer Board members according to the rules. | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:21 - Nov 29 with 1426 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:01 - Nov 29 by chad |
Excellent thanks very much for that Chris and well done showing us what you wrote admirable honest and openness something the Trust is crying out for
With you all the way except about the interviews as the selection process has to be seen to be fair. If it is then used to exclude dissenting voices then more serious action needs to be taken
Also remember the likes of Shaky and Spratty and quite a number of others who were constantly challenging when we weren't banned for it
In fact I was one of the few who challenged jason at the Trust meeting where we were told by the chair not to raise the sale. I repeatedly questioned him in detail to account for their actions and left him in no doubt how unacceptable they had behaved and how difficult it would be for us to trust them.
I also challenged wathan at another meeting about his biased coverage of the sale.
There is no doubt we need to drastically change things and many more of us stand up for what really matters and support each other when we do
The problem is if we are successful at getting on the Board we are gagged by the rules we must agree to abide by. The rules must change and should never have been put in that form in the first place it was the opposite of what was required |
You're very right.
You, Shaky and Parlay were instrumental in trying to get the Trust to listen, become more transparent and up its game.
In fact, like you said, you went to the forums and asked all the hard questions everyone else felt best to ignore or brush under the carpet. You deserved a medal when all you had was persecution and grief from the known idiots on this site.
It's a shame the Trust didn't act on our concerns, advice and warnings back then, we could've been looking at a completely different scenario now. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:36 - Nov 29 with 1412 views | chad |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:21 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection |
You're very right.
You, Shaky and Parlay were instrumental in trying to get the Trust to listen, become more transparent and up its game.
In fact, like you said, you went to the forums and asked all the hard questions everyone else felt best to ignore or brush under the carpet. You deserved a medal when all you had was persecution and grief from the known idiots on this site.
It's a shame the Trust didn't act on our concerns, advice and warnings back then, we could've been looking at a completely different scenario now. |
Couldn't agree more
Not about the medal thing though as many of us have tried hard on here and at meetings to bring issues up and to change things and we do it because it matters to us.
Please don't back out now Chis - I sincerely hope you and the others can get on the Board and shake them up from the inside as best you can.
Passion is really important and no one can question yours
it is people like you who are the real heart of this club and the Trust Board need to recognise that if they want to survive. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:58 - Nov 29 with 1405 views | Humpty |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:21 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection |
You're very right.
You, Shaky and Parlay were instrumental in trying to get the Trust to listen, become more transparent and up its game.
In fact, like you said, you went to the forums and asked all the hard questions everyone else felt best to ignore or brush under the carpet. You deserved a medal when all you had was persecution and grief from the known idiots on this site.
It's a shame the Trust didn't act on our concerns, advice and warnings back then, we could've been looking at a completely different scenario now. |
I agree.
I have to admit I was one that thought you, Shaky and Spratty were having a go at the trust due to some personal animus you felt for it. I was wrong. I'll leave out Parlay because he's just a f*cking weirdo, whether he was right or not.
I doubt any of the said idiots will own up as much. I don't think I ever disagreed with you lot as I didn't know enough about the trust stuff altogether. Said idiots did. All the time.
I wonder if said idiots will ever own up to being partly responsible for the sorry state of affairs the trust, and the club, finds itself in now.
I won't hold my breath. [Post edited 29 Nov 2017 2:05]
| | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:51 - Nov 29 with 1309 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 23:49 - Nov 28 by Garyjack |
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. [Post edited 28 Nov 2017 23:57]
|
Fair enough....it's not often I get accused of being naive ;)
What if these "interviews" were held over the phone or VC, instead of face-to-face in Swansea? Would that help? Would that be a fair compromise?
I would also like to know who would be on the interviewing panel as one particular non-Board member, possibly the most power in the Trust at the moment, worries me the most. He's the one who wrote to Chris...and then didn't follow up as promised. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:52 - Nov 29 with 1308 views | TheResurrection |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 01:58 - Nov 29 by Humpty |
I agree.
