Please log in or register
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Independent Supporters Group 16:42 - Dec 3 with 18967 viewsPhil_S

OK been some discussion on this but who thinks this is the way to go

Details are really on this thread

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/forum/213237/who-is-to-blame-

"We are a disgrace to the Premier League" ©oldjack - 25 January 2014 3.48pm #outofmydepth Third recipient of a Planet Swans lifetime achievement award Talking shit since 2001

5
Independent Supporters Group on 21:52 - Dec 3 with 1486 viewsPhil_S

Independent Supporters Group on 21:51 - Dec 3 by TheResurrection

I don't think it will be hard to change the Trust.

Get things straight on the table and get on with it.


Then simply put the independent group would never be needed

And we shouldn't forget at the moment that it doesn't actually exist in anything other than a fledgling idea

"We are a disgrace to the Premier League" ©oldjack - 25 January 2014 3.48pm #outofmydepth Third recipient of a Planet Swans lifetime achievement award Talking shit since 2001

0
Independent Supporters Group on 21:54 - Dec 3 with 1469 viewsSwanjaxs

Independent Supporters Group on 21:51 - Dec 3 by Phil_S

True enough although lets just say that said person wouldn't take a right of reply anyway :D

We move on, little spats not needed, we all have one common goal


Fair enough, but if we are going to get this off the ground then little digs and point scoring should be put to one side ... agreed?

Poll: Time to routinely arm our police force ?

0
Independent Supporters Group on 21:55 - Dec 3 with 1443 viewsPhil_S

Independent Supporters Group on 21:54 - Dec 3 by Swanjaxs

Fair enough, but if we are going to get this off the ground then little digs and point scoring should be put to one side ... agreed?


Totally

"We are a disgrace to the Premier League" ©oldjack - 25 January 2014 3.48pm #outofmydepth Third recipient of a Planet Swans lifetime achievement award Talking shit since 2001

1
Independent Supporters Group on 21:55 - Dec 3 with 1437 viewsTheResurrection

Independent Supporters Group on 21:52 - Dec 3 by Phil_S

Then simply put the independent group would never be needed

And we shouldn't forget at the moment that it doesn't actually exist in anything other than a fledgling idea


But this is the bit I've never understood from any of you. You each have (or had) a responsibility to the 950 members, or whatever it is, and the fanbase at large, just as equally as you did the other fuddy-duddy's sat around the Boardroom table.

I think you hid behind each other and forgot that all too often.

* 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?

2
Independent Supporters Group on 22:26 - Dec 3 with 1299 viewsswancity

Independent Supporters Group on 21:55 - Dec 3 by TheResurrection

But this is the bit I've never understood from any of you. You each have (or had) a responsibility to the 950 members, or whatever it is, and the fanbase at large, just as equally as you did the other fuddy-duddy's sat around the Boardroom table.

I think you hid behind each other and forgot that all too often.


Don't think they hid behind each other but it certainly looks as though it had become a cuddly cwtchy little group who had lost the plot. I've said before that there were too many with close connections to the club, too many who enjoyed rubbing shoulders and mixing socially with the club owners. Communication had become almost non existent and now it seems that there may well have been infighting. If there wasn't then there should have been.
Then the vote. Not rigged but certainly Uxbridge was well out of order with his strenuous attempts to deter members from voting against legal action and working over time with his (strange) attempts to encourage acceptance of a deal which bizarrely ignored the QC advice

Anyway, back to the subject matter. It's an interesting idea. It shouldn't be ruled out. The Trust need new blood but I sense they've got a few things to hide or at least certain individuals may have. I'd be keen to help form a new group if it was the sole intention to get to the bottom of it all to expose truths and to move forward with good old fashioned honest motives .And to help rid the Club of you know who.

Only an idiot would eat a turkey curry on Christmas day

1
Independent Supporters Group on 22:35 - Dec 3 with 1268 viewsdobjack2

Independent Supporters Group on 21:51 - Dec 3 by TheResurrection

I don't think it will be hard to change the Trust.

Get things straight on the table and get on with it.


The trust is a Democratically elected organisation based on votes of the membership.

Candidates statements setting out what you stand for makes it clear where people stand on key issues.

The harder bit is that it could take 2 elections to get a voting majority on the board unless there is a way of accelerating it with a carefully worded call for a EGM.

Also need to make sure you have loaded up members who would attend an EGM before orchestrating one.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 22:36 - Dec 3 with 1262 viewslondonlisa2001

Independent Supporters Group on 21:27 - Dec 3 by exiledclaseboy

I’m fairly sure that everyone would agree that the ideal scenario is that the Trust changes tack and becomes the fans’ voice everyone wants it to be, thus rendering any new organisation surplus to requirements. But until that happens, if indeed it does happen, then I can see a role for a more strident organisation which is unencumbered by corporate responsibility and/or internal division. I would hope that the two groups wouldn’t want to start working against each other and like Lisa, I’ve little interest in that if that’s how things pan out. All fans are equal, let’s make sure that some don’t end up being more equal than others.