I have to admit I was one that thought you, Shaky and Spratty were having a go at the trust due to some personal animus you felt for it. I was wrong. I'll leave out Parlay because he's just a f*cking weirdo, whether he was right or not.
I doubt any of the said idiots will own up as much. I don't think I ever disagreed with you lot as I didn't know enough about the trust stuff altogether. Said idiots did. All the time.
I wonder if said idiots will ever own up to being partly responsible for the sorry state of affairs the trust, and the club, finds itself in now.
I won't hold my breath. [Post edited 29 Nov 2017 2:05]
|
They won't, because even in the last week all they've done is push and poke and tried their best to get a reaction.
The real curse of this site and as a result, the football club. Darren and Jackfath know no shame. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 08:29 - Nov 29 with 1268 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:51 - Nov 29 by MoscowJack |
Fair enough....it's not often I get accused of being naive ;)
What if these "interviews" were held over the phone or VC, instead of face-to-face in Swansea? Would that help? Would that be a fair compromise?
I would also like to know who would be on the interviewing panel as one particular non-Board member, possibly the most power in the Trust at the moment, worries me the most. He's the one who wrote to Chris...and then didn't follow up as promised. |
Why is Nigel Hamer referring in the letter to the Res that ‘we’ll be in touch’.
He is not elected he is not a member of the Trust Board.
He should be saying ‘the Trust Board’ will be in touch.
Shouldn’t a Secretary also come from the elected members of the Trust Board!!!
How long has he served as secretary?
If an elected Trust Board member can only serve for 12 years - surely an unelected Secretary be able to only serve for 1 year minimum?
What happens if he puts himself up for co-option or for election at next vote - after serving for so many years as Secretary? | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 08:48 - Nov 29 with 1232 views | barry_island |
Shouldn't it be more a case of the members wanting to interview the "Twelve Year Old Vintage" Trust Board members and Secretary to ask why they are so desperate to cling on to the last vestiges of their power? [Post edited 29 Nov 2017 8:52]
| |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 08:57 - Nov 29 with 1214 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 07:52 - Nov 29 by TheResurrection |
They won't, because even in the last week all they've done is push and poke and tried their best to get a reaction.
The real curse of this site and as a result, the football club. Darren and Jackfath know no shame. |
Hahahahahahaha. Fuçking brilliant. 
The state the club currently finds itself in isn’t to do with the likes of Leigh Dineen and Huw Jenkins brokering a deal behind the backs of not only the Trust but their fellow directors it’s all the fault of Jackfath and I.
This is probably the funniest thing I’ve read on here in years.  | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:21 - Nov 29 with 1178 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 08:57 - Nov 29 by Darran |
Hahahahahahaha. Fuçking brilliant.
The state the club currently finds itself in isn’t to do with the likes of Leigh Dineen and Huw Jenkins brokering a deal behind the backs of not only the Trust but their fellow directors it’s all the fault of Jackfath and I.
This is probably the funniest thing I’ve read on here in years. |
Could I just ask here why some people are so intent on taking the blame off the real culprits?
Look I’ve stated several times that the Trust have made and are still making massive fuçk ups but even if they had known about this deal to sell to the Yanks from day one they still couldn’t have stopped the individual sellouts selling.
Why people keep saying the Trust should have known more about the secret sale when Martin Morgan said he didn’t know about it is bizarre.
I’ll tell you one thing though if one or two people that I know have applied to be co-opted don’t get on the Board I won’t ever join the Trust again as long as I live. | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:25 - Nov 29 with 1170 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 08:29 - Nov 29 by Nookiejack |
Why is Nigel Hamer referring in the letter to the Res that ‘we’ll be in touch’.
He is not elected he is not a member of the Trust Board.
He should be saying ‘the Trust Board’ will be in touch.
Shouldn’t a Secretary also come from the elected members of the Trust Board!!!
How long has he served as secretary?
If an elected Trust Board member can only serve for 12 years - surely an unelected Secretary be able to only serve for 1 year minimum?