That's fair.

Agree with all that.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 22:38 - Dec 3 with 1253 viewsKilkennyjack

Independent Supporters Group on 22:35 - Dec 3 by dobjack2

The trust is a Democratically elected organisation based on votes of the membership.

Candidates statements setting out what you stand for makes it clear where people stand on key issues.

The harder bit is that it could take 2 elections to get a voting majority on the board unless there is a way of accelerating it with a carefully worded call for a EGM.

Also need to make sure you have loaded up members who would attend an EGM before orchestrating one.


The Res is clueless mate. Its amateur hour.

‘Not free merely, but Gaelic as well; not Gaelic merely, but free as well’ ...🍀🇮🇪 💚 ‘No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin’. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿👏🏿

0
Independent Supporters Group on 23:04 - Dec 3 with 1194 viewsTNT

Independent Supporters Group on 21:31 - Dec 3 by Phil_S

I would make it clear now I have no desire to work against the Trust - that would be madness, this isn't (for me) about destroying the organisation but - I think Monny sums it up for me - its about being the more vocal part of the fanbase publically

Good luck to those who get on board and if you change the Trust to be that vehicle then it doesn't need to be a separate group

Last sentence removed as its already hit the right nerve in the right places...

This post has been edited by an administrator


What is stopping the Trust from being that vehicle Phil?

Poll: Your favourite centre half pairing?

0

Independent Supporters Group on 23:24 - Dec 3 with 1144 viewsNookiejack

If all 3 of the Res, Lisa and ECB are blocked from joining the Board then the ideas have to be considered.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 06:15 - Dec 4 with 1028 views1983

Independent Supporters Group on 16:53 - Dec 3 by DwightYorkeSuperstar

I'm sure a group of people on here tried to do this before and were ridiculed and it all went away quietly.


This

All of a sudden it seems ok now?

Swansea land of the speed humps!

0
Independent Supporters Group on 08:14 - Dec 4 with 935 viewsRiscaJack

Independent Supporters Group on 23:24 - Dec 3 by Nookiejack

If all 3 of the Res, Lisa and ECB are blocked from joining the Board then the ideas have to be considered.


Even if they are, this should still happen.

JENKINS OUT

0
Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 with 926 viewsMattG

Independent Supporters Group on 23:04 - Dec 3 by TNT

What is stopping the Trust from being that vehicle Phil?


It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.

However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.

When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.

Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.

Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private.
2
Independent Supporters Group on 08:55 - Dec 4 with 875 viewsmonmouth

Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG

It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.

However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.

When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.

Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.

Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private.


Perfect

Poll: TRUST MEMBERS: What DID you vote in the, um, vote

0
Independent Supporters Group on 08:59 - Dec 4 with 860 viewsRiscaJack

Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG

It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.

However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.

When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.

Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.

Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private.


Well said.

This will help the Trust if anything. Are you on board Matt?
[Post edited 4 Dec 8:59]

JENKINS OUT

0
Independent Supporters Group on 09:08 - Dec 4 with 838 viewsMattG

Independent Supporters Group on 08:59 - Dec 4 by RiscaJack

Well said.

This will help the Trust if anything. Are you on board Matt?
[Post edited 4 Dec 8:59]


Yep.
1

Independent Supporters Group on 09:10 - Dec 4 with 829 viewsLandore_Jack

A concern I have is the Supporters Trust trying to influence the Independent Supporters Group. I believe the independent group should express the concerns raised by all fans. There maybe a time when the Trust might disagree with the independent group. Surely, it would be best to keep these two organisations separate?
0

Independent Supporters Group on 09:51 - Dec 4 with 761 viewsjacabertawe

I have tried responding to Phil's PM, but am being told that he is ignoring me!!!

The writers of the New Testament were “ignorant, unlettered men” who produced “superstitions, fanaticisms, and fabrications.” - Thomas Jefferson

0

Independent Supporters Group on 09:57 - Dec 4 with 749 viewshomeiswheretrundleis

Hi Phil
1. Please could you explain why an EMERGENCY GENERAL MEETING can't be called to oust the present board and vote in a NEW board
2. If an EGM can be called how many votes (of the current trust members) would be needed to oust the present board
3. If an EGM can be called could supporters re join/join to have a vote at that EGM or would the new members have to wait a certain amount of time before they could vote

Thanks
0
Independent Supporters Group on 10:01 - Dec 4 with 740 viewsShaky

Independent Supporters Group on 20:39 - Dec 3 by Swanjaxs

Glad you've been thinking this over for a couple of hours, and all the best in your endeavours for being voted on to the dinosaur organisation that is the Swansea Supporters Trust.... but most want change, new brush sweeps clean and all that 👍


Right. The new brush can sweep away a +£20 million asset. Moron.