What happens if he puts himself up for co-option or for election at next vote - after serving for so many years as Secretary? |
Co-opted members (unelected) serve for 1 year yet Nigel Hamer the Secretary also UNELECTED goes on into perpetuity.
His maximum term should have been 1 year. | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:28 - Nov 29 with 1162 views | swancity |
Alarm bells are ringing louder by the day aren't they
There's now no doubt in my mind that there is an attempt to cover up everything. Instead, the exact opposite needs to happen. I cannot make allegations here but there are too many irregularities, too many missing pieces to the jigsaw, and certainly from what we can see, there has been an attempt to push things through to protect the previous Club directors. Why?
The Trust hasn't been doing its primary job for years. You can now see why. It's an appalling state of affairs and good honest people like Phil Sumbler deserve better. As fans we all do.
How can we sort the mess? | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:29 - Nov 29 with 1160 views | barry_island |
My view Darran, it is the only element of our club over which fans have any influence. Views of the sell outs are a given. | |
| Swansea City, THE Austerity Club. |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:31 - Nov 29 with 1155 views | Nookiejack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:25 - Nov 29 by Nookiejack |
Co-opted members (unelected) serve for 1 year yet Nigel Hamer the Secretary also UNELECTED goes on into perpetuity.
His maximum term should have been 1 year. |
Q&A interview given by Nigel Hamer on behalf of the Trust March 2013
Is that 14.5 years ago?
How can this person go on and on and be UNELECTED? | | | |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:34 - Nov 29 with 1149 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:25 - Nov 29 by Nookiejack |
Co-opted members (unelected) serve for 1 year yet Nigel Hamer the Secretary also UNELECTED goes on into perpetuity.
His maximum term should have been 1 year. |
Not that it particularly matters to some, but you don't want to know how many times he's been into the Boardroom either! You really don't want to know!!!
Isn't anyone else curious that he's also the brother of Steve Hamer.....the consultant who advised the Americans how to buy the club? | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:37 - Nov 29 with 1137 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:29 - Nov 29 by barry_island |
My view Darran, it is the only element of our club over which fans have any influence. Views of the sell outs are a given. |
I concur Bazza but if it was kept secret from other Directors why is cut and dried that the Trust must have known? | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:39 - Nov 29 with 1135 views | swancity |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:34 - Nov 29 by MoscowJack |
Not that it particularly matters to some, but you don't want to know how many times he's been into the Boardroom either! You really don't want to know!!!
Isn't anyone else curious that he's also the brother of Steve Hamer.....the consultant who advised the Americans how to buy the club? |
It stinks. To high fooking heaven. And that's another piece of the jigsaw. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:41 - Nov 29 with 1130 views | swancity |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:37 - Nov 29 by Darran |
I concur Bazza but if it was kept secret from other Directors why is cut and dried that the Trust must have known? |
Come on Prosser you can't be that gullible and thick. The Trust as a group didn't know until very late on but there's not too much doubt that at least one or two of its hierarchy did. | |
| Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:43 - Nov 29 with 1124 views | Darran |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:41 - Nov 29 by swancity |
Come on Prosser you can't be that gullible and thick. The Trust as a group didn't know until very late on but there's not too much doubt that at least one or two of its hierarchy did. |
Martin Morgan said he didn’t know so why did everyone else know? | |
| |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:47 - Nov 29 with 1118 views | MoscowJack |
| FAO Some Trust Person on 09:37 - Nov 29 by Darran |
I concur Bazza but if it was kept secret from other Directors why is cut and dried that the Trust must have known? |
Saying "The Trust" knew or didn't isn't really right. In my opinion, it's whether the key people in the Trust knew and by that I mean Huw Cooze and Phil Sumbler as they were the two main people (as Trust Rep on the Board and Chairman) at the time.
I firmly believe (100%!) that neither Phil nor Huw knew anything until the deal was announced (or leaked) at the time. I was in Swansea at the time the deal became public and, without going into too much detail, I saw the fury on many faces behind the scenes.
Whether anyone else within the Trust knew is another story and I have no idea about that one. We can only guess and make assumptions. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