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

0
Independent Supporters Group on 10:20 - Dec 4 with 691 viewsTheResurrection

Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG

It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.

However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.

When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.

Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.

Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private.


Matt,

You didn't need to resign to tell us this. You could have shown some balls and done it anyway.

You had a responsibility to all members and fans, not a few familiar and stubborn faces sat around the table.

You're doing it now, NDA or otherwise, you should have told us all along.

Very, very poor form.

* 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
Independent Supporters Group on 10:25 - Dec 4 with 667 viewsShaky

Independent Supporters Group on 08:24 - Dec 4 by MattG

It's the fact that, as a 21% shareholder in a £100m+ business (for now, at least), the Trust isn't really able to be the vocal critic that a lot of people want and that it should be. I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business.

However, whether that is consistent with the role of an organisation like the Trust who, in representing the supporters, may well need to make critical public statements is a different question and is actually a big part of why I stood down from the Trust Board.

When the Yanks finally provided the terms of the share purchase, a clause had been added that most if not all of the Board felt was seeking to effectively gag the Trust and, depending on your interpretation of the words, potentially all members of the Trust. Obviously, given the nature of the Trust and its membership, this was wholly unacceptable and its removal became one of the main points that had to be dealt with in the ongoing negotiations. I don't know what the outcome has been of those negotiations and whether or not that clause has been removed but, for me, the fact that the Yanks tried to insert this kind of clause showed that they either don't understand or (more likely) don't care what the Trust is supposed to stand for.

Alongside this, the Trust Board voted to issue a statement calling for a fundamental review of the entire footballing side of the business and a statement was drafted which used much stronger language than the one that was actually issued on 11th November. However, the view of the majority of the Trust Board at that time was that the statement could negatively impact on the ongoing negotiations and was watered down. I felt we were effectively gagging ourselves voluntarily whilst trying to negotiate the removal of a gagging clause and that made no sense to me.

Either way, I certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive and agree with Phil (and others) that an independent group could actually provide the ammunition that would allow the Trust Board (if they were so minded) to challenge the owners more effectively both in public and in private.


"I'm no legal expert but I can certainly see the sense in there being some constraints on what individual shareholders can say in public, specifically where such statements can seriously undermine the value of a business. "

Sure there are legal constraints on what a shareholder that is also a baord member can say publicly. You can certainly not disclose confidential information.

But beyond that a Mutual society like the Trust obviously exists for the benefit of it's members. If you are honest with your members there is nothing to fear from legal reprisals.

That said it is possible that critical statements could adversely affect the value of the club, although that is far from obvious given it is not stock market listed. But where in the organising principles of the Trust does it say you have to maximise the value of the Trust's stake?

During the discussion on the proposed deal I mentioned i was getting the impression certain board members were taking a flutter on the money making skills of Kaplan, and saw being shrewd investors as a responsibility. That sort of thinking is ridiculous and outrageous in equal measures and should be stamped out immediately!

Yesterday Phil declared that Trust could not be reformed to give fans what they want. But he offered no valid arguments in support of that supposition. And although i value your contribution I have yet to see anything anywhere else supporting it.
[Post edited 4 Dec 10:29]

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

0

Independent Supporters Group on 11:02 - Dec 4 with 583 viewswobbly

indpendent Supporters Group? Nah.

I'm joining the Group of Independent Supporters.
0
Independent Supporters Group on 11:47 - Dec 4 with 527 viewsMattG

Independent Supporters Group on 10:20 - Dec 4 by TheResurrection

Matt,

You didn't need to resign to tell us this. You could have shown some balls and done it anyway.

You had a responsibility to all members and fans, not a few familiar and stubborn faces sat around the table.

You're doing it now, NDA or otherwise, you should have told us all along.

Very, very poor form.


I didn't resign so that I could tell you - I resigned because I was unhappy with the majority view of the Trust Board that we should (a) continue to negotiate and (b) tone down our statements so as not to jeopardise the negotiations that I didn't feel should be happening anyway.
3
Independent Supporters Group on 11:54 - Dec 4 with 503 viewsTheResurrection

Independent Supporters Group on 11:47 - Dec 4 by MattG

I didn't resign so that I could tell you - I resigned because I was unhappy with the majority view of the Trust Board that we should (a) continue to negotiate and (b) tone down our statements so as not to jeopardise the negotiations that I didn't feel should be happening anyway.


And you tell us 3 months later...

Great stuff Matt.

Where were you when it mattered? Collective responsibility is it? But to what degree, your resignation and bleating all about it at a later date?

Please explain, as I'm clearly missing the point here, but what purpose has that served anyone?

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